Millennials born in 1990 are twice as likely to get colon cancer as Boomers born in 1950 — and that's not the worst of it
According to a study published in the British Journal of Surgery, early-onset colorectal cancer, defined as cases diagnosed before age 50, has risen dramatically among both sexes in the US since the mid-1990s.
While colon cancer is traditionally linked to older adults, diagnoses among younger people have skyrocketed in recent years.
Advertisement
Researchers explain that in comparison to adults born in 1950, those born in 1990 are twice as likely to develop colon cancer — and a whopping four times more likely to develop rectal cancer.
And folks, it gets worse.
3 While colon cancer is traditionally linked to older adults, diagnoses among younger people have skyrocketed in recent years.
Nataliya – stock.adobe.com
Partially due to the assumption among care providers and patients that colorectal cancer is a disease for the elderly or middle-aged, young people tend to be diagnosed in the disease's later stages, making it harder to treat and cure.
Advertisement
Researchers note that younger patients are more likely to receive aggressive treatments and, due to their life stage, are faced with unique challenges in navigating care and survival.
These younger patients, often diagnosed in their peak earning and reproductive years, are more likely to experience financial hardship and difficulty starting or expanding their families.
Early-onset survivors are more likely to experience anxiety, sexual dysfunction, and body image issues than their older counterparts.
Advertisement
These recent findings are in line with a Centers for Disease Control analysis that found a 185% increase in colorectal cancer among people between 20 and 24 and a 333% increase among people between 15 and 19.
Rates of early-onset colorectal cancer, the most common type of gastrointestinal cancer, are also rising in high-income countries beyond the US. An inventory of 20 European countries showed a significant spike in cases of early-onset colorectal cancer from 2004 to 2016.
'The incidence of GI cancers in adults younger than age 50 is rising globally,' said the paper's lead author, Sara Char. 'Ongoing research efforts investigating the biology of early-onset GI cancers are critical to developing more effective screening, prevention, and treatment strategies.'
Due to the rise in younger cases, the US Preventive Services Task Force updated its colorectal cancer screening guidelines in 2021, lowering the recommended age to begin screening from 50 to 45 for adults of average risk.
Advertisement
3 Rates of early-onset colorectal cancer, the most common type of gastrointestinal cancer, are also rising in high-income countries beyond the US.
Crystal light – stock.adobe.com
And we may need to lower it further, as a new study from Taiwan found that initiating colorectal cancer screening at 40 can reduce cases by 21% and deaths by 39% compared to starting screening at 50.
Early-onset colorectal cancer has become the leading cause of cancer-related death for men under 50 and the second-leading cause for women under 50 in the United States.
'It's been pretty alarming to all of us,' Dr. Coral Olazagasti, an assistant professor of clinical medical oncology at the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, previously told The Post.
'In the past, you would think cancer was a disease of the elderly population. But now we've been seeing trends in recent years of people getting diagnosed with cancer earlier and earlier.'
Early onset colorectal cancer disproportionately affects Black, Hispanic, Indigenous, and Asian populations, with those of Native American descent reporting the highest rate of colorectal cancer of any racial and ethnic group.
Among that number is Utah-based influencer Tanner Martin, who was diagnosed with colorectal cancer at 25 and lost his five-year battle with the disease in June.
Advertisement
3 Utah-based influencer Tanner Martin, who was diagnosed with colorectal cancer at 25 and lost his five-year battle with the disease in June.
The Washington Post via Getty Images
A National Cancer Institute analysis from 1973 through 2009 revealed that 16.5% of American Indians/Alaska Natives, 15.4% of Hispanics, 12% of Asians/Pacific Islanders, and 11.9% of Black patients were diagnosed with colorectal cancer before age 50, compared to only 6.7% of non-Hispanic white patients.
Oncologists have suggested that the concerning rise in early onset diagnoses and deaths could be due to obesity, a sedentary lifestyle, the Western diet, excess sugar consumption, and environmental factors such as pollutants in the air, soil, and water.
