Research Radartracking 1,138 published studies · 277 human · 6 safety signals · 42 clinical trials · 44 cancer pages · updated Jul 2026Open the Research Map →

Colon Cancer

A plain-English summary of the published research on Colon Cancer, reviewed and approved by our editors — not a hand-curated clinical overview.

Research summary · reviewed
Educational only: This page is not medical advice. Coordinate decisions with your oncology team.

Reviewed Jun 2026 · OncoForge editorial · How we review →

AI extractedhuman reviewedsources checkedretractions suppressed· last updated Jun 2026

Evidence at a glanceHuman trial / meta-analysisMixed results⚠ Studies disagree
28 published studies that name Colon Cancer2 human studies approved & graded (trial, observational, or meta-analysis)196 human clinical studies in the Colon Cancer corpus1562 source documents in the Colon Cancer corpus

last checked June 20, 2026

Why this grade?

Human trial / meta-analysis — Includes human trial or meta-analysis evidence.

Computed deterministically from the studies’ types and reported outcomes — not written by AI, and not a claim that anything works.

What the guidelines say

NCI PDQESMONCCNASCO

We link the authoritative guidelines rather than reproduce them. Below, the treatments on this page are split into standard care, guideline or regulatory options, supportive care, and studied but not standard so established care is not mixed with experimental or supportive items.

Studied, not standard - investigational
  • complete mesocolic excision (CME)
  • standard high-quality right hemicolectomy
  • checkpoint inhibitors
  • HER2-targeted therapy
  • BRAF V600E-targeted therapy
  • colonic stenting
  • systemic therapy
  • thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs)
  • Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT)
  • Oxaliplatin (addition to fluoropyrimidine-based ACT)
  • Oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy
  • Oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy (duration)
  • Capecitabine and oxaliplatin
  • Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin
  • colonoscopy
  • computed tomography colonography
  • stool-based tests
  • flexible sigmoidoscopy
  • endoscopic surveillance
  • en bloc resection
  • surgical resection of liver or lung metastases
  • 5-FU-based adjuvant therapy
  • irinotecan (bolus)
  • 5-FU/leucovorin/oxaliplatin therapy

Read the guidelines

Cancer-specific deep links aren’t curated yet — these search the authoritative sources for Colon Cancer.

Treatment map: Colon Cancer

Open as a full page →

Standard care plus every compound studied in the literature (each cited) and graded by evidence, organized by clinical readiness. A category, not a verdict that anything works — confirm anything here with your oncology team.

24
Interventions
0
Standard of care
6
Tested in people
0
Lab / animal
18
Named in lit.
6
Classes
Standard of care (0) Guideline option (0) Tested in people (6) Lab / animal only (0) Named in the literature (18)

Tested in people, by trial phase: phase not reported ×6

Clinical evidence
Preclinical evidence
Standard of care
Guideline option
Tested in people
Lab / animal only
Named in the literature
Surgery & procedures
—
—
—
—
10
Chemotherapy
—
—
6
—
3
Targeted therapy
—
—
—
—
2
Immunotherapy
—
—
—
—
1
Repurposed drugs
—
—
—
—
1
Other
—
—
—
—
1

Columns group into clinical evidence (used in, or tested on, people) and preclinical evidence (lab/animal, or only named in the literature). Cell = number of interventions; a dashed cell means none recorded there.

Investigational & adjunct compounds — detail (24)
Meta-analysis (6)
Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT)· Adjuvant (after surgery)Capecitabine and oxaliplatinFluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatinOxaliplatin (addition to fluoropyrimidine-based ACT)· Adjuvant (after surgery)Oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy· Adjuvant (after surgery) · mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instabilityOxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy (duration)
Named in the literature
complete mesocolic excision (CME)standard high-quality right hemicolectomycheckpoint inhibitors· First-line (advanced disease) · deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-highHER2-targeted therapy· HER2-amplifiedBRAF V600E-targeted therapy· BRAF V600E mutation-positivecolonic stentingsystemic therapythrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs)colonoscopycomputed tomography colonographystool-based testsflexible sigmoidoscopyendoscopic surveillanceen bloc resectionsurgical resection of liver or lung metastases5-FU-based adjuvant therapy· Adjuvant (after surgery)irinotecan (bolus)5-FU/leucovorin/oxaliplatin therapy

"Tested in people" rows show the highest trial phase found in that compound's cited human studies (Phase I–IV; "phase not reported" = a human study with no phase tag). "Studied" = named in the cited literature for this cancer. "FDA ✓" = FDA-approved for this cancer; "off-label" = an FDA-approved drug used outside its approved indications (per openFDA). Not a claim that anything works.

Reported figures

Get cited updates on Colon Cancer
A monthly email when the research changes — $10/mo. Manage follows
Follow Colon Cancer

Snapshot

The essentials in ~60 seconds — every line is drawn from the cited sources below.

What it is
Colon cancer is cancer of the large intestine; for resectable disease the guideline-preferred operation is en bloc surgical resection. For right-sided colon cancer, complete mesocolic excision (CME) has been proposed as a surgical refinement to improve specimen quality and lymph node yield. [1][2][3]
Standard treatment
The standard initial management for resectable colon cancer is en bloc surgical resection, with standard high-quality right hemicolectomy remaining the default for most right-sided tumors rather than routine CME. Surgery is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy when indicated; patients with stage III disease are recommended to receive 5‑FU–based adjuvant chemotherapy. [1][2][3][4]
Key test
Testing for KRAS/NRAS and BRAF mutations and for tumor microsatellite instability / mismatch repair status should be considered because these biomarkers influence treatment selection and adjuvant decisions; guidelines have expanded recommendations for biomarker testing including MSI in metastatic disease. [5][4][6]
Biggest challenge
The main clinical problem is inconsistent evidence and limited randomized data plus wide variation in surgical technique and expertise for procedures such as CME, which is technically complex and has produced variable outcomes. [2][3]

Ask about Colon Cancer

Answers come only from the cited sources on this page — with the supporting evidence shown. If the sources here don't cover your question, it will say so. Educational information, not medical advice.

