Patients' preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer

Decision-making preferences and regret in rectal cancer patients undergoing restorative proctectomy: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

How patients make treatment choices in rectal cancer is poorly understood and may affect long-term regret and satisfaction. The objective of this study is to characterize decision-making preferences and their effect on decisional regret in patients undergoing restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted in a single academic specialist rectal cancer center from October 2018 to June 2022. Adult patients who underwent restorative proctectomy at least one year prior were recruited. Health literacy was assessed using the BRIEF instrument. Decision-making preferences regarding cancer treatment were assessed using the Control Preferences Scale. Decisional regret regarding their choice of restorative proctectomy was assessed using the Decision Regret Score. Bowel dysfunction was measured using the low anterior resection syndrome score.

RESULTS

Overall, 123 patients were included. Health literacy was categorized as adequate in 63%, marginal in 25%, and limited in 12%. Patients with adequate health literacy were more likely to prefer a collaborative decision-making role compared with those with low health literacy (86% vs 65%, P = .016). Patients with incongruence between preferred and actual decision-making roles were more likely to report high regret (56% vs 25%, P = .003). Patients with major low anterior resection syndrome were also more likely to experience high regret compared with patients with no/minor low anterior resection syndrome (44% vs 25%, P = .036).

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of patients with rectal cancer undergoing restorative proctectomy do not have a decision-making role that is congruent with their preferences, and these patients experience a high degree of regret.

Comparison of the Colonic J-Pouch Versus Side-To-End Anastomosis Following Low Anterior Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate clinical, functional, and anorectal physiology outcomes of the side-to-end vs colonic J-pouch (CJP) anastomosis following anterior resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using multiple electronic databases and clinical trial registers and all studies comparing side-to-end vs CJP anastomosis were included. Peri-operative complications, mortality rate, functional bowel, and anorectal outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two observational studies with 1125 patients (side-to-end: n = 557; CJP: n = 568) were included. Of the entire functional bowel outcome parameters analyzed, only the sensation of incomplete bowel evacuation was significant in the CJP group at 6 months [OR: 2.07; 95% CI 1.06 - 4.02, P = .03]. Peri- and post-operative clinical parameters were comparable in both groups (total operative time, intra-operative blood loss, anastomotic leak rate, return to theater, anastomotic stricture formation and mortality). Equally, most of the analyzed anorectal physiology parameters (anorectal volume, anal squeeze pressure, maximum anal volume) were not significantly different between the two groups. However, anal resting pressure (mmHg) 2 years post-operatively was noted to be significantly higher in the side-to-end group than that of the CJP configuration [MD: -8.76; 95% CI - 15.91 - 1.61, P = .02].

DISCUSSION

Clinical and functional outcomes following CJP surgery and side-to-end coloanal anastomosis are comparable. Neither technique appears to proffer solution to low anterior resection syndrome in the short term but future well-designed; high-quality RCTs with long term follow-up are required.

Predictors of pre- and post-treatment bowel dysfunction severity in patients with rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatment of rectal cancer is frequently associated with low anterior resection syndrome. However, data concerning the contribution rectal tumors have on pretreatment bowel-dysfunction is scarce. We sought to evaluate the impact of the untreated rectal cancer on bowel-dysfunction and the relationship of pretreatment and post-treatment function.

METHODS

A prospective database of adults with rectal cancer at a single university-affiliated colorectal referral center from August 2018 to March 2022 was queried. Bowel-dysfunction was measured using the low anterior resection syndrome score questionnaire (categorized as no, minor, or major low anterior resection syndrome) which was provided to patients at their primary visit, and after treatment. Patients were included if they underwent rectal cancer treatment and had pre- and post-treatment low anterior resection syndrome measurements. Observed low anterior resection syndrome scores were compared to normative low anterior resection syndrome data for age and sex-specific distributions from published data. Multiple multinomial regression compared pre- and post-treatment low anterior resection syndrome scores.

RESULTS

Overall, 121 patients were included with mean age 62.0 years (standard deviation 12.3), 74% male, and mean tumor height 8.7 cm (standard deviation 5.72). The proportion of pretreatment observed low anterior resection syndrome were 48% no low anterior resection syndrome, 28% minor, and 24% major. Male and older patients were more likely to have worse than predicted low anterior resection syndrome categories (P < .05). On average, low anterior resection syndrome category did not change after treatment (P = .618) and pretreatment low anterior resection syndrome category was a significant independent predictor of post-treatment category (P = .037).

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment bowel-dysfunction in rectal cancer patients is common and significantly worse than predicted for older and male patients. Importantly, pretreatment bowel-dysfunction predicted postoperative function. These results may better inform the shared decision-making process.