Advertisement
A 2019 study found that US women with a BMI over 30 had close to double the risk of developing early-onset colorectal cancer compared to women with lower BMIs.
More recently, a groundbreaking 2025 study suggested that colibactin, a toxin produced by certain strains of E. coli, may be behind the recent surge in early-onset colorectal cancer cases.
'We believe this exposure occurs very early in life — likely during the first decade — when children are infected,' Dr. Ludmil Alexandrov, senior study author and a professor at the University of California, San Diego, told The Post.
The CDC predicts that by 2030, early-onset colorectal cancer will become the leading cancer-related cause of death for people aged 20 to 49.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
US fertility rate slumped to new low in 2024 — here's why it keeps dropping
The fertility rate in the U.S. dropped to an all-time low in 2024 with less than 1.6 kids per woman, new federal data released Thursday shows. The U.S. was once among only a few developed countries with a rate that ensured each generation had enough children to replace itself — about 2.1 kids per woman. But it has been sliding in America for close to two decades as more women are waiting longer to have children or never taking that step at all. 5 The U.S. was once among only a few developed countries with a rate that ensured each generation had enough children to replace itself. Adene Sanchez/ – The new statistic is on par with fertility rates in western European countries, according to World Bank data. Alarmed by recent drops, the Trump administration has taken steps to increase falling birth rates, like issuing an executive order meant to expand access to and reduce costs of in vitro fertilization and backing the idea of 'baby bonuses' that might encourage more couples to have kids. But there's no reason to be alarmed, according to Leslie Root, a University of Colorado Boulder researcher focused on fertility and population policy. 5 Alarmed by recent drops, the Trump administration has taken steps to increase falling birth rates. fizkes – 'We're seeing this as part of an ongoing process of fertility delay. We know that the U.S. population is still growing, and we still have a natural increase — more births than deaths,' she said. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the statistic for the total fertility rate with updated birth data for 2024. In the early 1960s, the U.S. total fertility rate was around 3.5, but plummeted to 1.7 by 1976 after the Baby Boom ended. It gradually rose to 2.1 in 2007 before falling again, aside from a 2014 uptick. The rate in 2023 was 1.621, and inched down in 2024 to 1.599, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. 5 In the early 1960s, the U.S. total fertility rate was around 3.5, but plummeted to 1.7 by 1976 after the Baby Boom ended. alice_photo – Birth rates are generally declining for women in most age groups — and that doesn't seem likely to change in the near future, said Karen Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina. People are marrying later and also worried about their ability to have the money, health insurance and other resources needed to raise children in a stable environment. 'Worry is not a good moment to have kids,' and that's why birth rates in most age groups are not improving, she said. 5 Birth rates are generally declining for women in most age groups — and that doesn't seem likely to change in the near future. Nenov Brothers – Asked about birth-promoting measures outlined by the Trump administration, Guzzo said they don't tackle larger needs like parental leave and affordable child care. 'The things that they are doing are really symbolic and not likely to budge things for real Americans,' she said. Increase in births in new data 5 People are marrying later and also worried about their ability to have the money, health insurance and other resources needed to raise children. íâí¼í¸íâíâ¬í¸í¹ í¢í°í°íâ¡íÆí° – The CDC's new report, which is based on a more complete review of birth certificates than provisional data released earlier this year, also showed a 1% increase in births — about 33,000 more — last year compared to the prior year. That brought the yearly national total to just over 3.6 million babies born. But this is different: The provisional data indicated birth rate increases last year for women in their late 20s and 30s. However, the new report found birth rate declines for women in their 20s and early 30s, and no change for women in their late 30s. What happened? CDC officials said it was due to recalculations stemming from a change in the U.S. Census population estimates used to compute the birth rate. That's plausible, Root said. As the total population of women of childbearing age grew due to immigration, it offset small increases in births to women in those age groups, she said.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
The US fertility rate reached a new low in 2024, CDC data shows