Key numbers & factors

Risk factors

  • ▲ increases riskLi‑Fraumeni syndrome — Highly penetrant syndrome with a high lifetime risk of cancer, including colon cancer. [7]
  • ▲ increases riskCystic fibrosis — Guidelines recommend earlier and more frequent colorectal screening (begin at age 40 and re-screen every 5 years), reflecting higher concern/impact in this population. [8]
  • ▲ increases riskT4 tumor (pathologic stage) — T4 tumors are at higher risk of recurrence and patients should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy. [4]

Biomarkers

  • KRAS/NRAS mutation statusActionableConsidered when selecting systemic therapies. [5]
  • BRAF mutation statusActionableConsidered when selecting systemic therapies. [5]
  • Microsatellite instability / mismatch repair (MSI/MMR)ActionableGuides adjuvant decisions and is used in selecting therapy for metastatic disease (deficient/MSI‑high tumors have different recommendations). [4][6][5]
  • Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) · Used for post‑treatment surveillance (measure every 2–3 months for at least 3 years in stage II/III patients who may be candidates for curative resection if recurrence is detected). [9]
  • Multigene panel testing (inherited pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants)ActionableDetects inherited variants that identify people at high risk and inform genetic counseling and management. [10]
  • Existing serum markers (general) · Current serum markers lack sufficient specificity and sensitivity for early detection of colorectal cancer. [9]

6 sections — tap any heading to expand its cited detail. Key points are above.

Overview9 points
  • Complete mesocolic excision (CME) has been proposed as a refinement of oncological surgery for right-sided colon cancer that aims to improve specimen quality, lymph node yield, and oncological outcomes. [2][3]
  • CME is consistently associated with higher lymph node yields and improved specimen metrics, but randomized evidence does not support routine CME for all patients; studies demonstrating a definitive survival advantage remain limited and potential benefit may exist in selected high-risk groups. [2][3]
  • NCCN/colon cancer guideline selections focus on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). [6][5]
  • CME is technically complex, involves surgical risks and a need for specialized training, and variations in technical aspects and implementation have led to inconsistent outcomes. [3]
  • This guideline effort aimed to develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on CME for right-sided colon cancer, specifically to address whether laparoscopic CME should be preferred over standard laparoscopic right hemicolectomy; the guideline development adhered to GRADE, AGREE-S, and Cochrane standards and used MAGICapp for development. [3]
  • The NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment guideline reports an update that includes de-implementation of colon cancer screening in individuals with CHEK2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants. [10]
  • ASCO convened an Expert Panel to develop recommendations for adjuvant therapy for patients with resected stage II colon cancer. [4]
  • Guideline panels recommend a multidisciplinary approach to managing colorectal cancer. [1]
  • Guideline panels endorse prioritizing treating eligible patients in clinical trials over using standard or accepted therapy. [1]
Standard management19 points

Key figures

Survival & outcomes
OutcomeValue95% CI
extra life-years per 1000 vs no screening44—
extra life-years per 1000 vs no screening56—
Source quotes
  • “colonoscopy every 5 years between age 40 and 75 years. This strategy resulted in 44 extra years of life per 1000 CF patients screened at a net cost of $0.7 million compared to no screening.”
  • “For CF patients with an organ transplant, the optimal colonoscopy strategy was colonoscopy every 3 years from age 35 to 55 years. This strategy resulted in 56 extra life-years per 1000 patients screened at a net cost of $1.3 million compared to no screening.”
  • Routine use of complete mesocolic excision (CME) for all right-sided colon cancers is not supported by current evidence; standard high-quality right hemicolectomy should remain the default approach for most patients. [2][3]
  • A conditional recommendation supports use of CME for patients undergoing right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer where expertise is available; the guideline judged the evidence to be of low-to-moderate certainty and found insufficient evidence to recommend CME based on tumor location or cancer stage. [3][2]
  • The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation recommends that colorectal cancer screening begin at age 40 years in individuals with cystic fibrosis with continued re-screening every 5 years; modeling predicted that colonoscopy every 5 years between age 40 and 75 years resulted in 44 extra years of life per 1000 CF patients screened compared to no screening, and for cystic fibrosis patients with an organ transplant modeling identified colonoscopy every 3 years from age 35 to 55 years as the optimal strategy and reported 56 extra life-years per 1000 patients screened compared to no screening. [8]
  • Selective use of CME may be appropriate in physiologically fit patients with high-risk or anatomically complex disease, delivered within experienced units with appropriate training, audit and quality assurance frameworks. [2]
  • The guideline panel suggested CME is acceptable to stakeholders and feasible despite potential equity issues due to variable expertise availability; a conditional recommendation indicates that the majority of well-informed patients, surgeons, and other stakeholders would opt for the recommended course of action but that discussion of benefits and harms is advised before decisions. [3]
  • This guideline provides evidence-informed recommendations on the management of right-sided colon cancer developed in line with high methodological and reporting standards and informed by an interdisciplinary panel; the full guideline and user-friendly decision aids are available online at the MAGICapp link provided by the authors. [3]
  • NCCN updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic colorectal cancer that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. [6]
  • ESGE recommends colonic stenting be reserved for patients with clinical symptoms and radiological signs of malignant large-bowel obstruction, without signs of perforation, and does not recommend prophylactic stent placement. [11]
  • ESGE recommends stenting as a bridge to surgery be discussed as a treatment option in patients with potentially curable left-sided obstructing colon cancer as an alternative to emergency resection, and suggests a time interval of approximately 2 weeks until resection when colonic stenting is performed as a bridge to elective surgery in these patients. [11]
  • ESGE recommends colonic stenting as the preferred treatment for palliation of malignant colonic obstruction and suggests consideration of colonic stenting for malignant obstruction of the proximal colon either as a bridge to surgery or in a palliative setting. [11]
  • ESGE recommends that colonic stenting should be performed or directly supervised by an operator who can demonstrate competence in both colonoscopy and fluoroscopic techniques and who performs colonic stenting on a regular basis. [11]
  • ESGE suggests that a decompressing stoma as a bridge to elective surgery is a valid option if the patient is not a candidate for colonic stenting or when stenting expertise is not available. [11]
  • Treatment selection involves choices among 32 different monotherapies and combination regimens in up to seven lines of therapy; considerations for selecting among these therapies have included treatment history, extent of disease, goals of treatment, and the efficacy and toxicity profiles of the regimens, as well as patient comorbidities and preferences. [5]
  • The NCCN Rectal Cancer guideline notes that the risk of pelvic recurrence is higher in patients with rectal cancer compared with those with colon cancer. [12]
  • Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) is not routinely recommended for patients with stage II colon cancer who are not in a high-risk subgroup, and patients with T4 tumors are at higher risk of recurrence and should be offered ACT. [4]
  • For resectable colon cancer, guidelines recommend an en bloc surgical resection as the procedure of choice. [1]
  • Guidelines state that surgery should be followed by adjuvant chemotherapy; for patients with stage III disease they recommend 5‑FU–based adjuvant chemotherapy. [1]
  • Patients with metastatic disease in the liver or lung should be considered for surgical resection if they are surgical candidates and if surgery can extend survival. [1]
  • Guideline panels advocate a conservative post‑treatment surveillance program that includes serial CEA determinations when a patient would be a candidate for aggressive surgical resection should recurrence be detected, and that abdominal and pelvic CT scans be reserved for use only when there are clinical indications of possible recurrence. [1]
Treatments & compounds studied24 treatments

