Dataset Information

Bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer treatment: a study comparing the specialist's versus patient's perspective.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To investigate how bowel dysfunction after sphincter-preserving rectal cancer treatment, known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), is perceived by rectal cancer specialists, in relation to the patient's experience.

Design

Questionnaire study.

Setting

International.

Participants

58 rectal cancer specialists (45 colorectal surgeons and 13 radiation oncologists).

Research procedure

The Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Score (LARS score) is a five-item instrument for evaluation of LARS, which was developed from and validated on 961 patients. The 58 specialists individually completed two LARS score-based exercises. In Exercise 1, they were asked to select, from a list of bowel dysfunction issues, five items that they considered to disturb patients the most. In Exercise 2, they were given a list of scores to assign to the LARS score items, according to the impact on quality of life (QOL).

Outcome measures

In Exercise 1, the frequency of selection of each issue, particularly the five items included in the LARS score, was compared with the frequency of being selected at random. In Exercise 2, the answers were compared with the original patient-derived scores.

Results

Four of the five LARS score issues had the highest frequencies of selection (urgency, clustering, incontinence for liquid stool and frequency of bowel movements), which were also higher than random. However, the remaining LARS score issue (incontinence for flatus) showed a lower frequency than random. Scores assigned by the specialists were significantly different from the patient-derived scores (p<0.01). The specialists grossly overestimated the impact of incontinence for liquid stool and frequent bowel movements on QOL, while they markedly underestimated the impact of clustering and urgency. The results did not differ between surgeons and oncologists.

Conclusions

Rectal cancer specialists do not have a thorough understanding of which bowel dysfunction symptoms truly matter to the patient, nor how these symptoms affect QOL.

SUBMITTER: Chen TY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3902194 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer treatment: a study comparing the specialist's versus patient's perspective.

Chen Tina Yen-Ting TY Emmertsen Katrine Jøssing KJ Laurberg Søren S

BMJ open 20140121 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>To investigate how bowel dysfunction after sphincter-preserving rectal cancer treatment, known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), is perceived by rectal cancer specialists, in relation to the patient's experience.<h4>Design</h4>Questionnaire study.<h4>Setting</h4>International.<h4>Participants</h4>58 rectal cancer specialists (45 colorectal surgeons and 13 radiation oncologists).<h4>Research procedure</h4>The Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Score (LARS score) is a five ...[more]

PMID: 24448844

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare patient perceptions of radiotherapy (RT) before and after treatment to better inform future patients and providers.MethodsSeventy-eight consecutive patients with rectal adenocarcinoma treated with neo- or adjuvant chemoradiation, surgical resection, and adjuvant chemotherapy from 2009 to 2018 and who were without recurrence were included. Patients were surveyed ≥6 months after ileostomy reversal or ≥3 months after adjuvant chemotherapy. The survey assessed patients' baseline knowledge and fears of RT, how their short- and long-term side effects compared with initial expectations, and how their experiences compared for each modality (RT, surgery, and chemotherapy).ResultsForty patient-responses were received. Before treatment, 70% of patients indicated little to no knowledge of RT, though 43% reported hearing frightening stories about RT. The most commonly top-ranked fears included organ damage (26%), skin burns (14%), and inability to carry out normal daily activities (10%). Eighty percent reported short-term effects of RT to be less than or as expected, with urinary changes (93%), abdominal discomfort (90%), and anxiety (88%) most commonly rated as less than or as expected. 85% reported long-term effects to be less than or as expected, with pain (95%), changes to the appearance of the treated area (85%), and dissatisfaction with body image (80%) most commonly rated as less than or as expected. Surgery was most commonly rated as the most difficult treatment (50%) and most responsible for long-term effects (55%). RT was least commonly rated as the most difficult treatment (13%), and chemotherapy was least commonly rated as most responsible for long-term effects (13%).ConclusionsThe majority of patients indicated short- and long-term side effects of RT for rectal cancer to be better than initial expectations. In the context of trimodality therapy, patients reported RT to be the least difficult of the treatments.

Project description:The outcomes of robot-assisted mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, compared with open resection, have not been fully characterized. A retrospective analysis of pathologic, short-term, and long-term outcomes in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent total or tumour-specific mesorectal excision at a high-volume cancer centre between 2008 and 2017 was conducted. Outcomes after robotic and open surgery were compared on an intention-to-treat basis. Out of 1048 resections performed, 1018 patients were reviewed, with 638 who underwent robotic surgery and 380 open surgery. Robotic surgery was converted to the open approach in 17 (2.7 per cent) patients. Patients who underwent robotic surgery were younger (median 54 (range 22-91) years versus median 58 (range 18-97) years; P < 0.001), had higher tumours (median 80 (range 0-150) mm from the anal verge versus median 70 (0-150) mm; P = 0.001), and were less likely to have received neoadjuvant therapy (64 per cent versus 73 per cent; P = 0.003). For patients who underwent a robotic total mesorectal excision, the operating time was longer (median 283.5 (range 117-712) min versus median 249 (range 70-661) min; P < 0.001). However, the rate of complications was lower (29 per cent versus 45 per cent; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay was shorter (median 5 (range 1-32) days versus median 7 (range 0-137) days; P < 0.001). Median follow-up of survivors was 2.9 years. The proportion of patients with a positive circumferential resection margin did not differ between the groups, nor did the rate of local recurrence (robotic versus open: 3.7 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 1.9 to 5.6 versus 2.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 1.0 to 4.6; P = 0.400), systemic recurrence (robotic versus open: 11.7 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 8.5 to 14.8 versus 13.0 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 9.2 to 16.5; P = 0.300), or overall survival (robotic versus open: 97.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 96.3 to 99.3 versus 93.5 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 90.8 to 96.2; P = 0.050). The same results were documented in a subanalysis of 370 matched patients, including 185 who underwent robotic surgery and 185 open surgery, for the overall incidence of any postoperative complications, overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and systemic recurrence. In patients with rectal cancer who are candidates for curative resection, robotic mesorectal excision is associated with lower complication rates, shorter length of stay, and equivalent oncologic outcomes, compared with open mesorectal excision.

Dataset Information

Bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer treatment: a study comparing the specialist's versus patient's perspective.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Research procedure

Outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer treatment: a study comparing the specialist's versus patient's perspective.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets