ObjectiveTo analyze the relation between the marital status of patients with colorectal cancer and surgical treatment options decision-making and outcomes in the current version of the Database from Colorectal Cancer (DACCA). MethodsThe version of DACCA selected for this analysis was updated on August 31, 2022. The patients were enrolled according to the established screening criteria and then assigned to 3 groups: the unmarried, married, and divorced or widowed groups. The differences in the surgical modality decisions, surgical quality, and surgical complications among these 3 groups were analyzed. ResultsA total of 7 634 data that met the screened criteria were enrolled. It was found that the difference in the composition of the willingness to conserve anus among patients with different marital status was statistically significant (χ2=28.635, P<0.001), reflecting that the willingness to conserve anus was “strong” among unmarried and married patients, and the overall willingness to conserve anus was relatively more positive among unmarried patients, while the willingness to conserve anus was “rational” among widowed or divorced patients. No statistical differences were found in the surgical modality decisions (rectal surgery: χ2=0.493, P=0.782; colon surgery: χ2=0.213, P=0.899), including the presence of prophylactic stoma for the patient with radical resection (χ2=5.156, P=0.076）, surgical quality (H=3.452, P=0.178）, presence of surgical in-hospital complications (χ2=1.663, P=0.435), and the presence of short-term surgical complications (χ2=1.695, P=0.428). ConclusionsAnalysis of the data in DACCA reveals that there is difference in willingness to preserve anus among colorectal cancer patients with different marital status. Married and unmarried patients have stronger anal preservation intention, suggesting that clinical care and family support should be strengthened during clinical diagnosis and treatment.
ObjectiveTo analyze differences in postoperative pathological stage characteristics of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with different marital status in Database from Colorectal Cancer (DACCA). MethodsAccording to the established screening conditions, the patients were collected from the updated version of DACCA on January 23, 2023, and then assigned into three categories according to marital status: married, unmarried, widowed or divorced patients. The differences in postoperative pathological staging, peripheral nerve involvement, pathological tumor regression grade (TRG), cancer nodules, and high-risk factors among the CRC patients with different marital statuses were analyzed. ResultsA total of 6 947 data matching the screening criteria were collected, including 113 unmarried patients (1.6%), 6 315 married patients (90.9%), and 519 divorced or widowed patients (7.5%). The analysis results showed that the pathological TNM staging (Ⅰ–Ⅳ staging: H=19.030, P<0.001;Ⅰ+Ⅱ and Ⅲ+Ⅳ staging: χ2=19.124, P<0.001), pathological T staging (H=7.147, P=0.028), and high-risk factors grading (H=10.246, P=0.006) had statistical differences. The trend presented that the proportions of the patients with earlier pathological TNM staging and T staging (Ⅰor T1 staging) in the married patients were the highest among the 3 marital statuses patients, and the proportions of the later staging (Ⅳ or T4 staging) were the lowest in the married patients. The same trend was found in the high-risk factors grading. However, there were no statistical differences in other pathological features such as peripheral nerve involvement, pathological TRG, and cancer nodules among the CRC patients with 3 marital statuses (P>0.05). ConclusionsThrough data analysis in DACCA, it is found that CRC patients with different marital statuses exhibit certain differences in postoperative pathological stage characteristics, especially in terms of pathological TNM staging, pathological T staging, and high-risk factor grading. However, this conclusion needs to be objectively regarded. From a statistical perspective, the samples size of patients with 3 marital statuses in this study is different. In the future, further analysis can be conducted by balancing the samples size on this basis. From a clinical perspective, there may be more influencing factors, so objective analysis should be conducted after eliminating interference factors one by one.