> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.coios.me/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Smaller colorectal tumours linked to nodal metastasis risk and worse survival in subgroups - URL: https://www.coios.me/smaller-colorectal-tumours-linked-to-nodal-metastasis-risk/ - Published: 2026-10-18T11:08:05.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-18T12:15:59.000Z - Description: In 10,513 colorectal cancer patients, smaller tumour diameter raised predicted lymph node metastasis risk and, below 3 cm, mortality. - Author: Daniel Ryan - Tags: Health today, Cancer, AI in medicine, China, #peer-reviewed, #refines, #item, #source-2026-10, #score-50 Retrospective study of 10,513 colorectal cancer patients operated at a Shanghai centre, 2008-2020, with 6,739 external validation patients. Five tree-based machine-learning models predicted metastasis; CatBoost gave the highest AUROC for lymph node metastasis, 0.800\. SHAP analysis ranked lymphovascular invasion, pT stage and perineural invasion highest; smaller diameter raised predicted metastatic risk. Standardised metastasis rate was 59.9% for tumours 5 cm or less versus 53.6% for larger tumours. Spline Cox analysis found mortality rising below 3 cm; younger men with T4 disease fared worse (P<0.001). Design is retrospective; tumour diameter came from pathology reports and models use postoperative variables. *Why it is interesting: Tumour size is not part of colorectal TNM staging, and this reverses the usual assumption that larger means worse. The effect is concentrated in young men with locally advanced disease.* Source [Frontiers in Oncology, 17 October 2026](https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2026.1908104?ref=coios.me) Paper New insights into tumor size in colorectal cancer: smaller size, higher risk? Authors Ding R, Li T, Li C, Song W, Gao X, Xu M et al. DOI 10.3389/fonc.2026.1908104 Full text [Open copy](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13671944/?ref=coios.me) (open-access copy, PubMed Central) Type Peer-reviewed article Design Retrospective two-centre cohort, 10,513 resected colorectal cancer patients (Shanghai, 2008-2020) with external validation in 6,739; machine-learning risk models plus Cox/spline survival analysis Verdict Refines prior evidence Driver [Cancer](https://www.coios.me/d-cancer/) Driver [AI in medicine](https://www.coios.me/d-ai-medicine/) Abstract — the authors' own words, CC BY Background In colorectal cancer, the AJCC T category is defined by the depth of bowel wall invasion rather than by the absolute size of the primary tumor. The clinical value of tumor size in assessing tumor aggressiveness, metastatic risk, and prognosis remains insufficiently investigated. Aim To evaluate the clinical value of tumor size in assessing potential metastatic risk and prognostic stratification in colorectal cancer. Methods We retrospectively included 10,513 patients with colorectal cancer who underwent surgical treatment at FUSCC between 2008 and 2020\. We integrated tumor size with clinicopathological characteristics to assess metastatic risk using machine-learning models and SHAP-based interpretation. By modeling tumor size as both a categorical and continuous variable, we further investigated its prognostic relevance using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression incorporating restricted cubic splines. Additionally, an independent cohort of 6,739 patients from Changhai Hospital was used for external validation. Results Machine-learning identified lymph node metastasis as the primary predictive endpoint, with the CatBoost model achieving the highest AUROC of 0.800\. SHAP analysis showed that smaller tumor diameter contributed positively to predicted metastatic risk. Multivariable restricted cubic spline analysis further demonstrated a significant nonlinear association between tumor diameter and OS, with mortality risk increasing as tumor diameter decreased within the approximately 0–3 cm range. Among younger male patients with locally advanced disease, tumors ≤3 cm were associated with significantly worse OS and DFS than tumors >5 cm (both P < 0.001). External validation yielded similar findings. Conclusion Smaller tumor size may paradoxically indicate higher lymph node metastatic risk and poorer prognosis in a subset of patients with colorectal cancer, particularly younger male patients with locally advanced disease. Tumor size may therefore serve as a complementary factor for postoperative risk stratification beyond conventional TNM staging.