Baseline quality of life predicts pelvic exenteration outcome

A systematic review of oncosurgical and quality of life outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is now the standard of care for locally advanced (LARC) and locally recurrent (LRRC) rectal cancer. Reports of the significant short-term morbidity and survival advantage conferred by R0 resection are well established. However, longer-term outcomes are rarely addressed. This systematic review focuses on long-term oncosurgical and quality of life (QoL) outcomes following PE for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed®, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE® and Embase® databases was conducted, in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were included if they reported long-term outcomes following PE for LARC or LRRC. Studies with fewer than 20 patients were excluded.

FINDINGS

A total of 25 papers reported outcomes for 5,489 patients. Of these, 4,744 underwent PE for LARC (57.5%) or LRRC (42.5%). R0 resection rates ranged from 23.2% to 98.4% and from 14.9% to 77.8% respectively. The overall morbidity rates were 17.8-87.0%. The median survival ranged from 12.5 to 140.0 months. None of these studies reported functional outcomes and only four studies reported QoL outcomes. Numerous different metrics and timepoints were utilised, with QoL scores frequently returning to baseline by 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that PE is safe, with a good prospect of R0 resection and acceptable mortality rates in selected patients. Morbidity rates remain high, highlighting the importance of shared decision making with patients. Longer-term oncological outcomes as well as QoL and functional outcomes need to be addressed in future studies. Development of a core outcomes set would facilitate better reporting in this complex and challenging patient group.

Differences in quality of life of patients undergoing total pelvic exenteration compared with standard rectal cancer surgery: a scoping review

AIM

Rectal cancer is often treated surgically with an anterior resection (AR) or abdominoperineal excision (APE). However, for patients with locally advanced disease or local recurrence total pelvic exenteration (TPE) surgery can be performed. The magnitude of surgery varies, and little research has been done to consider how quality of life (QoL) may vary according to the extent of surgery.

METHOD

A search was conducted on MEDLINE and PubMed for papers published from 2010 to 2021. Inclusion criteria consisted of observational studies comparing adult populations with rectal cancer undergoing APE, AR or TPE, reporting QoL using validated tools. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Outcomes of interest were global QoL, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, and constipation) and pain.

RESULTS

Seven studies including 1402 patients were analysed. QoL following TPE generally improves over time, back to baseline or better. AR and APE groups have similar patterns of improvement between baseline and 12 months after surgery, although scores declined in some studies at 12 months. TPE scores are lower overall, and the pattern of improvement differs, with patients tending to have worse nausea and vomiting symptoms. AR and APE patients tend to experience more lower GI symptoms.

CONCLUSION

It is not possible to draw firm conclusions based on the studies analysed. However, QoL returns to baseline following TPE, APE and AR. Preoperative QoL appears to be an indication of postoperative outcomes. Further observational studies are required.

Short-term outcomes of health-related quality of life in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer: multicentre, international, cross-sectional cohort study

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.

Pain, pain management and related outcomes following pelvic exenteration surgery: a systematic review

AIM

Pelvic exenteration surgery can improve survival in people with advanced colorectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to review pain intensity and other outcomes, for example the management of pain, the relationship between pain and the extent of surgery and the impact of pain on short-term outcomes.

METHOD

Electronic databases were searched from inception to 1 May 2021. We included interventional studies of adults with any indication for pelvic exenteration surgery that also reported pain outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-1.

RESULTS

The search found 21 studies that reported pain following pelvic exenteration [n = 1317 patients, mean age 58.4 years (SD 4.8)]. Ten studies were judged to be at moderate risk of bias. Before pelvic exenteration, pain was reported by 19%-100% of patients. Five studies used validated measures of pain intensity. No study measured pain at all three time points in the surgical journey. The presence of pain before surgery predicted postoperative adverse pain outcomes, and pain is more likely to be experienced in those who require wider resections, including bone resection.

CONCLUSION

Considering that pain following pelvic exenteration is commonly described by patients, the literature suggests that this symptom is not being measured and therefore addressed.