Chemotherapy

  • Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT): Adjuvant (after surgery)Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) is not routinely recommended for patients with stage II colon cancer who are not in a high-risk subgroup. [4]
    recommended duration 3 vs 6 months vs 6 monthsrecommended duration 6 vs 3 months vs 3 months
    Source quotes
    • “Duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is also addressed, with recommendations for 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with decision making informed by key evidence of 5-year disease-free survival in each treatment subgroup and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy.”
    • “Duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is also addressed, with recommendations for 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with decision making informed by key evidence of 5-year disease-free survival in each treatment subgroup and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy.”
  • Oxaliplatin (addition to fluoropyrimidine-based ACT): Adjuvant (after surgery)The addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidine-based adjuvant chemotherapy is not routinely recommended but may be offered as a result of shared decision making. [4]
    recommended duration 3 vs 6 months vs 6 monthsrecommended duration 6 vs 3 months vs 3 months
    Source quotes
    • “Duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is also addressed, with recommendations for 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with decision making informed by key evidence of 5-year disease-free survival in each treatment subgroup and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy.”
    • “Duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is also addressed, with recommendations for 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with decision making informed by key evidence of 5-year disease-free survival in each treatment subgroup and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy.”
  • Oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy: Adjuvant (after surgery) · mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instabilityIf the combination of mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability and high-risk factors results in a decision to offer adjuvant chemotherapy, oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is recommended for that situation. [4]
    recommended duration 3 vs 6 months vs 6 monthsrecommended duration 6 vs 3 months vs 3 months
    Source quotes
    • “Duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is also addressed, with recommendations for 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with decision making informed by key evidence of 5-year disease-free survival in each treatment subgroup and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy.”
    • “Duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is also addressed, with recommendations for 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with decision making informed by key evidence of 5-year disease-free survival in each treatment subgroup and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy.”
  • Oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy (duration): Duration recommendations for oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy address 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin. [4]
    recommended duration 3 vs 6 months vs 6 monthsrecommended duration 6 vs 3 months vs 3 months
    Source quotes
    • “Duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is also addressed, with recommendations for 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with decision making informed by key evidence of 5-year disease-free survival in each treatment subgroup and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy.”
    • “Duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is also addressed, with recommendations for 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with decision making informed by key evidence of 5-year disease-free survival in each treatment subgroup and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy.”
  • Capecitabine and oxaliplatin: Capecitabine and oxaliplatin are named as an oxaliplatin-containing regimen for which 3 or 6 months of treatment is recommended. [4]
    recommended duration 3 vs 6 months vs 6 monthsrecommended duration 6 vs 3 months vs 3 months
    Source quotes
    • “Duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is also addressed, with recommendations for 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with decision making informed by key evidence of 5-year disease-free survival in each treatment subgroup and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy.”
    • “Duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is also addressed, with recommendations for 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with decision making informed by key evidence of 5-year disease-free survival in each treatment subgroup and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy.”
  • Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin: Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin are named as an oxaliplatin-containing regimen for which 3 or 6 months of treatment is recommended. [4]
    recommended duration 3 vs 6 months vs 6 monthsrecommended duration 6 vs 3 months vs 3 months
    Source quotes
    • “Duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is also addressed, with recommendations for 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with decision making informed by key evidence of 5-year disease-free survival in each treatment subgroup and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy.”
    • “Duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is also addressed, with recommendations for 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with decision making informed by key evidence of 5-year disease-free survival in each treatment subgroup and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy.”
  • 5-FU-based adjuvant therapy: Adjuvant (after surgery)5-FU-based adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for patients with stage III disease. [1]
  • irinotecan (bolus): Patients whose disease progresses during 5-FU-based therapy are recommended to receive bolus irinotecan. [1]
  • 5-FU/leucovorin/oxaliplatin therapy: Patients who progress on irinotecan are candidates for 5-FU/leucovorin/oxaliplatin therapy or for enrollment in a phase I or phase II clinical trial. [1]

Targeted therapy

  • HER2-targeted therapy: HER2-amplifiedHER2-targeted therapy options are included for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that is HER2-amplified. [6]
  • BRAF V600E-targeted therapy: BRAF V600E mutation-positiveBRAF V600E-targeted therapy options are included for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that is BRAF V600E mutation-positive. [6]

Immunotherapy

  • checkpoint inhibitors: First-line (advanced disease) · deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-highCheckpoint inhibitors are recommended for first-line use in metastatic colorectal cancer that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high. [6]

Repurposed drugs

  • thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs): Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) have been shown in studies to improve platelet counts in chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia in solid tumors, but their clinical benefits in reducing bleeding, platelet transfusion, or avoiding chemotherapy delay or dose reduction are uncertain. [13]

