Dataset Information

Quality of life in restorative versus non-restorative resections for rectal cancer: systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Low rectal cancers could be treated using restorative (anterior resection, AR) or non-restorative procedures with an end/permanent stoma (Hartmann's, HE; or abdominoperineal excision, APE). Although the surgical choice is determined by tumour and patient factors, quality of life (QoL) will also influence the patient's future beyond cancer. This systematic review of the literature compared postoperative QoL between the restorative and non-restorative techniques using validated measurement tools.

Methods

The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020131492). Embase and MEDLINE, along with grey literature and trials websites, were searched comprehensively for papers published since 2012. Inclusion criteria were original research in an adult population with rectal cancer that reported QoL using a validated tool, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-CR30, QLQ-CR29, and QLQ-CR38. Studies were included if they compared AR with APE (or HE), independent of study design. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Outcomes of interest were: QoL, pain, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (stool frequency, flatulence, diarrhoea and constipation), and body image.

Results

Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 6453 patients; all papers were observational and just four included preoperative evaluations. There was no identifiable difference in global QoL and pain between the two surgical techniques. Reported results regarding GI symptoms and body image documented similar findings. The ROBINS-I tool highlighted a significant risk of bias across the studies.

Conclusion

Currently, it is not possible to draw a firm conclusion on postoperative QoL, pain, GI symptoms, and body image following restorative or non-restorative surgery. The included studies were generally of poor quality, lacked preoperative evaluations, and showed considerable bias in the data.

SUBMITTER: Lawday S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8765336 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Over two million people in the UK are living with and beyond cancer. A third report diminished quality of life. DESIGN:A review of published systematic reviews to identify effective non-pharmacological interventions to improve the quality of life of cancer survivors. DATA SOURCES:Databases searched until May 2017 included PubMed, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO. STUDY SELECTION:Published systematic reviews of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions for people living with and beyond cancer were included; included reviews targeted patients aged over 18. All participants had already received a cancer diagnosis. Interventions located in any healthcare setting, home or online were included. Reviews of alternative therapies or those non-English reports were excluded. Two researchers independently assessed titles, abstracts and the full text of papers, and independently extracted the data. OUTCOMES:The primary outcome of interest was any measure of global (overall) quality of life. ANALYTICAL METHODS:Quality assessment assessing methdological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and narrative synthesis, evaluating effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions and their components. RESULTS:Of 14?430 unique titles, 21 were included in the review of reviews. There was little overlap in the primary papers across these reviews. Thirteen reviews covered mixed tumour groups, seven focused on breast cancer and one focused on prostate cancer. Face-to-face interventions were often combined with online, telephone and paper-based reading materials. Interventions included physical, psychological or behavioural, multidimensional rehabilitation and online approaches. Yoga specifically, physical exercise more generally, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) programmes showed benefit in terms of quality of life. CONCLUSIONS:Exercise-based interventions were effective in the short (less than 3-8 months) and long term. CBT and MBSR also showed benefits, especially in the short term. The evidence for multidisciplinary, online and educational interventions was equivocal.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an increasing incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer; however, the psychosocial impacts of this disease on younger adults have been seldom explored.MethodsA systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed, and Scopus were searched, and papers were included if published in English within the last 10 years and if they reported results separately by age (including early-onset colorectal cancer, defined as colorectal cancer diagnosed before the age of 50 years). Critical appraisal of all studies was done using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools. The primary outcome of interest was the global quality of life in patients with early-onset colorectal cancer. Secondary outcomes included the effect on sexual function, body image, finances, career, emotional distress, and social and family functioning.ResultsThe search yielded 168 manuscripts and 15 papers were included in the review after screening. All studies were observational, and included a total of 18 146 patients, of which 5015 were patients with early-onset colorectal cancer. The studies included scored highly using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools, indicating good quality and a low risk of bias, but data synthesis was not performed due to the wide range of scoring systems that were used across the studies. Six papers reported significant negative impacts on quality of life in patients with early-onset colorectal cancer. Three of the four studies that compared the quality of life in patients with early-onset colorectal cancer with older patients found that the younger group had worse mean quality-of-life scores (P ≤ 0.05). Secondary outcomes measured in five studies in relation to sexual dysfunction, body image, financial and career impacts, and social and family impacts and in eight studies in relation to emotional distress were found to be more severely impacted in those with early-onset colorectal cancer compared with those with late-onset colorectal cancer.ConclusionWhilst data are limited, the impact of colorectal cancer is different in patients with early-onset colorectal cancer compared with older patients in relation to several aspects of the quality of life. This is particularly prominent in areas of global quality of life, sexual functioning, family concerns, and financial impacts.