Search

Aim: National clinical registries offer the benefits of a comprehensive dataset, particularly when linked with patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. This aim of this study was to utilise UK registry data to assess cross-sectional differences in health-related quality of life (HrQoL) in patients with primary rectal (PRC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC)., Materials and Methods: Data were extracted from the COloRECTal cancer Repository (CORECT-R) and the Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer - Quality of Life (LRRC-QoL) datasets. Propensity score matching was undertaken in a 1:1 ratio using two covariates: age and sex. The primary outcome was the FACT-C Colorectal Cancer Subscale (CCS). Statistical significance was determined using p < 0.05 and clinical significance using effect size (ES) and minimally important clinical difference (MCID)., Results: A matched cohort with 72 patients in each group was identified. Overall FACT-C CCS scores were worse in patients with LRRC from a statistical (11.80 vs 18.03, p < 0.001) and clinically meaningful perspective (ES 1.63, MCID 6.23). Patients with PRC reported better digestion (p < 0.001, ES 0.85), better control over their bowels (p < 0.001, ES 1.03) and increased appetite (p < 0.001, ES 1.74, MCID 2.08). Patients with LRRC reported worse stomach swelling (p < 0,001, ES 0.97) and more diarrhoea (p < 0.001, ES 0.92), however they reported better body image (p < 0.001, ES 0.80)., Conclusion: Patients with LRRC reported significantly worse overall scores in the FACT-C CCS from both a statistical and clinical perspective, demonstrating the ability of the FACT-C to distinguish between these patient groups and the benefits of the inclusion of PROs within colorectal cancer registries, specifically including patients with advanced/recurrent disease., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The availability of high-quality patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is crucial to guiding shared decision-making in the context of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), where potential treatment benefits must be balanced against the impact of both the disease and treatment on PROs, such as quality of life. This review aimed to identify the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) currently being reported in LRRC and to appraise the methodological quality of studies using these measures., Methods: PubMed, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched, including studies published up until 14 th September 2022. Studies in adults with LRRC reporting PROMS as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included. Data were extracted concerning the methodological quality of the reporting of PROMs using criteria informed by the CONSORT-PRO checklist and the psychometric properties of the PROMs identified using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist., Results: Thirty-five studies including 1914 patients with LRRC were identified. None of the studies included in the review met all eleven criteria for the quality of reporting of PROMs. Seventeen PROMs and two clinician-reported outcome measures were identified, none of which have been validated for use in patients with LRRC., Conclusions: None of the PROMs which are currently being used to report PROs in LRRC have been validated for use in this cohort of patients. Future studies in this disease area should focus on utilising PROMs that have undergone a robust development process including patients with LRRC, to produce data which is high quality, accurate and relevant., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Overall survival rates for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) continue to improve but the evidence concerning health-related quality of life (HrQoL) remains limited. The aim of this study was to describe the short-term HrQoL differences between patients undergoing surgical and palliative treatments for LRRC., Methods: An international, cross-sectional, observational study was undertaken at five centres across the UK and Australia. HrQoL in LRRC patients was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-CR29 and functional assessment of cancer therapy - colorectal (FACT-C) questionnaires and subgroups (curative versus palliative) were compared. Secondary analyses included the comparison of HrQoL according to the margin status, location of disease and type of treatment. Scores were interpreted using minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and Cohen effect size (ES)., Results: Out of 350 eligible patients, a total of 95 patients participated, 74.0 (78.0 per cent) treated with curative intent and 21.0 (22.0 per cent) with palliative intent. Median time between LRRC diagnosis and HrQoL assessments was 4 months. Higher overall FACT-C scores denoting better HrQoL were observed in patients undergoing curative treatment, demonstrating a MCID with a mean difference of 18.5 (P < 0.001) and an ES of 0.6. Patients undergoing surgery had higher scores denoting a higher burden of symptoms for the EORTC CR29 domains of urinary frequency (P < 0.001, ES 0.3) and frequency of defaecation (P < 0.001, ES 0.4). Higher overall FACT-C scores were observed in patients who underwent an R0 resection versus an R1 resection (P = 0.051, ES 0.6). EORTC CR29 scores identified worse body image in patients with posterior/central disease (P = 0.021). Patients undergoing palliative chemoradiation reported worse HrQoL scores with a higher symptom burden on the frequency of defaecation scale compared with palliative chemotherapy (P = 0.041)., Conclusion: Several differences in short-term HrQoL outcomes between patients undergoing curative and palliative treatment for LRRC were documented. Patients undergoing curative surgery reported better overall HrQoL and a higher burden of pelvic symptoms., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)

Introduction: Appropriate patient selection within the context of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) is key to good clinical outcomes. The current evidence base for factors that guide the decision-making process in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is limited to anatomical factors., Methods: A registry-based, prospective cohort study was undertaken of patients referred to our specialist MDT between 2015 and 2019. Data were collected on patients and disease characteristics including performance status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, the English Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles and MDT treatment decision. Curative treatment was defined as neoadjuvant treatment and surgical resection that would achieve a R0 resection, and/or complete treatment of distant metastatic disease. Palliative treatment was defined as non-surgical treatment., Results: In total, 325 patients were identified; 72.7% of patients with LARC and 63.6% of patients with LRRC were offered treatment with curative intent ( p  = 0.08). Patients with poor performance status (PS > 2; p  < 0.001), severe comorbidity ( p  < 0.001), socio-economic deprivation ( p  = 0.004), a positive predictive circumferential resection margin ( p  = 0.005) and metastatic disease ( p  < 0.001) were associated with palliative treatment. Overall survival in the curative cohort was 49 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.4-65.5) compared with 12 months (95% CI 9.1-14.9) in the palliative cohort ( p  < 0.001). The presence of metastatic disease was identified as a prognostic factor for patients undergoing curative treatment ( p  = 0.05). The only prognostic factor identified in patients treated palliatively was performance status ( p  < 0.001)., Conclusions: Our study identifies a number of preoperative, prognostic factors that affect MDT decision-making and overall survival.