Procedures & devices

  • complete mesocolic excision (CME): Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is consistently associated with higher lymph node yields and improved specimen metrics, although studies demonstrating a definitive survival advantage are limited. [2][3]
  • standard high-quality right hemicolectomy: Standard high-quality right hemicolectomy should remain the default approach for most patients. [2]
  • colonic stenting: ESGE recommends colonic stenting as the preferred procedure for palliation of malignant colonic obstruction. [11]
  • colonoscopy: The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation recommends colonoscopy as the screening examination for colorectal cancer in individuals with cystic fibrosis. [8]
  • computed tomography colonography: The task force concluded that the evidence is insufficient to recommend computed tomography colonography for colorectal cancer screening in individuals with cystic fibrosis. [8]
  • stool-based tests: The task force concluded that the evidence is insufficient to recommend stool-based tests for colorectal cancer screening in individuals with cystic fibrosis. [8]
  • flexible sigmoidoscopy: The task force concluded that the evidence is insufficient to recommend flexible sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in individuals with cystic fibrosis. [8]
  • endoscopic surveillance: Endoscopic surveillance recommendations are provided for patients operated on for colorectal cancer. [14]
  • en bloc resection: En bloc resection is the recommended surgical procedure for patients with resectable colon cancer. [1]
  • surgical resection of liver or lung metastases: Surgical resection of liver or lung metastases should be considered for patients with metastatic disease in those sites if they are surgical candidates and if surgery can extend survival. [1]

Other

  • systemic therapy: The guideline focuses on the use of systemic therapy in metastatic disease. [5]
Safety & interactions7 points
  • CME is technically demanding and may carry increased procedural risks, particularly related to central vascular dissection, although these may be mitigated through structured training and optimised perioperative planning. [2]
  • Chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT) occurs in approximately one-third of patients with a solid tumor diagnosis and in half of patients with a hematologic malignancy. [13]
  • Chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia may complicate the administration of chemotherapy, leading to therapeutic delays or dose reductions. [13]
  • Studies have shown that TPO-RAs can improve platelet counts in CIT, but the clinical benefits of TPO-RAs in terms of reducing bleeding, limiting platelet transfusion, avoiding chemotherapy delay, or dose reduction are uncertain. [13]
  • Decision making about oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy duration should be informed by evidence of 5-year disease-free survival and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. [4]
  • The decision to proceed with colorectal cancer screening in people with cystic fibrosis is more complicated than in the non-CF population. [8]
  • Preparation for colonoscopy is more time-consuming in individuals with cystic fibrosis than in other populations. [8]
What we don't know yet6 points
  • Recent evidence suggests that surgical plane quality, rather than the extent of lymphadenectomy, may be the principal determinant of oncological outcomes. [2]
  • Future progress will depend on standardisation of surgical technique, objective assessment of specimen quality and biologically tailored treatment strategies. [2]
  • The ISTH guidance states that further research is needed to optimize selection of indications and study design to manage thrombocytopenia following chemotherapy. [13]
  • The NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment guideline describes the advantages and limitations of multigene panel testing. [10]
  • The task force found no randomized clinical trials comparing screened versus nonscreened patients or comparing colonoscopy with less-invasive screening procedures in adults with cystic fibrosis. [8]
  • The NCCN Colon/Rectal/Anal Cancers Guidelines panel states that treating patients in a clinical trial has priority over standard or accepted therapy. [1]
Key biomarkers10 points
  • The NCCN guideline on genetic/familial high-risk assessment focuses primarily on pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer and on recommended approaches to genetic testing, counseling, and management, and the NCCN guidelines note expanded recommendations for biomarker testing in metastatic colorectal cancer. [7][6]
  • Sources describe Li-Fraumeni syndrome as a highly penetrant cancer syndrome associated with a high lifetime risk for cancer, including colon cancer. [7]
  • KRAS/NRAS mutational status, BRAF mutation status, and tumor microsatellite stability should be considered in treatment selection. [5]
  • Multigene panel testing has allowed for the detection of a growing number of inherited pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in people at high risk of cancer. [10]
  • Patients with mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability tumors should not be routinely offered ACT, and if the combination of mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability and high-risk factors leads to offering ACT, oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is recommended. [4]
  • Existing serum markers lack sufficient specificity and sensitivity for early detection of colorectal cancer. [9]
  • Guidelines advise measuring CEA every 2–3 months for at least 3 years after diagnosis in patients with stage II or stage III disease who may be candidates for liver resection or systemic treatment if recurrence occurs. [9]
  • There is insufficient evidence to recommend routine use of several tissue factors (thymidylate synthase, MSI, p53, K-ras, DCC) to determine prognosis or predict therapy response in colorectal cancer. [9]
  • Microsatellite instability (MSI) may be used as a pre-screen for patients with suspected hereditary non‑polyposis colorectal cancer. [9]
  • Faecal occult blood testing, but not faecal DNA markers, may be used to screen asymptomatic people aged 50 years or older for early colorectal cancer. [9]

Sources

Every statement above is drawn from these reviewed sources. This page reports what they describe. Sources last checked June 20, 2026.

  1. GuidelineColon cancer. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology · 2003
  2. GuidelineACPGBI position statement on the role of standard high-quality right hemicolectomy and complete mesocolic excision in right-sided colon cancer · 2026
  3. GuidelineEAES rapid guideline: complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer-with SAGES and ESCP participation · 2025
  4. GuidelineAdjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update · 2022
  5. GuidelineColon Cancer, Version 1.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology · 2017
  6. GuidelineColon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology · 2021
  7. GuidelineGenetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology · 2021
  8. GuidelineCystic Fibrosis Colorectal Cancer Screening Consensus Recommendations · 2018
  9. GuidelineTumour markers in colorectal cancer: European Group on Tumour Markers (EGTM) guidelines for clinical use · 2007
  10. GuidelineGenetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric, Version 3.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines In Oncology · 2024
  11. GuidelineSelf-expandable metal stents for obstructing colonic and extracolonic cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2020 · 2020
  12. GuidelineNCCN Guidelines® Insights: Rectal Cancer, Version 3.2024 · 2024
  13. GuidelineManagement of chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia: guidance from the ISTH Subcommittee on Hemostasis and Malignancy · 2024
  14. GuidelineEndoscopic surveillance after colonic polyps and colorrectal cancer resection. 2018 update · 2019

What supports this page

The kinds of sources behind this page, strongest at the top. Faint rungs show what is not here yet.

Guideline
69
Meta-analysis
131
Systematic review
40
Randomized trial
1
Clinical trial
23
Observational
6
Case report
157
Review
1131
Preclinical
0
Other
4

Living document — last change June 20, 2026: Cancer page updated. 4 recent updates logged.

