Dataset Information

Quality of life after sphincter preservation surgery or abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer (ASPIRE): A long-term prospective, multicentre, cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The long-term effects of radical resection on quality of life may influence the treatment selection. The objective of this study was to determine whether abdominoperineal resection has a better effect on the quality of life than sphincter preservation surgery at 3 years after surgery.

Methods

This prospective, cohort study included patients who underwent radical resection for low rectal cancer. The primary outcomes were European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and CR38 quality of life scores 3 years after surgery, which were compared with linear generalised estimating equations, after adjustment for baseline values, a time effect, and an interaction effect between time and treatment. The secondary outcomes included sexual-urinary functions and oncological outcomes. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01461525).

Findings

Between December 2011 and August 2016, 342 patients were enrolled: 268 (78•4%) underwent sphincter preservation surgery and 74 (21•6%) underwent abdominoperineal resection. The global quality of life scores did not differ between sphincter preservation surgery and abdominoperineal resection groups (adjusted mean difference, 4•2 points on a 100-point scale; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1•3 to 9•7, p = 0•1316). Abdominoperineal resection was associated with a worse body image (9•8 points; 95% CI, 2•9 to 16•6, p = 0•0052), micturition symptoms (-8•0 points; 95% CI, -14•1 to -1•8, p = 0•0108), male sexual problems (-19•9 points; 95% CI, -33•1 to -6•7, p = 0•0032), less confidence in getting and maintaining an erection in males (0•5 points on a 5-point scale; 95% CI, 0•1 to 0•8, p = 0•0155), and worse urinary symptoms (-5•4 points on a 35-point scale; 95% CI, -8•0 to -2•7, p < 0•0001). The 5-year overall survival was worse with abdominoperineal resection in unadjusted (92•2% vs 80•9%; difference 11•3%, hazard ratio 2•38; 95% CI, 1•27 to 4•46, p = 0•0052), but did not differ after adjustment.

Interpretation

In this long-term prospective study, abdominoperineal resection failed to meet the superiority to sphincter preservation surgery in terms of quality of life. Although the global quality of life scores did not differ between groups, this study suggests that sphincter preservation surgery can be an acceptable alternative to abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer, offering a better quality of life and sexual-urinary functions, with no increased oncological risk even after 3 years.

Funding

Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Korea.

SUBMITTER: Kang SB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8315365 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The present study explored the benefit of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (PCRT) for sphincter preservation in locally advanced low-lying rectal cancer patients who underwent stapled anastomosis, especially in those with deep and narrow pelvises determined by magnetic resonance imaging.Patients with locally advanced low-lying rectal cancer (?5?cm from the anal verge) who underwent stapled anastomosis were included. Patients were categorized into two groups (PCRT+ vs. PCRT-) according to PCRT application. Patients in the PCRT+ group were matched to those in the PCRT- group according to potential confounding factors (age, gender, clinical stage, and body mass index) for sphincter preservation. Sphincter preservation, permanent stoma, and anastomosis-related complications were compared between the groups. Pelvic magnetic resonance imaging was used to measure 12 dimensions representing pelvic cavity depth and width with which deep and narrow pelvis was defined. The impact of PCRT on sphincter preservation and permanent stoma in pelvic dimensions defined as deep and narrow pelvis was evaluated, and factors associated with sphincter preservation and permanent stoma were analyzed.One hundred sixty-six patients were one-to-one matched between the PCRT+ and PCRT- groups. Overall, sphincter-saving surgery was performed in 66.3% and the rates were not different between the 2 groups. Anastomotic complications and permanent stoma occurred nonsignificantly more frequently in the PCRT+ group. PCRT was not associated with higher rate of sphincter preservation in all pelvic dimensions defined as deep and narrow pelvis, while PCRT was related to higher rate of permanent stoma in shorter transverse diameter and interspinous distance. On logistic regression analysis, PCRT was not shown to influence both sphincter preservation and permanent stoma, while longer transverse diameter and interspinous distance were associated with lower rate of permanent stoma.PCRT had no beneficial effect on sphincter preservation in patients with locally advanced low-lying rectal cancer who had undergone stapled anastomosis. In patients with deep and narrow pelvis, PCRT had no impact on sphincter preservation but was associated with higher rate of permanent stoma.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary perineal wound closure after conventional abdominoperineal resection (cAPR) for rectal cancer has been the standard of care for many years. Since the introduction of neo-adjuvant radiotherapy and the extralevator APR (eAPR), oncological outcome has been improved, but at the cost of increased rates of perineal wound healing problems and perineal hernia. This has progressively increased the use of biological meshes, although not supported by sufficient evidence. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of pelvic floor reconstruction using a biological mesh after standardized eAPR with neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure.Methods/designIn this multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients with a clinical diagnosis of primary rectal cancer who are scheduled for eAPR after neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy will be considered eligible. Exclusion criteria are prior radiotherapy, sacral resection above S4/S5, allergy to pig products or polysorbate, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases affecting wound healing, except for diabetes. After informed consent, 104 patients will be randomized between standard care using primary wound closure of the perineum and the experimental arm consisting of suturing a biological mesh derived from porcine dermis in the pelvic floor defect, followed by perineal closure similar to the control arm. Patients will be followed for one year after the intervention and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for the study treatment. The primary endpoint is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than II on day 30. Secondary endpoints are hospital stay, incidence of perineal hernia, quality of life, and costs.DiscussionThe BIOPEX-study is the first randomized controlled multicentre study to determine the additive value of using a biological mesh for perineal wound closure after eAPR with neo-adjuvant radiotherapy compared to primary perineal wound closure with regard to perineal wound healing and the occurrence of perineal hernia.Trail registration numberNCT01927497 (Clinicaltrial.gov).

Project description:BackgroundAbdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer is associated with high morbidity of the perineal wound, and controversy exists about the optimal closure technique. Primary perineal wound closure is still the standard of care in the Netherlands. Biological mesh closure did not improve wound healing in our previous randomised controlled trial (BIOPEX-study). It is suggested, based on meta-analysis of cohort studies, that filling of the perineal defect with well-vascularised tissue improves perineal wound healing. A gluteal turnover flap seems to be a promising method for this purpose, and with the advantage of not having a donor site scar. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a gluteal turnover flap improves the uncomplicated perineal wound healing after APR for rectal cancer.MethodsPatients with primary or recurrent rectal cancer who are planned for APR will be considered eligible in this multicentre randomised controlled trial. Exclusion criteria are total exenteration, sacral resection above S4/S5, intersphincteric APR, biological mesh closure of the pelvic floor, collagen disorders, and severe systemic diseases. A total of 160 patients will be randomised between gluteal turnover flap (experimental arm) and primary closure (control arm). The total follow-up duration is 12 months, and outcome assessors and patients will be blinded for type of perineal wound closure. The primary outcome is the percentage of uncomplicated perineal wound healing on day 30, defined as a Southampton wound score of less than two. Secondary outcomes include time to perineal wound closure, incidence of perineal hernia, the number, duration and nature of the complications, re-interventions, quality of life and urogenital function.DiscussionThe uncomplicated perineal wound healing rate is expected to increase from 65 to 85% by using the gluteal turnover flap. With proven effectiveness, a quick implementation of this relatively simple surgical technique is expected to take place.Trial registrationThe trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04004650 on July 2, 2019.