Does the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Score Accurately Represent the Impact of Bowel Dysfunction on Health-Related Quality of Life?

BACKGROUND

Bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery is common, but its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is complex. Objective measures of bowel function may not be a good representation on the actual impact on HRQOL. Therefore, the objective of this study is to determine whether there are differences between patient-reported bowel-related impairment versus a standardized measure of bowel dysfunction on HRQOL.

METHODS

A prospective database starting in September 2018 of adult patients who had undergone sphincter preserving rectal cancer surgery up to October 2021 was queried. Patients were excluded if they had local recurrence, metastasis, persistent stoma, or had less than 1-year follow-up. Patients were administered the study instruments at their standard surveillance visit: patient-reported bowel-related quality of life(BQOL) impairment, HRQOL using the Short Form-36 (SF-36), and bowel dysfunction using the low anterior resection syndrome(LARS) score.

RESULTS

Overall, 136 patients were included. There were 43% with no LARS, 22% with minor LARS, and 35% with major LARS. For the BQOL, 26% of subjects reported no impairment, 57% minor impairment, and 17% major impairment. There was a high proportion of discordance between BQOL and LARS, with 23% minor or major LARS in patients with no BQOL impairment, and 32% with no or minor LARS with major BQOL impairment. The BQOL was associated with more changes in SF-36 scores compared to the LARS score.

CONCLUSIONS

The patient-reported BQOL is likely to be a more relevant outcome of interest to patients than the objective LARS score. This has important implications for shared decision-making for rectal cancer treatments.

Impact of patient choice and hospital competition on patient outcomes after rectal cancer surgery: A national population-based study

BACKGROUND

The objective of the current national cohort study was to analyze the correlation between choice and competition on outcomes after cancer surgery in rectal cancer.

METHODS

The analysis included all men who underwent rectal cancer surgery in the English National Health Service between March 2015 and April 2019 (n = 13,996). Multilevel logistic regression was used to assess the effect of a rectal cancer surgery center being located in a competitive environment (based on the number of centers within a threshold distance) and being a successful competitor (based on the ability to attract patients from other hospitals) on eight patient-level outcomes: 30- and 90-day emergency readmissions, 30-day re-operation rates, 90-day postoperative mortality, length of stay >14 days, circumferential resection margin status, rates of primary procedure with a permanent stoma, and rates of persistent stoma 18 months after anterior resection.

RESULTS

With adjustment for patient characteristics, patients who underwent surgery in centers located in a stronger competitive environment were less likely to have an abdominoperineal excision or a Hartman's procedure (odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.97, p = .04). Additionally, individuals who received treatment at hospitals that were successful competitors had a lower risk of a 90-day readmission following rectal cancer surgery (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97, p = .03) and were less likely to have a persistent stoma at 18 months after anterior resection (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.93, p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals located in areas of high competition are associated with better patient outcomes and improved processes of care for rectal cancer surgery.

Functional outcomes of intersphincteric resection in low rectal tumors

OBJECTIVES

Currently, sphincter-saving procedures are increasingly performed in the treatment of low rectal cancers. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent intersphincteric resection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional study. We evaluated the electronic data files of 29 patients who had intersphincteric resections at our institute between 2008 and 2018. Bowel function outcomes were assessed prospectively using Wexner incontinence score. Histopathological, surgical and functional outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean age of nine female and 20 male patients included in the study was 55.8 ± 12.8 (30-76) years. A tumor-free surgical margin was achieved in all patients. Anastomotic leakage was detected in two patients. Mean Wexner incontinence score of 20 patients who still had functional anastomosis was 8.35, whereas 65% of the patients (n= 13) had a good continence status. There was no relationship between the continence status and sex, tumor distance from anal verge, T stage, distal surgical margin, and lymph node involvement. Twenty-one patients underwent primary coloanal anastomosis and eight patients underwent two-stage coloanal anastomosis.

CONCLUSION

In the treatment of distal rectal cancer, adequate oncological surgery and relatively acceptable functional outcomes can be obtained with intersphincteric resection technique in suitable patients.

Bowel Dysfunction after Low Anterior Resection for Colorectal Cancer: A Frequent Late Effect of Surgery Infrequently Treated

BACKGROUND

The development of major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) after low anterior resection is severely detrimental to quality of life, yet awareness of it by clinicians and patients and the frequency of treatment of LARS is unclear.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients who underwent low anterior resection for sigmoid or rectal cancer at a tertiary center between 2007 and 2017 (n = 798) were surveyed in 2019 to assess LARS symptoms and report medications or treatment received for LARS. LARS scores were calculated (score range 0-42) and normalized to published data on LARS prevalence in the general population in Europe, stratified by age (<50 or ≥50) and sex.

RESULTS

Of the 594 patients (74%) who returned the survey, 255 (43%) were identified as having major LARS (LARS score ≥30). This prevalence was significantly higher than published normative data from Denmark and Amsterdam when stratified by age greater than or less than 50 and sex. Patients with major LARS infrequently reported current use of first-line therapies (antidiarrheal medications 32%, fiber supplements 16%, and both 13%). Only 3% reported receiving second-line therapy of transanal irrigations and/or pelvic floor rehabilitation, and only 1% had undergone third-line therapy of sacral nerve stimulator implantation.

CONCLUSION

Major LARS is common yet seemingly underrecognized by clinicians because less than half of patients are on first-line therapy and practically none are on second- and third-line therapies. Long-term follow-up of patients after low anterior resection, improved preoperative and postoperative education, and continued symptom assessment is necessary to improve treatment of major LARS.

Hospital variation in sphincter-preservation rates in rectal cancer treatment: results of a population-based study in the Netherlands

Background

This study aimed to examine the sphincter-preservation rate variations in rectal cancer surgery. The influence of hospital volume on sphincter-preservation rates and short-term outcomes (anastomotic leakage (AL), positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), 30- and 90-day mortality rates) were also analysed.

Methods

Non-metastasized rectal cancer patients treated between 2009 and 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Surgical procedures were divided into sphincter-preserving surgery and an end colostomy group. Multivariable logistic regression models were generated to estimate the probability of undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery according to the hospital of surgery and tumour height (low, 5 cm or less, mid, more than 5 cm to 10 cm, and high, more than 10 cm). The influence of annual hospital volume (less than 20, 20–39, more than 40 resections) on sphincter-preservation rate and short-term outcomes was also examined.

Results

A total of 20 959 patients were included (11 611 sphincter preservation and 8079 end colostomy) and the observed median sphincter-preservation rate in low, mid and high rectal cancer was 29.3, 75.6 and 87.9 per cent respectively. After case-mix adjustment, hospital of surgery was a significant factor for patients’ likelihood for sphincter preservation in all three subgroups (P < 0.001). In mid rectal cancer, borderline higher rates of sphincter preservation were associated with low-volume hospitals (odds ratio 1.20, 95 per cent c.i. 1.01 to 1.43). No significant association between annual hospital volume and sphincter-preservation rate in low and high rectal cancer nor short-term outcomes (AL, positive CRM rate and 30- and 90-day mortality rates) was identified.

Conclusion

This population-based study showed a significant hospital variation in sphincter-preservation rates in rectal surgery. The annual hospital volume, however, was not associated with sphincter-preservation rates in low, and high rectal cancer nor with other short-term outcomes.

Safety and efficacy of side-to-end anastomosis versus colonic J-pouch anastomosis in sphincter-preserving resections: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The application of side-to-end anastomosis (SEA) in sphincter-preserving resection (SPR) is controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of SEA with colonic J-pouch (CJP) anastomosis, which had been proven effective in improving postoperative bowel function.

Methods

The protocol was registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42020206764. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the safety or efficacy of SEA in comparison with CJP anastomosis. The outcomes included the pooled risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variables and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous variables. All outcomes were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) by STATA software (Stata 14, Stata Corporation, TX, USA).

Results

A total of 864 patients from 10 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Patients undergoing SEA had a higher defecation frequency at 12 months after SPR (WMD = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.14–0.26; P < 0.01) than those undergoing CJP anastomosis with low heterogeneity (I² = 0%, P = 0.54) and a lower incidence of incomplete defecation at 3 months after surgery (RR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09–0.86; P = 0.03). A shorter operating time (WMD = − 17.65; 95% CI, − 23.28 to − 12.02; P < 0.01) was also observed in the SEA group without significant heterogeneity (I² = 0%, P = 0.54). A higher anorectal resting pressure (WMD = 6.25; 95% CI, 0.17–12.32; P = 0.04) was found in the SEA group but the heterogeneity was high (I² = 84.5%, P = 0.84). No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of efficacy outcomes including defecation frequency, the incidence of urgency, incomplete defecation, the use of pads, enema, medications, anorectal squeeze pressure and maximum rectal volume, or safety outcomes including operating time, blood loss, the use of protective stoma, postoperative complications, clinical outcomes, and oncological outcomes.

Conclusions

The present evidence suggests that SEA is an effective anastomotic strategy to achieve similar postoperative bowel function without increasing the risk of complications compared with CJP anastomosis. The advantages of SEA include a shorter operating time, a lower incidence of incomplete defecation at 3 months after surgery, and better sphincter function. However, close attention should be paid to the long-term defecation frequency after SPR.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-021-02243-0.