What recent studies report in Colon Cancer

These are reviewed studies whose abstracts concern Colon Cancer. Each describes only what that study reported. This is not a claim by OncoForge that any compound helps or harms Colon Cancer. Most are early lab, animal, or small human studies, and findings often conflict.

28 studies2 human1 animal⚠ Conflicting evidenceMechanism (11)

Tracking 28 published studies of Colon Cancer: 2 in humans, 1 in animals, 25 reviews/other.

Reported direction across studies: 13 positive, 5 mixed, 10 inconclusive.

Findings conflict — both supportive and negative/mixed results exist (see below). Human evidence is limited.

These counts summarize what the studies reported; they are not a measure of whether anything works for Colon Cancer.

ReviewReported positiveLimited evidenceTier 4 · clinical

Surgery in NF2-Schwannomatosis

Familial cancer · Dec 2025 · review

vestibular schwannomameningiomaspinal schwannomaspinal ependymomaperipheral schwannomacentral and peripheral nervous system tumorsNF2-Schwannomatosis

This is a clinical review of surgical management in NF2-Schwannomatosis. The authors summarize therapeutic indications for vestibular schwannomas, meningiomas, spinal schwannomas and meningiomas, spinal ependymomas and peripheral schwannomas. They note surgical decisions are individualized and that multidisciplinary teams and centralized care can improve outcomes in this rare disease. The review explains why a single comprehensive generic decision tree is difficult to provide.

Key findings
  • Surgery remains an important treatment option for NF2-Schwannomatosis, sometimes performed urgently but usually planned within complex multi-tumour burden and morbidity.
  • The review details therapeutic indications for each tumor type: vestibular schwannomas, meningiomas, spinal schwannomas and meningiomas, spinal ependymomas and peripheral schwannomas.
  • A comprehensive generic decision tree is difficult because each patient has a unique disease burden.
  • Experience of the multidisciplinary team impacts outcomes, and centralized care has been shown to improve the disease course in this rare disease.
Limitations: Narrative review rather than presentation of new primary data.; Authors state a comprehensive generic decision tree is difficult due to individual patient variability.; Focus is on a rare disease, which may limit generalizability of recommendations.; Abstract does not specify whether review methodology was systematic..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

Meta-analysisReported positiveStrong evidenceTier 4 · clinicaln = 60

Association between red and processed meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: a comprehensive meta-analysis of prospective studies

GeroScience · Jun 2025 · meta-analysis of prospective studies

colorectal cancercolon cancerrectal cancer

This meta-analysis pooled 60 prospective studies to evaluate associations between red, processed, and total meat consumption and colorectal, colon, and rectal cancer risk. Higher intake of red, processed, and total meat was each associated with modestly increased hazard ratios for colorectal, colon, and rectal cancer in the pooled analyses.

Reported effects: Red meat - colon cancer HR 1.22 [1.15–1.3] · Red meat - colorectal cancer HR 1.15 [1.1–1.21] · +7 more

Key findings
  • Red meat consumption was associated with increased risk of colon cancer (HR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.15-1.30), colorectal cancer (HR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.21), and rectal cancer (HR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.07-1.39).
  • Processed meat consumption was associated with increased risk of colon cancer (HR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.20), colorectal cancer (HR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.14-1.28), and rectal cancer (HR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30).
  • Total meat consumption was associated with increased risk of colon cancer (HR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.11-1.35), colorectal cancer (HR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.12-1.22), and rectal cancer (HR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.10-1.48).
Limitations: Observational prospective studies cannot establish causation; associations may reflect residual confounding.; Potential heterogeneity across included studies (populations, exposure assessment, covariate adjustment) may affect pooled estimates.; Dietary measurement error and misclassification in the original studies may bias results.; Abstract does not report dose-response specifics or uniform exposure definitions across studies..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jul 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text

ReviewInconclusiveLimited evidenceTier 4 · clinical

Current Treatment of Uveal Melanoma

Cancers · Apr 2025

uveal melanoma

This is a review article titled "Current Treatment of Uveal Melanoma" that discusses treatments for uveal melanoma. The provided abstract text is incomplete and does not report specific interventions, results, or conclusions.

Limitations: Provided abstract is incomplete/truncated and contains no detailed results.; Review article — no original experimental or clinical trial data reported in the abstract.; No specific treatments, doses, outcomes, or quantitative results are stated in the provided text.; Unable to assess study design, population, or funding from the abstract..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text

Animal studyReported positivePreclinical onlyTier 2 · animal

Inhibition of YAP/TAZ-driven TEAD activity prevents growth of NF2-null schwannoma and meningioma

Brain : a journal of neurology · Apr 2023 · Preclinical study using human primary tumour cells in vitro and mouse schwannoma models in vivo

schwannomameningiomaNF2-null schwannomaNF2-null meningioma

This preclinical study used human primary tumour cells and mouse models to test whether targeting Hippo pathway effectors (YAP/TAZ) or inhibiting TEAD palmitoylation affects NF2-null schwannoma and meningioma growth. Genetic deletion of YAP/TAZ and treatment with TEAD palmitoylation inhibitors blocked tumour cell growth in vitro and the inhibitors caused regression of schwannoma tumours in a mouse model. The authors also found that ALDH1A1 is a TAZ-driven Hippo signalling target in NF2-null schwannoma and meningioma cells. They suggest these findings point to potential future clinical use of TEAD palmitoylation inhibitors.

Key findings
  • Genetic ablation of the Hippo effectors YAP and TAZ blocks tumour cell growth (reported in human primary tumour cells and mouse models).
  • Novel TEAD palmitoylation inhibitors block and regress schwannoma tumour growth in vitro and in a preclinical mouse model.
  • ALDH1A1 (a cancer stem cell marker) is identified as a Hippo signalling target driven by TAZ in human and mouse NF2-null schwannoma cells and in NF2-null meningioma cells.
  • Successful use of TEAD palmitoylation inhibitors in a preclinical mouse model of schwannoma is presented as evidence pointing to potential future clinical use.
Limitations: Preclinical work only: findings are from in vitro experiments and mouse models, no clinical (human in vivo) data reported.; Abstract provides no sample sizes, dosing regimens, toxicity, or pharmacokinetic data for the TEAD inhibitors.; Therapeutic relevance of ALDH1A1 as a target was identified but not validated as a treatment strategy in vivo beyond association.; Generalisability to human patients is uncertain because only primary tumour cells (ex vivo) and mouse models were used..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text

ReviewMechanismReported positiveLimited evidenceTier 3 · early human

Proteomics in uveal melanoma

Current opinion in ophthalmology · May 2022

uveal melanoma

This is a review of recent proteomic research in uveal melanoma. It reports that proteomic analyses of cell lines, tissue specimens, and patient fluids have improved understanding of disease biology, identified potential prognostic biomarkers, and suggested circulating and intraocular (aqueous/vitreous) proteins that might help surveillance and indicate therapeutic targets. The authors conclude that proteomics has potential to aid diagnosis, prognostication, surveillance, and treatment planning, but the abstract does not present new primary numeric data.

