Colorectal cancer was once framed as a disease of older adulthood. That mental model is no longer sufficient. Incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer is rising across multiple countries, and in the United States, colorectal cancer has become the leading cause of cancer death among people younger than 50 [1][2]. For a 28-, 35-, or 43-year-old patient, the problem is not awareness alone. It is that the health system was built around the assumption that colorectal cancer is unlikely in the young.
Why is it rising? It is unlikely to be one answer. Research has examined diet, obesity, sedentary behavior, the microbiome, antibiotic exposure, inflammation, environmental exposures, and birth cohort effects. Those questions are essential, but they do not help the young patient already sitting in an exam room with symptoms. Children and younger adults are not expected to develop colorectal cancer, so the disease can hide in plain sight.
Symptom overlap
The symptoms often overlap with benign conditions: rectal bleeding, abdominal pain, anemia, bowel changes, fatigue, or weight loss. In younger adults, those complaints may be attributed to hemorrhoids, irritable bowel syndrome, diet, menstrual symptoms, infection, stress, or pregnancy. Patients may normalize symptoms. Primary care visits are brief. Family history may be incomplete. Colonoscopy access may be delayed. Average-risk screening begins at age 45, leaving younger symptomatic patients dependent on clinical suspicion and timely referral. Studies of early-onset disease have documented red-flag symptoms and common diagnostic delays, as well as primary care barriers that can slow the path to diagnosis. [3][4]
Early identification changes everything. NCI SEER data reports* a five-year relative survival of about 91% for localized colorectal cancer, compared with about 17% when the disease has spread to distant sites. For children, adolescents, and young adults, population-level curves are often even less instructive because the evidence base is smaller and the clinical scenarios are more heterogeneous. When a young patient presents with advanced disease, every treatment decision carries time, toxicity, fertility, survivorship, and quality-of-life implications.
The standard-of-care model remains indispensable. Before evidence-based pathways, physicians were too often grasping at straws. Population-based clinical trials created a necessary haystack: by cancer type, stage, histology, and average response, they showed what works for most patients. But early-onset colorectal cancer exposes the limits of that model. A population average cannot tell an oncologist whether this patient’s tumor will respond to oxaliplatin, irinotecan, an EGFR antibody, HER2-directed therapy, immunotherapy, or a rational combination after prior treatment pressure.
Genomics made the haystack smaller. Molecular testing can identify mismatch repair deficiency, RAS and BRAF alterations, HER2 amplification, NTRK fusions, and other actionable features. That is real progress. Yet genomics is still a map of possible vulnerabilities. It can suggest that a drug may work against a biomarker; it does not prove that a living tumor, shaped by its microenvironment and treatment history, will die when exposed to that drug.
Functional precision oncology adds the missing measurement. Using tissue from a biopsy or surgical specimen, living tumor cells can be tested ex vivo against approved drugs and combinations. The resulting drug sensitivity and resistance data can then be integrated with genomics, transcriptomics, pathology, prior therapy, and the patient’s clinical context. In this model, the question shifts from “What usually works?” to “What did this patient’s tumor actually do when challenged?” Clinical feasibility data in relapsed and refractory pediatric cancers show why this approach is gaining attention [5][6].
Interpreting high-dimensional data
Artificial intelligence (AI) can strengthen this bridge, but only when grounded in biology. AI can help interpret high-dimensional functional and multi-omics data, recognize patterns of response and resistance, and prioritize plausible therapeutic options faster than manual review alone. It should not replace the oncologist, the molecular tumor board, or clinical judgment. Its value is in helping clinicians synthesize more evidence at the moment when a patient cannot wait for trial-and-error sequencing.
The haystack metaphor matters. The standard of care created the haystack, so physicians were not choosing blindly. Genomics narrowed the haystack by identifying molecular needles worth looking for. Functional drug testing can make the haystack smaller again, giving physicians direct evidence about which needles may be sharpest for the individual patient in front of them.
Functional precision oncology is not a replacement for randomized trials, guidelines, or genomics. It is a bridge between them. It can support the use of standard drugs, identify options that appear unlikely to help, prioritize combinations, and generate patient-specific evidence in settings where population data are thin. That is particularly important for younger patients diagnosed late, where the next regimen may determine whether there is stability or progression, benefit or avoidable toxicity.
The evidence stack
Early-onset colorectal cancer demands upstream fixes: better symptom education, no-age-exemption workups for red flags, faster access to diagnostic colonoscopy, and more equitable screening. But when advanced cancer is already present, clinicians also need tools beyond averages. The future is not abandoning population-based evidence. It is building an evidence stack: standard of care, genomics, functional biology, and AI-assisted interpretation. For younger colorectal cancer patients, the goal is no longer to search a large haystack with better guesses. It is to make the haystack small enough that the right needle can be selected with confidence.
_
Note:* SEER is the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Cancer Stat Facts: Colorectal Cancer. SEER combined summary stage survival data, 2016-2022. Accessed April 30, 2026.
References
[1] Siegel RL, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Leading Cancer Deaths in People Younger Than 50 Years. JAMA. 2026;335(7):632-634. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.25467.
[2] Sung H, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Jiang C, Morgan E, Zahwe M, Cao Y, Bray F, Jemal A. Colorectal cancer incidence trends in younger versus older adults: an analysis of population-based cancer registry data. Lancet Oncol. 2025;26(1):51-63. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00600-4.
[3] Demb J, Kolb JM, Dounel J, et al. Red Flag Signs and Symptoms for Patients With Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(5):e2413157. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.13157.
[4] Lamprell K, Fajardo Pulido D, Arnolda G, et al. People with early-onset colorectal cancer describe primary care barriers to timely diagnosis: a mixed-methods study of web-based patient reports in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. BMC Prim Care. 2023;24:12. doi:10.1186/s12875-023-01967-0.
[5] Acanda De La Rocha AM, Berlow NE, Fader M, et al. Feasibility of functional precision medicine for guiding treatment of relapsed or refractory pediatric cancers. Nat Med. 2024;30:990-1000. doi:10.1038/s41591-024-02848-4.
[6] Cartry J, Bedja S, Boileve A, et al. Implementing patient derived organoids in functional precision medicine for patients with advanced colorectal cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2023;42:281. doi:10.1186/s13046-023-02853-4.
Featured image: © 2022-2026 Fotolia/Adobe. Used with permission.
DOI