NEW YORK — The fertility rate in the U.S. dropped to an all-time low in 2024 with less than 1.6 kids per woman, new federal data released Thursday shows. The U.S. was once among only a few developed countries with a rate that ensured each generation had enough children to replace itself — about 2.1 kids per woman. But it has been sliding in America for close to two decades as more women are waiting longer to have children or never taking that step at all. The new statistic is on par with fertility rates in western European countries, according to World Bank data. Alarmed by recent drops, the Trump administration has taken steps to increase falling birth rates, like issuing an executive order meant to expand access to and reduce costs of in vitro fertilization and backing the idea of 'baby bonuses' that might encourage more couples to have kids. But there's no reason to be alarmed, according to Leslie Root, a University of Colorado Boulder researcher focused on fertility and population policy. 'We're seeing this as part of an ongoing process of fertility delay. We know that the U.S. population is still growing, and we still have a natural increase — more births than deaths,' she said. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the statistic for the total fertility rate with updated birth data for 2024. In the early 1960s, the U.S. total fertility rate was around 3.5, but plummeted to 1.7 by 1976 after the Baby Boom ended. It gradually rose to 2.1 in 2007 before falling again, aside from a 2014 uptick. The rate in 2023 was 1.621, and inched down in 2024 to 1.599, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Birth rates are generally declining for women in most age groups — and that doesn't seem likely to change in the near future, said Karen Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina. People are marrying later and also worried about their ability to have the money, health insurance and other resources needed to raise children in a stable environment. 'Worry is not a good moment to have kids,' and that's why birth rates in most age groups are not improving, she said. Asked about birth-promoting measures outlined by the Trump administration, Guzzo said they don't tackle larger needs like parental leave and affordable child care. 'The things that they are doing are really symbolic and not likely to budge things for real Americans,' she said. The CDC's new report, which is based on a more complete review of birth certificates than provisional data released earlier this year, also showed a 1% increase in births — about 33,000 more — last year compared to the prior year. That brought the yearly national total to just over 3.6 million babies born. But this is different: The provisional data indicated birth rate increases last year for women in their late 20s and 30s. However, the new report found birth rate declines for women in their 20s and early 30s, and no change for women in their late 30s. What happened? CDC officials said it was due to recalculations stemming from a change in the U.S. Census population estimates used to compute the birth rate. That's plausible, Root said. As the total population of women of childbearing age grew due to immigration, it offset small increases in births to women in those age groups, she said.
Atlantic
3 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Obvious Reason the U.S. Should Not Vaccinate Like Denmark
For decades, countries around the world have held up the U.S.'s rigorous approach to vaccine policy as a global ideal. But in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Department of Health and Human Services, many of the officials responsible for vaccine policy disagree. For the best immunization policy, they argue, the U.S. should look to Europe. Marty Makary, the new FDA commissioner, and Vinay Prasad, the new head of the agency's center for regulating vaccines, have criticized the nation's COVID-19-vaccine policy for recommending the shots more broadly than many European countries do. Tracy Beth Høeg, a new adviser at the FDA, has frequently compared the U.S.'s childhood vaccination schedule unfavorably with the more pared-down one in Denmark, and advocated for 'stopping unnecessary vaccines.' (Prasad, citing Høeg, has made the same points.) And the new chair of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Martin Kulldorff—whom Kennedy handpicked to serve on the panel, after dismissing its entire previous roster— announced in June that ACIP would be scrutinizing the current U.S. immunization schedule because it exceeds 'what children in most other developed nations receive.' This group has argued that the trimness of many European schedules—especially Denmark's—implies that the benefits of the U.S.'s roster of shots may not outweigh the risks, even though experts discussed and debated exactly that question when devising the guidance. But broadly speaking, the reasons behind the discrepancies they're referencing 'have nothing to do with safety,' David Salisbury, the former director of immunization of the U.K.'s Department of Health, told me. Rather, they're driven by the factors that shape any national policy: demographics, budget, the nature of local threats. Every country has a slightly different approach to vaccination because every country is different, Rebecca Grais, the executive director of the Pasteur Network and a member of the WHO's immunization-advisory group, told me. One