Utilising quality of life outcome trajectories to aid patient decision making in pelvic exenteration

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making in pelvic exenteration is a complex and detailed process, which must balance clinical, oncological and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), whilst addressing and valuing the patient priorities. Communicating patient-centred information on quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes is an essential component of this. The aim of this systematic review was to understand the impact of pelvic exenteration on QoL PROs over a longitudinal period and to develop QoL trajectories to support decision-making in this context.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched between 1^st January 2000 and 20^th December 2021 Studies reporting on PROs, including QoL, in adults undergoing pelvic exenteration were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I assessment tool. Data from studies reporting QoL using the same outcome measure at the same candidate timepoint were extracted and synthesised to develop a longitudinal QoL trajectory.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies consisting of 1370 patients were included in this review. QoL trajectories were constructed in the domains of physical function, psychological function, role function, sexual function, body image and general and specific symptoms. Decision-making was only assessed by one study, with satisfaction with decision-making reported to be high. There is an initial decline in QoL scores in the domains of physical function, role function, sexual function, body image and general health and symptoms deteriorating during the first 3-6 months post-operatively. Psychological function is the only QoL domain that remains stable throughout the post-operative period.

CONCLUSION

Mapping QoL trajectories provides a visual representation of post-operative progress, highlighting the enduring impact of pelvic exenteration on patients and can be used to inform pre-operative shared decision-making.

Quality of life after extended pelvic exenterations

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to compare health-related quality of life (QoL) and oncological outcome between gynaecological cancer patients undergoing pelvic exenteration (PE) and extended pelvic exenteration (EPE). EPEs were defined as extensive procedures including, in addition to standard PE extent, the resection of internal, external, or common iliac vessels; pelvic side-wall muscles; large pelvic nerves (sciatic or femoral); and/or pelvic bones.

METHODS

Data from 74 patients who underwent PE (42) or EPE (32) between 2004 and 2019 at a single tertiary gynae-oncology centre in Prague were analysed. QoL assessment was performed using EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC CX-24, and QOLPEX questionnaires specifically developed for patients after (E)PE.

RESULTS

No significant differences in survival were observed between the groups (P > 0.999), with median overall and disease-specific survival in the whole cohort of 45 and 49 months, respectively. Thirty-one survivors participated in the QoL surveys (20 PE, 11 EPE). No significant differences were observed in global health status (P = 0.951) or in any of the functional scales. The groups were not differing in therapy satisfaction (P = 0.502), and both expressed similar, high willingness to undergo treatment again if they were to decide again (P = 0.317).

CONCLUSIONS

EPEs had post-treatment QoL and oncological outcome comparable to traditional PE. These procedures offer a potentially curative treatment option for patients with persistent or recurrent pelvic tumour invading into pelvic wall structures without further compromise of patients´ QoL.

Pelvic exenteration: a review of current issues/controversies

Management of advanced or recurrent pelvic cancer has evolved dramatically over the past few decades. Patients who were previously considered inoperable are now candidates for potentially curative surgery and avoid suffering with intractable symptoms. Up to 10% of primary rectal cancers present with isolated advanced local disease and between 10% and 15% of patients develop localized recurrence following proctectomy. Advances in surgical technique, reconstruction and multidisciplinary involvement have led to a reduction in mortality and morbidity and culminated in higher R0 resection rates with superior longer-term survival outcomes. Recent studies boast over 50% 5-year survival for rectal with an R0 resection. Exenteration has cemented itself as an important treatment option for advanced primary/recurrent pelvic tumours, however, there are still a few controversies. This review will discuss some of these issues, including: limitations of resection and the approach to high/wide tumours; the role of acute exenteration; re-exenteration; exenteration in the setting of metastatic disease and palliation; the role of radiotherapy (including intra-operative and re-irradiation); management of the empty pelvis; and the impact on quality of life and function.

Patient-reported outcomes after pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer: A systematic review

AIM

Pelvic exenteration (PE) carries high morbidity. Our aim was to analyse the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in PE patients.

METHOD

Search strategies were protocolized and registered in PROSPERO. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched with the terms 'patient reported outcomes', 'pelvic exenteration' and 'colorectal cancer'. Studies published after 1980 reporting on PROMs for at least 10 PE patients were considered. Study selection, data extraction, rating of certainty of evidence (GRADE) and risk of bias (ROBINS-I) were performed independently by two reviewers.