Key findings
  • Proteomic analysis of uveal melanoma cell lines and tissue specimens has improved understanding of pathophysiology and helped identify potential prognostic biomarkers.
  • Circulating proteins in patient serum may aid in surveillance of metastatic disease.
  • Proteomes of aqueous and vitreous biopsy specimens may provide safer biomarkers for metastatic risk and candidate therapeutic targets.
  • Authors state that proteomic analysis has potential to improve diagnosis, prognostication, surveillance, and treatment of uveal melanoma.
Limitations: This publication is a review article and does not present original primary quantitative data.; Abstract reports findings from a mix of cell lines, tissue specimens, and patient fluids—many results may be preclinical or preliminary.; No specific biomarkers, performance metrics, or validation data are reported in the abstract.; Clinical utility and impact on patient outcomes are described as potential but not established in this abstract..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text

ReviewReported positiveLimited evidenceTier 3 · early human

Orbital indications

Progress in brain research · Jan 2022

uveal melanomachoroid neoplasmsoptic nerve glioma

This short report summarizes clinical indications for Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKNS) in orbital diseases. The authors state GKNS is a recognized option for uveal melanoma that can avoid enucleation, is useful for treating eccentric tumors with the Perfexion unit, and may benefit optic nerve gliomas, choroidal hemangiomas, secondary glaucoma, and thyrotoxic ophthalmopathy. They also note larger tumors and anteriorly located tumors have worse prognosis.

Key findings
  • GKNS for uveal melanoma is described as a recognized valued treatment which avoids enucleation of the eye.
  • Eccentric tumor location previously made treatment difficult, and Gamma Knife Perfexion is said to have solved that problem.
  • Larger tumors and tumors with an anterior location are noted to have a worse prognosis.
  • GKNS is reported to be of benefit in optic nerve gliomas that require treatment.
  • Choroidal hemangiomas and secondary glaucoma may benefit from GKNS.
  • GKNS has also been found to be beneficial in the treatment of thyrotoxic ophthalmopathy.
Limitations: No original methods, patient numbers, or quantitative outcomes are reported in the abstract.; Narrative summary without reported controls or comparative data.; No radiation doses, safety data, follow-up duration, or objective efficacy metrics provided.; Unclear whether statements are based on systematic evidence, case series, or expert opinion..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

Meta-analysisReported positiveModerate evidenceTier 4 · clinicaln = 148

Consumption of red meat and processed meat and cancer incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

European journal of epidemiology · Sep 2021 · systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of prospective studies

breast cancerendometrial cancercolorectal cancercolon cancerrectal cancerlung cancerhepatocellular carcinomarenal cell cancer

This systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis pooled 148 prospective studies to examine associations between red meat, processed meat, and combined red/processed meat consumption and incidence of multiple cancer types. The authors report that higher red meat intake and higher processed meat intake were each statistically associated with increased risks of several cancers (including colorectal, colon, rectal, breast, lung and others).

Reported effects: breast cancer (red meat, highest vs lowest) 1.09 [1.03–1.15] · endometrial cancer (red meat, highest vs lowest) 1.25 [1.01–1.56] · +15 more

Key findings
  • Red meat consumption was associated with higher risk of breast cancer (RR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.03-1.15).
  • Red meat consumption was associated with higher risk of endometrial cancer (RR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.01-1.56).
  • Red meat consumption was associated with higher risk of colorectal cancer (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 1.03-1.17), colon cancer (RR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.09-1.25), and rectal cancer (RR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.01-1.46).
  • Red meat consumption was associated with higher risk of lung cancer (RR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.09-1.44) and hepatocellular carcinoma (RR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.01-1.46).
  • Processed meat consumption was associated with a 6% greater breast cancer risk, an 18% greater colorectal cancer risk, a 21% greater colon cancer risk, a 22% greater rectal cancer risk, and a 12% greater lung cancer risk (highest versus lowest categories).
  • Total red and processed meat consumption was associated with higher risk of colorectal cancer (RR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.08-1.26), colon cancer (RR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.09-1.34), rectal cancer (RR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.09-1.45), lung cancer (RR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.09-1.33), and renal cell cancer (RR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.04-1.37).
Limitations: Meta-analysis pooled observational prospective studies, which cannot establish causality and are subject to residual confounding.; Exposure assessment likely varied across included studies (measurement error and heterogeneous exposure definitions).; Potential between-study heterogeneity and publication bias are possible but specific heterogeneity statistics and bias assessments are not reported in the abstract.; No individual participant-level data reported in the abstract; aggregated study-level meta-analysis limits adjustment uniformity..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jul 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

ReviewMechanismMixed resultsLimited evidenceTier 1 · lab

Nucleobindin-2/Nesfatin-1-A New Cancer Related Molecule?

International journal of molecular sciences · Aug 2021 · review

breast cancercolon cancerprostate cancerendometrial cancerthyroid cancerbladder cancerglioblastomaadrenocortical carcinomaovarian epithelial carcinoma

This review discusses nucleobindin-2/nesfatin-1 (NUCB2/NESF-1) as a cancer-related molecule. It summarizes reports that higher expression is linked with poorer outcomes and with increased cancer cell proliferation, migration, and invasion in several cancers, while other reports suggest it may inhibit growth in some cancer cell types. The article does not present new experimental data.