of the most important considerations for a country's approach to vaccines is also one of the most obvious: which diseases its people need to be protected from. The U.S., for instance, recommends the hepatitis A vaccine for babies because cases of the contagious liver disease continue to be more common here than in many other high-income countries. And conversely, this country doesn't recommend some vaccine doses that other nations do. The U.K., for example, routinely vaccinates against meningococcal disease far earlier, and with more overall shots, than the U.S. does— starting in infancy, rather than in adolescence—because meningitis rates have been higher there for years. Using that same logic, countries have also modified prior recommendations based on emerging evidence—including, for instance, swapping the oral polio vaccine for the safer inactivated polio vaccine in the year 2000. Vaccines are expensive, and countries with publicly funded insurance consider those costs differently than the U.S. does. Under U.K. law, for instance, the National Health Service must cover any vaccine that has been officially recommended for use by its Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, or JCVI—essentially, its ACIP. So that committee weights the cost effectiveness of a vaccine more heavily and more explicitly than ACIP does, and will recommend only a product that meets a certain threshold, Mark Jit, an epidemiologist at NYU, who previously worked at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, told me. Price also influences what vaccines are ultimately available. In 2023, JCVI recommended (as ACIP has) two options for protecting babies against RSV; unlike in the U.S., though, the NHS bought only one of them from manufacturers, presumably 'because the price they gave the government was cheaper,' Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, the current JCVI chair, and a former member of the World Health Organization's advisory group on immunizations, told me. (The prices that the U.K. government pays for vaccines are generally confidential.) The nature of a country's health-care system can influence vaccine policy in other ways too. In the U.S. system of private health care, health-equity gaps are massive, and access to care is uneven, even for one person across their lifetime. Many Americans bounce from health-care provider to provider—if they are engaged with the medical system at all—and must navigate the coverage quirks of their insurer. In this environment, a more comprehensive vaccination strategy is, essentially, plugging up a very porous safety net. Broad, simple recommendations for vaccines help ensure that a minimal number of high-risk people slip through. 'We're trying to close gaps we couldn't close in any other way,' Grace Lee, a pediatrician and a former chair of ACIP, told me. The U.S. strategy has worked reasonably well for the U.S. Universal flu-vaccine recommendations (not common in Europe) lower the burden of respiratory disease in the winter, including for health-care workers. Hepatitis B vaccines for every newborn (rather than, like in many European countries, for only high-risk ones) help ensure that infants are protected even if their mother misses an opportunity to test for the virus. More generally, broad recommendations for vaccination can also mitigate the impacts of outbreaks in a country where obesity, heart disease, and diabetes—all chronic conditions that can exacerbate a course of infectious illness—affect large swaths of the population. American vaccine experts also emphasize the importance of the community-wide benefits of shots, which can reduce transmission from children to elderly grandparents or decrease the amount of time that parents have to take off of work. Those considerations carry far more weight for many public-health experts and policy makers in a country with patchy insurance coverage and inconsistent paid sick leave. The current leadership of HHS thinks differently: Kennedy, in particular, has emphasized individual choice about vaccines over community benefit. And some officials believe that a better childhood immunization schedule would have fewer shots on it, and more closely resemble Denmark's, notably one of the most minimalist among high-income countries. Whereas the U.S. vaccination schedule guards against 18 diseases, Denmark's targets just 10 —the ones that the nation's health authorities have deemed the most severe and life-threatening, Anders Hviid, an epidemiologist at Statens Serum Institut, in Copenhagen, told me. All vaccines in Denmark are also voluntary. But 'I don't think it's fair to look at Denmark and say, 'Look how they're doing it, that should be a model for our country,'' Hviid told me. 