RESULTS

Nineteen of 173 studies were included (13 retrospective, six prospective). All studies were low to very low quality, with an overall moderate/serious risk of bias. Studies included data on 878 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (n = 344), recurrent rectal cancer (n = 411) or cancer of unknown type (n = 123). Thirteen studies used validated questionnaires, four used non-validated measures and two used both. Questionnaires included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal questionnaire (n = 6), Short Form Health Survey (n = 6), European Organization for Research and Treatment for Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (n = 6), EORTC-CR38 (n = 4), EORTC-BLM30 (n = 1), Brief Pain Inventory (n = 2), Short Form 12 (n = 1), Assessment of Quality of Life (n = 1), Short Form Six-Dimension (n = 1), the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Sphincter Function Scale (n = 1), the Cleveland Global Quality of Life (n = 1) or other (n = 4). Timing varied between studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst the use of validated questionnaires increased over time, this study shows that there is a need for uniform use and timing of PROMs to enable multicentre studies.

Preoperative assessment and optimisation for pelvic exenteration in locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer: A review

The pre-operative phase in planning a pelvic exenteration or extended resections is critical to optimising patient outcomes. This review summarises the key components of preoperative assessment and planning in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LLRC) being considered for potential curative resection. The preoperative period can be considered in 5 key phases: 1) Multidisciplinary meeting (MDT) review and recommendation for neoadjuvant therapy and surgery, 2) Anaesthetic preoperative assessment of fitness for surgery and quantification of risk, 3) Shared decision making with the patient and the process of informed consent, 4) Prehabilitation and physiological optimisation 5) Technical aspects of surgical planning. This review will focus on patients who have been recommended for surgery by the MDT and have completed neoadjuvant therapy. Other important considerations beyond the scope of this review are the various neoadjuvant strategies employed which in this patient group include Total Neo-adjuvant Therapy and reirradiation. Critical to improving perioperative outcomes is the dual aim of achieving a negative resection margin in a patient fit enough for extended surgery. Advanced, realistic communication is required pre-operatively and should be maintained throughout recovery. Optimising patient's physiological and psychological reserve with a preoperative prehabilitation programme is important, with physiotherapy, psychological and nutritional input. From a surgical perspective, image based technical preoperative planning is important to identify risk points and ensure correct surgical strategy. Careful attention to the entire patient journey through these 5 preoperative phases can optimise outcomes with the accumulation of marginal gains at multiple timepoints.

Functional outcomes following pelvic exenteration: results from a prospective cohort study

AIM

Postoperative functional outcomes following pelvic exenteration surgery for treatment of advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to determine the short-term functional outcomes following pelvic exenteration surgery using objective measures of physical function.

METHOD

Patients undergoing pelvic exenteration surgery between January 2017 and May 2020 were recruited at a single quaternary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia. The primary measures were the 6-min walk test (6MWT) and the five times sit to stand (5STS) test. Data were collected at baseline (preoperatively), 10 days postoperatively and at discharge from hospital, and were analysed according to tumour type, extent of exenteration, sacrectomy, length of hospital stay, major nerve resection and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The cohort of patients that participated in functional assessments consisted of 135 patients, with a median age of 61 years. Pelvic exenteration patients had a reduced 6MWT distance preoperatively compared to the general population (P < 0.001). Following surgery, we observed a further decrease in 6MWT distance (P < 0.001) and an increase in time to complete 5STS (P < 0.001) at postoperative day 10 compared to baseline, with a slight improvement at discharge. There were no differences in 6MWT and 5STS outcomes between patients based on comparisons of surgical and oncological factors.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic exenteration patients are functionally impaired in the preoperative period compared to the general population. Surgery causes a further reduction in physical function in the short term; however, functional outcomes are not impacted by tumour type, extent of exenteration, sacrectomy or nerve resection.

Surgical treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer: a narrative review

Objective

To summarize the recent literature on surgical treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).

Background

LRRC is a heterogeneous disease that requires a multidisciplinary treatment approach. The treatment and prognosis depend on the site and type of recurrence. Radical resection remains the primary method for achieving long-term survival and improving symptom control. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy can reduce tumor volume and improve the R0 resection rate. Surgeons must clearly understand pelvic anatomy, develop a detailed preoperative plan, adopt a multidisciplinary approach for the surgical resection of the tumor as well as any invaded soft tissues, vessels, and bones, and ensure proper reconstruction. However, extended radical surgery often leads to a higher risk of postoperative complications and a low quality of life.

