Back

A Tale of Two Countries: Comparison of Rectal Cancer Characteristics Between Pakistani Americans and Native Pakistanis

Sherwani, M.; Azhar, M. K.; Khan, S.; Ali, D.; Husain, S.; Khan, A.

2026-04-11 surgery
10.64898/2026.04.07.26350364 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionComparison of rectal cancer characteristics in Pakistani Americans and native Pakistanis remains poorly investigated, as migrant studies have predominantly concentrated on East and Southeast Asian groups. This research aims to compare clinicopathological characteristics between the two groups. We hypothesize that significant differences will exist between these cohorts, mediated by gene-environment interactions. MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study utilizing two multi-institutional databases to identify adult patients with rectal cancer: the National Cancer Database in the U.S (2018-2022) and the Rectal Cancer Surgery and Epidemiology Study in Pakistan (2020-2021). Non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs) were included as a reference population for comparative analysis. Clinicopathological characteristics were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum and chi-square tests. ResultsA total of 523 Pakistani Americans and 608 native Pakistanis were included in the study. The median age at diagnosis was 57 years in Pakistani Americans (IQR 48-68), 42 years (IQR 33-54) in native Pakistanis and 63 years in NHWs (IQR 54-73) (p < 0.001). Native Pakistanis presented with early-stage disease less often than Pakistani Americans and NHWs (5.3%, 25.1%, and 20.5%, respectively; p < 0.001) and had markedly higher rates of signet cell carcinoma (20.1%, 0.6%, and 0.4%, respectively; p < 0.001) and poorly differentiated tumors (29.0%, 10.4%, and 11.4%, respectively; p < 0.001). ConclusionsThis study found that Native Pakistanis with rectal cancer presented at a younger age and with more aggressive tumor characteristics compared to both Pakistani Americans and NHWs. Notably, Pakistani Americans displayed a distinct clinical profile, intermediate between both groups.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
24.0%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 5%
24.0%
3
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.7%
50% of probability mass above
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 29%
4.2%
5
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
6
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.8%
7
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.2%
8
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.2%
9
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
10
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.2%
11
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.0%
12
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.9%
13
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.9%
14
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
15
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.6%
16
Cancer Letters
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
17
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
158 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
18
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.3%
19
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
20
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
22
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%