'You cannot compare the Danish situation and health-care system to the situation in the U.S.' Denmark, like the U.K., relies on publicly funded health care. The small, wealthy country also has relatively narrow gaps in socioeconomic status, and maintains extremely equitable access to care. The national attitude toward federal authorities also includes a high degree of confidence, Hviid told me. Even with fully voluntary vaccination, the country has consistently maintained high rates of vaccine uptake, comparable with rates in the U.S., where public schools require shots. And even those factors don't necessarily add up to a minimalist schedule: Other Nordic countries with similar characteristics vaccinate their children more often, against more diseases. At least some of Kennedy's allies seem to have been influenced not just by Denmark's more limited vaccine schedule but specifically by the work of Christine Stabell Benn, a researcher at the University of Southern Denmark, who has dedicated much of her career to studying vaccine side effects. Like Kennedy and many of his allies, Benn is skeptical of the benefits of vaccination: 'It's not very clear that the more vaccines you get, the healthier you are,' she told me. Along with Kulldorff, Høeg, and National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya, Benn served on a committee convened in 2022 by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis that cast COVID-19 vaccines as poorly vetted and risky. She and Høeg have appeared together on podcasts and co-written blogs about vaccine safety; Kulldroff also recently cited her work in an op-ed that praised one Danish approach to multidose vaccines, noting that evaluating that evidence 'may or may not lead to a change in the CDC-recommended vaccine schedule.' When justifying his cuts to Gavi —the world's largest immunization program—Kennedy referenced a controversial and widely criticized 2017 study co-authored by Benn and her husband, Peter Aaby, an anthropologist, that claimed that a diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine was increasing mortality among children in Guinea-Bissau. (Benn wrote on LinkedIn that cutting Gavi funding 'may have major negative impact on overall child survival,' but also noted that 'it is reasonable to request that WHO and GAVI consider the best science available.') Several of the researchers I spoke with described Benn, with varying degrees of politeness, as a contrarian who has cherry-picked evidence, relied on shaky data, and conducted biased studies. Her research scrutinizing vaccine side effects— arguing, for instance, that vaccines not made from live microbes can come with substantial detriments —has been contradicted by other studies, spanning years of research and scientific consensus. (In a 2019 TEDx talk, she acknowledged that other vaccine researchers have disagreed with her findings, and expressed frustration over her difficulties publicizing them.) When we spoke, Benn argued that the U.S. would be the ideal venue for an experiment in which different regions of the country were randomly assigned to different immunization schedules to test their relative merits—a proposal that Prasad has floated as well, and that several researchers have criticized as unethical. Benn said she would prefer to see it done in a country that would withdraw vaccines that had previously been recommended, rather than add new ones. In a later email, she defended her work and described herself as 'a strong advocate for evidence-based vaccination policies,' adding that 'it is strange if that is perceived as controversial.' When I asked her whether anyone currently at HHS, or affiliated with it, had consulted her or her work to make vaccine decisions, she declined to answer. Kulldorff wrote in an email that 'Christine Stabell Benn is one of the world's leading vaccine scientists' but did not answer my questions about Benn's involvement in shaping his recommendations. HHS did not respond to a request for comment. What unites Benn with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his top officials is that, across their statements, they suggest that the U.S. is pushing too many vaccines on its children. But the question of whether or not the U.S. may be 'overvaccinating' is the wrong one to ask, Jake Scott, an infectious-disease physician at Stanford, told me. Rather, Scott said, the more important question is: 'Given our specific disease burden and public-health goals, are we effectively protecting the most vulnerable people? Based on overwhelming evidence? The answer is yes.' That's not to say that the U.S. schedule should never change, or that what one country learns about a vaccine should not inform another's choices. Data have accumulated —including from a large clinical trial in Costa Rica—to suggest that the HPV vaccine, for instance, may be powerful enough that only a single dose, rather than two, is necessary to confer decades of protection. (Based on that growing evidence, the prior roster of ACIP was considering recommending fewer HPV doses.) But largely, 'I'm not sure if there's a lot in the U.S. schedule to complain about,' Pollard, the JCVI chair, told me. On the contrary, other nations have taken plenty of their cues from America: The U.K., for instance, is expected to add the chickenpox shot to its list of recommended vaccines by early next year, Pollard told me, based in part on reassuring data from the U.S. that the benefits outweigh the risks. The U.S. does recommend more shots than many other countries do. But the U.S. regimen also, by definition, guards against more diseases than those of many other countries do—making it a standout course of protection, unparalleled elsewhere.