Methods

We searched English-language articles with keywords “locally recurrent rectal cancer”, “surgery” and “multidisciplinary team” in PubMed published between January 2000 to October 2020.

Conclusions

LRRC is a complex problem. Long-term survival is not impossible following multidisciplinary treatment in appropriately selected LRRC patients. The management of LRRC relies on a specialist team that determines the biological behavior of the tumor and evaluates treatment options through multidisciplinary discussions, thereby balancing the surgical costs and benefits, alleviating postoperative complications, and improving patients’ quality of life.

Preoperative nutritional status impacts clinical outcome and hospital length of stay in pelvic exenteration patients - a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Preoperative malnutrition is common in surgical oncology patients and can have negative effects on postoperative outcomes. Pelvic exenteration is major surgery associated with high morbidity rates. Associations between preoperative malnutrition, determined using the patient-generated subjective global assessment, and postoperative outcomes in this patient cohort has not yet been investigated.

AIM

To determine if preoperative nutritional status is associated with postoperative surgical and quality of life (QoL) outcomes after pelvic exenteration surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a quaternary hospital investigating 123 patients who had pelvic exenteration surgery from January 2017 to August 2019. Preoperative nutritional status and postoperative surgical and QoL outcomes were collected and analysed to determine any associations.

RESULTS

Overall, 49.6% of patients were female with a median age of 59 years. Forty patients (32.5%) were malnourished and 83 (67.5%) were well nourished before surgery. Well-nourished patients had a shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.034) and at 6 months post-surgery, presented with a significantly better physical and mental QoL score (p = 0.038 and p = 0.001 respectively). The regression analyses showed that intensive care unit (ICU) readmission rates were 7.19 times more likely to occur in malnourished patients (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative malnutrition is associated with increased length of stay, ICU readmissions and poorer QoL following pelvic exenteration. Nutrition screening, assessment and optimisation of management are essential in this patient cohort to improve patient outcomes. Future studies are needed to measure the effect of interventions and identify the most beneficial model of care for this complex patient group.

Pelvic exenteration: Pre-, intra-, and post-operative considerations

This review outlines the role of pelvic exenteration (PE) in the management of certain locally-advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancers. PE has undergone significant evolution over the past decades. Advances in pre-, intra-, and post-operative care have been directed towards achieving the 'holy grail' of an R0 resection, which remains the most important predictor of survival, quality of life, morbidity, and cost effectiveness following PE. Patient selection for surgery is largely determined by assessment of resectability. Pelvic magnetic resonance imaging determines the extent of local disease, while positron emission tomography remains the most accurate tool for exclusion of distant metastases. PE in the setting of metastatic disease or with palliative intent remains controversial. The intra-operative approach is based on the anatomical division of the pelvis into five compartments (anterior, central, posterior, and two lateral). Within each compartment are various possible dissection planes which are elected depending on the extent of tumour involvement. Innovations in surgical technique have allowed 'higher and wider' dissection planes with resultant en bloc excision of major vessels, major nerves, and bone. Evidence of improved R0 resection and survival rates with these techniques justifies the radicality of these novel approaches. Post-operative care for PE patients is technically demanding with a substantial hospital resource burden. Unique considerations for PE patients include the 'empty pelvis syndrome', urological complications, and management of post-operative malnutrition. While undeniably a morbid procedure, quality of life largely returns to baseline at six months, and for long-term survivors is sustained for up to five years.

The affect of personality traits and decision-making style on postoperative quality of life and distress in patients undergoing pelvic exenteration

AIM

Our aim was to identify whether personality traits and decision-making styles affect quality of life (QoL) outcomes and levels of psychological distress following pelvic exenteration (PE).

METHOD

Patients undergoing PE between 2008 and 2015 were identified from a prospectively maintained database at a single quaternary referral centre. Patients were invited to complete two validated questionnaires, with the Big Five inventory being used to assess personality traits and the Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire to determine decision-making style. Data on QoL outcomes and distress from the prospectively established database were utilized. QoL with respect to both physical and mental health components was measured using Short Form 36 version 2 (SF-36v2) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Colorectal (FACT-C). Distress was measured using the Distress Thermometer. Postoperative pain scores were also measured using SF-36v2.