Key findings
  • High NUCB2/NESF-1 expression has been associated with poor outcomes in several cancers.
  • Reported effects include increased cell proliferation, migration, and invasion in breast, colon, prostate, endometrial, thyroid, and bladder cancers, and glioblastoma.
  • The review also notes conflicting findings where nesfatin-1 inhibited proliferation in human adrenocortical carcinoma and ovarian epithelial carcinoma cells.
  • The authors propose NUCB2/NESF-1 as a prognostic and predictive marker in cancers.
Limitations: Review article; no original experimental or clinical data.; The abstract summarizes heterogeneous prior studies with conflicting findings.; No quantitative effect estimates are reported in the abstract.; No details on study quality, sample sizes, or methods of the cited studies are provided..

This is a review of a molecule reported to be associated with cancer progression and prognosis, not a primary intervention study.

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text

ReviewMixed resultsLimited evidenceTier 3 · early human

Colorectal Cancer and Diet: Risk Versus Prevention, Is Diet an Intervention?

Gastroenterology clinics of North America · Mar 2021 · literature review

colorectal cancercolon cancer

This article is a literature review summarizing prior epidemiologic studies on diet and colorectal cancer. The authors note colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and state that epidemiologic research estimates about half of colon cancer risk is preventable by modifiable factors including diet. The review examines studies of certain food items to clarify whether dietary change could serve as an intervention for colorectal cancer risk.

Key findings
  • Colorectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer in men and women in the world.
  • Epidemiologic research approximates that half of colon cancer risk is preventable by modifiable risk factors, including diet.
  • The article reviews prior studies involving certain food items and their relation to colorectal cancer to elucidate whether diet can be a potential intervention.
Limitations: Review article that does not present original primary data.; Relies on epidemiologic (observational) studies, which are subject to confounding and cannot by themselves prove causation.; Abstract does not report specific food items, methods, quantitative results, or quality assessment of included studies..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jul 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

ReviewReported positiveLimited evidenceTier 3 · early human

Cavernous sinus lesions

Clinical imaging · Dec 2020

leukemiacarcinoma of the head and neckmeningiomamelanomaovarian canceracute myeloid leukemia

This review article discusses the spectrum of cavernous sinus pathologies and their imaging features. The abstract also contains a brief summary stating that hydroxyurea is an antineoplastic agent used alone or with chemotherapy or radiation for resistant leukemias and head and neck carcinomas, that it raises fetal hemoglobin to reduce severe crises and transfusion need in sickle cell anemia, and that it is used off-label in several other conditions including meningioma, melanoma, and ovarian cancer.

Studied with: chemotherapy, radiation.

Key findings
  • The article reviews a wide variety of cavernous sinus pathologies (vascular, neoplastic, and inflammatory) and imaging features that help narrow differential diagnosis.
  • Hydroxyurea is described as an antineoplastic agent used alone or in combination with other chemotherapeutic drugs or radiation in the treatment of resistant leukemias and carcinomas of the head and neck.
  • Hydroxyurea is stated to increase fetal hemoglobin concentration, reducing frequency of severe crises and the need for blood transfusions in patients with sickle cell anemia.
  • The abstract notes off-label uses of hydroxyurea for polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, psoriasis, acute myeloid leukemia, meningioma, melanoma, and ovarian cancer.
Limitations: This is a review article and does not present primary clinical trial or quantitative data on hydroxyurea's effects.; The mention of hydroxyurea is brief and descriptive; no doses, study designs, outcome measures, or sample sizes are provided in the abstract.; Off-label cancer uses are listed without supporting data or references in the abstract.; No numerical effect estimates or comparative data are reported..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed

ReviewMechanismInconclusiveLimited evidenceTier 4 · clinical

Hedgehog Signaling and Truncated GLI1 in Cancer

Cells · Sep 2020 · review

medulloblastomarhabdomyosarcomabasal cell carcinomaglioblastomalung cancercolon cancerstomach cancerpancreatic cancerovarian cancerbreast cancer

This article is a narrative review of the Hedgehog (HH) signaling pathway and its role in human cancers. The authors summarize how aberrant HH signaling contributes to tumorigenesis, aggressive tumor phenotypes (including progression, metastasis, and drug resistance), and describe alternative splicing of GLI1 that produces a tumor-specific, gain-of-function truncated isoform (tGLI1). The review highlights GLI1 and SMO as components under investigation as therapeutic targets.

Key findings
  • Hedgehog signaling regulates normal cell growth and differentiation and, when aberrantly activated, contributes to tumorigenesis and aggressive cancer phenotypes.
  • Canonical HH activation involves HH ligands binding PTCH1, derepression of SMO, release of GLI1 from SUFU, nuclear translocation, and activation of target genes.
  • GLI1 transcripts undergo alternative splicing producing variants including a loss-of-function GLI1ΔN and a tumor-specific gain-of-function truncated GLI1 (tGLI1).
  • Aberrant HH activation has been implicated in multiple cancer types (medulloblastoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, basal cell carcinoma, glioblastoma, and cancers of lung, colon, stomach, pancreas, ovary, and breast).
  • Several components of the HH pathway, particularly GLI1 and SMO, are under investigation as targets for cancer-directed therapies.
Limitations: Narrative review article; no new primary experimental or clinical data are reported in this paper.; Abstract does not indicate systematic review methods or quantitative synthesis, so selection and summary bias are possible.; No quantitative outcomes, effect sizes, or clinical trial results are provided in the abstract.; Broad summary across many cancer types without cancer-specific experimental details in the abstract..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text

ReviewMechanismMixed resultsLimited evidenceTier 4 · clinical

Uveal Melanoma

Cancers · Dec 2019

melanomauveal melanomamelanoma of unknown primary

This editorial/review summarizes recent advances in understanding melanoma of unknown primary. It reports that about 3.2% of melanomas present with no identifiable primary and most often appear in lymph nodes, then subcutaneous sites and visceral organs. The authors note hypotheses for origin (spontaneous regression or ectopic melanocytes), that these tumors more often affect men in their 40s–50s, share molecular features with intermittently sun-exposed cutaneous melanoma, and have improved survival compared with stage-matched melanomas of known primary.