Objective: To assess the outcomes and patterns of treatment failure of patients who underwent pelvic exenteration surgery for recurrent rectal cancer., Background: Despite advances in the management of rectal cancer, local recurrence still occurs. For appropriately selected patients, pelvic exenteration surgery can achieve long-term disease control., Methods: Prospectively maintained databases of 5 high volume institutions for pelvic exenteration surgery were reviewed and data combined. We assessed the combined endpoints of overall 5-year survival, cancer-specific 5-year mortality, local recurrence, and the development of metastatic disease., Results: Five hundred thirty-three patients who had undergone surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer were identified. Five-year cancer-specific survival for patients with a complete (R0) resection is 44%, which was achieved in 59% of patients. For those with R1 and R2 resections, the 5-year survival was 26% and 10%, respectively. Radical resection required sacrectomy in 170 patients (32%), and total cystectomy in 105 patients (20%). Treatment failure included local recurrence alone in 75 patients (14%) and systemic metastases with or without local recurrence in 226 patients (42%). Chemoradiotherapy before exenteration was associated with a significant (P < 0.05) improvement in overall 5-year cancer-specific survival for those patients with an R0 resection. Postoperative chemotherapy did not alter outcomes., Conclusions: R0 resection of the pelvic recurrence is the most significant factor affecting overall and disease-free survival. The surgery is complex and often highly morbid, and where possible patients should be given perioperative chemoradiotherapy. Further investigations are required to determine the role of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Aim: The surgical management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) has become widely accepted to afford cure and improve quality of life in this subset of patients. Thus far, traditional surgical and oncological markers have been used to highlight the success of surgical intervention. The use of patient-reported outcomes, specifically health-related quality of life (HRQoL), is sparse in these patients. This may be in part due to the lack of well-designed, validated instruments. This study identifies HRQoL issues relevant to patients undergoing surgery for LRRC, with the aim of developing a conceptual framework of HRQoL specific to LRRC to enable measurement of patient-reported outcomes in this cohort of patients., Method: Qualitative focus groups were undertaken at two institutions to identify relevant HRQoL themes. The principles of thematic content analysis were used to analysis data. NViVo10 was used to analyse data., Results: Twenty-one patients participated in six consecutive focus groups. Two patterns of themes emerged related to HRQoL and healthcare service delivery and utilization. Identified themes related to HRQoL included symptoms, sexual function, psychological impact, role and social functioning and future perspective. Under healthcare service and delivery and utilization the subdomain of disease management, treatment expectations and healthcare professionals were identified., Conclusion: This is the first qualitative study undertaken exclusively in patients with LRRC to ascertain relevant HRQoL outcomes. The impact of LRRC on patients is wide-ranging and extends beyond traditional HRQoL outcomes. The study operationalizes the identified outcomes into a conceptual framework, which will provide the basis for the development of a LRRC-specific patient-reported outcome measure., (Colorectal Disease © 2015 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

The standardization of surgical techniques supplemented with appropriate neoadjuvant chemoradiation has led to the decline in local recurrence rates of rectal cancer (LRRC) from 25-50% to 5-10%. The outcomes reported for surgical intervention in LRRC is encouraging, however, a number of controversies exist especially in the ultra-advanced and palliative setting. Incorporating health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in this field could supplement traditional clinical endpoints in assessing the effectiveness of surgical intervention in this cohort. This review aimed to identify the HRQOL themes that might be relevant to patients with LRRC. A systematic review was undertaken to identify all studies reporting HRQoL in LRRC. Each study was evaluated with regards to its design and statistical methodology. A meta-synthesis of qualitative and quantitative studies was undertaken to identify relevant HRQoL themes. A total of 14 studies were identified, with 501 patients, with 80% of patients undergoing surgery. HRQoL was the primary endpoint in eight studies. Eight themes were identified: physical, psychological and social impact, symptoms, financial and occupational impact, relationships with others, communication with healthcare professionals and sexual function. The impact on HRQoL is multifactorial and wide ranging, with a number of issues identified that are not included in current measures. These issues must be incorporated into the assessment of HRQoL in LRRC through the development of a validated, disease-specific tool., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Aim: Most studies that have reported outcomes after composite abdomino-sacral resection for locally advanced/recurrent rectal cancer have involved resections below the S2/3 disc space. Involvement of the sacrum above this level is uncommon and, until recently, was considered a contraindication to resection., Method: We report here a surgical technique to deal with high sacral involvement with an anterior approach and maintenance of sacropelvic stability., Results: The operative findings confirmed a locally perforated rectal cancer with an associated abscess cavity and direct invasion into S2. Given the likelihood that a complete dislocation of the sacrum would cause significant neurological damage and pelvic instability without oncological benefit, we opted for a partial high anterior sacrectomy with nerve preservation. The patient made an uncomplicated recovery without neurological deficit and was able to walk with the aid of crutches from postoperative day 3., Conclusion: While a high sacral transection is appropriate for some patients with locally advanced/recurrent rectal cancer, operative decisions and options should be tailored to each individual., (Colorectal Disease © 2013 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background: Locally recurrent rectal cancer relapses in the pelvis in up to 60 per cent of patients following resection. This study assessed the surgical and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent surgery for re-recurrent rectal cancer., Methods: Patients who underwent second-time resection of locally recurrent rectal cancer between 2001 and 2010 were eligible for inclusion. Data were collected on demographics, presentation of disease, preoperative staging imaging, adjuvant therapy, operative detail, histopathology and follow-up status (clinical and imaging) for the primary tumour, and first and second recurrences., Results: Thirty patients (of 56 discussed at the multidisciplinary meeting) underwent resection of re-recurrent rectal cancer. Postoperative morbidity occurred in nine patients but none died within 30 days. Negative resection margins (R0) were achieved in ten patients, microscopic margin positivity (R1) was evident in 15 and macroscopic involvement (R2) was found in five. Although no patient had distant metastatic disease, 22 had involvement of the pelvic side wall. One- and 3-year overall survival rates were 77 and 27 per cent respectively, with a median overall survival of 23 (range 3-78) months. An R0 resection conferred a survival benefit (median survival 32 (11-78) months versus 19 (6-33) months after R1 and 7 (3-10) months after R2 resection)., Conclusion: Surgical resection of re-recurrent rectal cancer had comparable surgical and oncological outcomes to initial recurrences in well selected patients., (Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Aim: There has been a steady increase in the number of centres that carry out resection of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). The aim of this review was to highlight the present management and suggest technical strategies that may improve survival and quality of life., Method: The review identified relevant studies from an electronic search of MEDLINE and PubMed databases between 1980 and 2011. References in published articles were also reviewed., Results: Surgical intervention offers the best hope to control LRRC but the proportion of patients offered this remains small. Certain contraindications previously considered to be absolute should now be thought of as relative., Conclusion: Awareness of the surgical options and a willingness to consider more aggressive options may result in more patients being considered for potentially curative resection., (© 2012 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2012 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Aim: The study aimed to determine current UK practice in the management of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC)., Method: An electronic based survey was sent to UK based Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland members to establish current management in this patient group. A total of 188 questionnaires were sent out to consultant surgeons in a total of 105 colorectal units., Results: Seventy-nine consultants from 69 units responded, giving an overall response rate from consultants of 42% and from colorectal units of 66%. In all, 688 patients were managed by multidisciplinary teams in the 12 months prior to the survey. Seventy-four (94% of responders) surgeons had experience of operating on patients with LRRC. Fifty-nine (74.6%) operated on one to three per year and four (5%) operated on more than 10 patients per year. Central and anterior recurrences were most commonly undertaken locally, with most complex recurrences being referred to a tertiary centre. Forty-seven (61%) surgeons worked to an algorithm., Conclusion: A small number of specialist units in the UK manage the full spectrum of LRRC but the majority of patients are managed in small volume centres. The survey provides a snapshot of current activity in the UK and may provide a stimulus for discussion about how to expand and improve the care of a technically challenging group of patients., (© 2012 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2012 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)