RESULTS

Of the 93 patients eligible for participation, 42 returned the study questionnaire. On multivariate analysis, neuroticism was the most significant predictor of poorer QoL and increased levels of distress, consistent across all of the measures utilized and at the different time points used. Other personality traits showed an isolated statistically significant impact upon QoL. There were no significant findings with respect to decision-making style. Apart from neuroticism, the most significant predictor of QoL was the number of major complications for the patient.

CONCLUSION

Patients demonstrating neurotic personality traits show poorer QoL outcomes and higher levels of distress following PE. Identification of these patients would allow targeted pre- and postoperative intervention to improve outcomes following PE.

Survival outcomes after isolated local recurrence of rectal cancer and risk analysis affecting its resectability

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the clinical course and prognostic factors after isolated local recurrence (iLR) and to identify the predictive factors for R0 resection of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 76 patients with iLR who had undergone radical surgery for a primary tumor from 2003 to 2015.

RESULTS

The iLR rate was 2.5%. From 76 patients, 39 patients underwent R0 resection for iLR. Multivariate analysis revealed that initial open surgery, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and p/ypT ≥ 3 were poor prognostic factors after iLR as regard to the variables related to the primary tumor; and symptom presence at the time of iLR diagnosis, higher fixity, and no chemotherapy after iLR were associated with shorter overall survival after iLR, and R0 resection of LRRC was the only favorable prognostic factor for progression-free survival after iLR as regard to the variables related to LRRC. Higher tumor level, negative pathologic circumferential margin of the primary tumor, and low fixity of LRRC were favorable factors in achieving R0 resection of LRRC.

CONCLUSIONS

Early detection of iLR before symptom development, use of chemotherapy after iLR and R0 resection of LRRC should be considered to improve survival outcomes after iLR.

Is my life going to change?-a review of quality of life after rectal resection

Rectal resection is a common practice for colorectal surgeons. The causes of this procedure are varied. The most frequent is cancer, but also inflammatory bowel disease, endometriosis, and rectovaginal or rectourethral fistulas. The loss of the normal rectal reservoir function, urinary problems, sexual dysfunction or pelvic pain are frequently reported in patients after rectal surgery and these disorders markedly affect the overall quality of life (QoL). In the last decades, rectal surgery has radically changed, with the development of surgical techniques, and it has progressed from abdominoperineal resection (APR) with a permanent colostomy to sphincter-saving procedures. Nowadays, the use of sphincter-preserving surgery has increased, but all these surgical techniques can have important sequels that modify the QoL of the patients. Historically, surgical outcomes, such as complications, survival and recurrences, have been widely studied by surgeons. In the present day, surgical outcomes have improved, rectal cancer recurrence rate has decreased and survival has increased. For these reasons, it has begun to gain importance in aspects of the QoL of patients, such as body image, fecal continence and sexuality or urinary function. Therefore, physicians should know the influence of different techniques and approaches on functional outcomes and QoL, to be able to inform patients of the treatment benefits and risk of postoperative dysfunctions. The aim of our study is to review the current literature to determine to what degree the QoL of patients who underwent a rectal resection decreases, which domains are the most affected and, in addition, to establish the influence of different surgical techniques and approaches on functional outcomes.

A systematic review examining quality of life following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

AIM

Pelvic exenteration is a complex surgical procedure associated with considerable morbidity. Quality of life (QoL) is a crucial metric of surgical outcome. The aim of this review was to assess the QoL following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and local recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).

METHOD

A comprehensive search of studies published between 2000 and 2016 that examined QoL outcome following pelvic exenteration was performed. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Colorectal (FACT-C), SF-36 version 2, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, and Brief Pain Inventory assessments from these studies were reviewed.

RESULTS

Seven studies reporting on 382 patients were included. Baseline QoL was the strongest predictor of postoperative QoL. Female gender, total pelvic exenteration with or without bone resection, and positive surgical margins were associated with a reduced QoL. In the majority of patients, QoL gradually improved between 2 and 9 months post-operation.

CONCLUSION

QoL is an important patient-reported outcome. This review highlights factors associated with reduced postoperative QoL that should be borne in mind when surgical resection is being considered.