Racial differences in clinical, genomic, and survival outcomes in colorectal cancer.

10593 Background: Racial differences influence colorectal cancer incidence, biology, and survival, but the clinical and genomic drivers remain unclear. This study evaluates race-based variation in clinical features, metastatic patterns, and key mutations in a large real-world cohort to improve risk stratification and promote equitable treatment. Methods: Clinical and genomic data were obtained from MSK-CHORD via cBioPortal, including patients identified as Asian, White, or Black. Variables were analysed in RStudio. Group differences were assessed using chi-square, Fisher’s exact tests, or Kruskal–Wallis. Survival was analysed with Kaplan–Meier and Cox models. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Among 5,168 colorectal cancer patients (White 83.9%, Asian 8.8%, Black 7.4%), several clinical and genomic features varied. Age differed significantly (p < 0.001), with Asians and Blacks diagnosed younger (median 58 y vs. 61 y) than Whites. Gender distribution was similar (p = 0.303). MSI-instability varied (p = 0.0321), lowest in Asians (7.7%) and Blacks (8.3%), and highest in Whites (11.9%). Right-sided tumours differed (p < 0.001), being least common in Asians (23.7%) and most common in Blacks (40.8%). Stage at diagnosis was similar (p = 0.0961). TMB differed modestly (p = 0.042): 5.87 in Asians vs. 6.05 in Black and White patients. FGA showed similarly small variation (p = 0.046): 0.17 in Asians, 0.16 in Blacks, and 0.15 in Whites. Liver metastases varied by race (p < 0.001): Asians 52%, Blacks 66%, Whites 56%. Reproductive organ involvement differed (p = 0.012): Asians 25%, Blacks 27%, Whites 20%; all other metastatic sites showed no differences (p > 0.05). Overall survival varied significantly (p < 0.001), highest in Asians (71.6 months) and Whites (54.3 months) and lowest in Blacks (32.3 months); Asians had similar mortality risk to Whites (HR 0.94), whereas Blacks had higher risk (HR 1.44). Genomic variation was notable: KRAS (p = 1.6×10⁻⁷) was highest in Blacks (56.8%), TP53 (p < 0.001) was highest in Asians (81.5%), and BRAF (p = 0.0046) was lowest in Blacks (7.1%), with no other genes differing. Conclusions: Racial differences were evident across outcomes. Black patients had the highest KRAS mutations and worst survival; Asians had the highest TP53 rates and best survival; Whites had the most MSI-H tumours. Other clinical features were similar. These patterns suggest biologic differences relevant to risk and treatment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2026-05-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.10593
Primary Topic
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Racial differences in clinical, genomic, and survival outcomes in colorectal cancer.

Kamal Hosni Al-Rabi, Tala Alawabdeh, Rula Amarin, Nashrah Mustafa et al.
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
article

Racial differences in clinical, genomic, and survival outcomes in colorectal cancer.

Kamal Hosni Al-Rabi, Tala Alawabdeh, Rula Amarin, Nashrah Mustafa, Tamer Al-Batsh, Rim Turfa, Yazan Hamadneh, Osama El Khatib, Faris Tamimi, Anas Mohammad Zayed, Akram Al-Ibraheem
article en

Abstract

10593 Background: Racial differences influence colorectal cancer incidence, biology, and survival, but the clinical and genomic drivers remain unclear. This study evaluates race-based variation in clinical features, metastatic patterns, and key mutations in a large real-world cohort to improve risk stratification and promote equitable treatment. Methods: Clinical and genomic data were obtained from MSK-CHORD via cBioPortal, including patients identified as Asian, White, or Black. Variables were analysed in RStudio. Group differences were assessed using chi-square, Fisher’s exact tests, or Kruskal–Wallis. Survival was analysed with Kaplan–Meier and Cox models. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Among 5,168 colorectal cancer patients (White 83.9%, Asian 8.8%, Black 7.4%), several clinical and genomic features varied. Age differed significantly (p < 0.001), with Asians and Blacks diagnosed younger (median 58 y vs. 61 y) than Whites. Gender distribution was similar (p = 0.303). MSI-instability varied (p = 0.0321), lowest in Asians (7.7%) and Blacks (8.3%), and highest in Whites (11.9%). Right-sided tumours differed (p < 0.001), being least common in Asians (23.7%) and most common in Blacks (40.8%). Stage at diagnosis was similar (p = 0.0961). TMB differed modestly (p = 0.042): 5.87 in Asians vs. 6.05 in Black and White patients. FGA showed similarly small variation (p = 0.046): 0.17 in Asians, 0.16 in Blacks, and 0.15 in Whites. Liver metastases varied by race (p < 0.001): Asians 52%, Blacks 66%, Whites 56%. Reproductive organ involvement differed (p = 0.012): Asians 25%, Blacks 27%, Whites 20%; all other metastatic sites showed no differences (p > 0.05). Overall survival varied significantly (p < 0.001), highest in Asians (71.6 months) and Whites (54.3 months) and lowest in Blacks (32.3 months); Asians had similar mortality risk to Whites (HR 0.94), whereas Blacks had higher risk (HR 1.44). Genomic variation was notable: KRAS (p = 1.6×10⁻⁷) was highest in Blacks (56.8%), TP53 (p < 0.001) was highest in Asians (81.5%), and BRAF (p = 0.0046) was lowest in Blacks (7.1%), with no other genes differing. Conclusions: Racial differences were evident across outcomes. Black patients had the highest KRAS mutations and worst survival; Asians had the highest TP53 rates and best survival; Whites had the most MSI-H tumours. Other clinical features were similar. These patterns suggest biologic differences relevant to risk and treatment.

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 44(16_suppl)
University of Jordan (JO), Amman Arab University (JO), King Hussein Cancer Center (JO), King Hussein Medical Center (JO)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.