Reported effect: percent presenting with unknown primary 3.2%

Key findings
  • Approximately 3.2% of all melanomas present in distant sites with no known primary site.
  • Melanoma of unknown primary most often presents in lymph nodes, followed by subcutaneous sites, and then visceral organs.
  • Proposed origins include spontaneous regression of the primary tumor and the presence of ectopic melanocytes within lymph nodes and visceral organs.
  • Melanoma of unknown primary occurs more often in men in the fourth and fifth decades of life.
  • These tumors share a similar genetic and molecular signature as cutaneous melanomas arising on intermittently sun-exposed skin.
  • Patients with melanoma of unknown primary have improved survival compared to stage-matched patients with melanoma of known primary (no quantitative estimate provided in this abstract).
Limitations: This is an editorial/review and does not present new primary data.; Abstract provides no methods or systematic review details, so selection and reporting biases are possible.; Quantitative outcomes are sparse in the abstract (only one proportion reported); no primary cohort, sample sizes, or statistical measures are provided here.; Title ('Uveal Melanoma') does not match the main abstract focus on melanoma of unknown primary, suggesting possible mismatch between title and abstract content..

AI summary of the abstract, human-reviewed · Jun 2026. Describes what this study reported, not medical advice. View on PubMed · Full text

Browse all studies mentioning Colon Cancer →

Study mix

28 published studies by what they were done in. Lab and animal findings often do not carry over to people.

2 Human1 Animal25 Review/other
Reported directionReported positive13Mixed results5Inconclusive10

What the research shows for Colon Cancer

A plain-language summary of the reviewed studies OncoForge tracks for Colon Cancer. It reports what those studies described, not a claim that any compound or therapy helps or harms Colon Cancer. Most of this evidence is early, and findings often conflict.

  • These studies are mainly narrative reviews and syntheses of mechanistic or biomarker research rather than clinical trials.
  • The reviewed studies report that higher NUCB2/NESF‑1 expression has been linked in some reports to poorer outcomes and to increased cancer cell proliferation, migration, and invasion in various cancers; other reports are conflicting and the reviews describe the overall evidence as limited.
  • These studies report that the adaptor protein CRKL is overexpressed in many tumor types and is proposed to promote aggressive tumor behaviors and to have potential diagnostic/prognostic value, but the review evidence is limited and not specific to colon cancer.
  • These studies report on the concept of vasculogenic mimicry (tumor cells forming fluid-conducting channels) and distinguish different channel types; that review focused on melanoma types and described mechanistic features rather than clinical data relevant to colon cancer.
  • Across the collected reviews, the evidence is heterogeneous, largely preclinical or observational, and sometimes conflicting; few if any primary clinical studies in colon cancer were presented in these papers.

Supportive & alternative options discussed

  • Exercise / prehabilitation: Also discussed as a supportive option for people with colon cancer; these studies did not evaluate exercise.
  • Ketogenic / metabolic therapy: Also discussed as a supportive or adjunctive dietary approach in colon cancer care by some sources; these studies did not evaluate ketogenic diets.
  • Mind–body (MBSR / CBT): Also discussed as a supportive approach to quality of life and symptom management in colon cancer; these studies did not evaluate mind–body interventions.
  • Acupuncture: Also discussed as a supportive option for symptom control in colon cancer care; these studies did not evaluate acupuncture.
  • Mistletoe (VAE): Also discussed by some groups as a complementary therapy in cancer care; these studies did not evaluate mistletoe in colon cancer.
  • Hyperthermia (heat): Also discussed as an adjunctive technique in oncology in some contexts; these studies did not evaluate hyperthermia in colon cancer.

What we don’t know yet

  • Do NUCB2/NESF‑1 or CRKL expression changes causally influence colon cancer progression or patient outcomes, beyond associations reported in small or preclinical studies?
  • Are the reported biomarker findings reproducible in larger, well‑controlled human studies specific to colon cancer?
  • What (if any) clinical utility would measurement or targeting of these molecules have for diagnosis, prognosis, or therapy in colon cancer?
  • What are appropriate methods, standard assays, and clinically meaningful thresholds for measuring these biomarkers in patients?
  • Do interventions that modify these pathways change clinically relevant outcomes (survival, recurrence, symptoms) in colon cancer patients?
These publications represent early, limited mechanistic and biomarker research (mainly narrative reviews of preclinical and observational data) and do not establish clinical benefit or therapeutic use in colon cancer.

Clinical trials in Colon Cancer

11 ongoing · 26 completed · tracked from ClinicalTrials.gov. Recruiting is not the same as proven, and completed is not the same as positive — read the results. Not a recommendation.

Completed
7 stopped (terminated / withdrawn / suspended)

Search all trials on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Getting care & support

Nonprofit / Gov

Practical, vetted help for Colon Cancer — advocacy, paying for treatment, second opinions, and caregivers.

If you’re struggling emotionally, you don’t have to wait.

Advocacy & community

No dedicated organization for this specific cancer is curated yet — these general organizations can help in the meantime.

Financial help

  • PAN Foundation ↗ — Copay assistance funds by diagnosis (funds open and close as money allows). · status changes often — check the fund’s site
  • HealthWell Foundation ↗ — Copay and premium assistance funds by disease. · status changes often — check the fund’s site
  • CancerCare — financial assistance ↗ — Limited grants plus free financial counseling. · status changes often — check the fund’s site
  • Family Reach ↗ — Help with everyday living costs (rent, transport, food) during treatment. · status changes often — check the fund’s site
  • NeedyMeds ↗ — Searchable directory of drug patient-assistance and discount programs. · status changes often — check the fund’s site
What you’ll typically need to apply
  • Your diagnosis and, if you have it, the specific drug/treatment name (from your care team).
  • Insurance details — your member ID card, or a note that you're uninsured (some funds require active insurance, some don't).
  • Proof of income and household size (recent pay stubs, a tax return, or a benefits letter) — most funds are income-based.
  • Your prescriber's contact information; some programs need the clinic to submit part of the application.
  • Apply early and re-check: funds open and close as money is available, so a closed fund may reopen.

General guidance — each program sets its own eligibility. Confirm requirements on the program’s site.

Second opinions

Caregiver support

We list only non-profit and government resources — never product sellers — and take no affiliate fees. If a link is broken or a resource doesn't meet that bar, tell us.

Heading to an appointment? Get a printable one-page summary — studied compounds, open trials, interactions, and questions to ask.
Bring this to your appointment →