Quality of life in patients with resectable rectal cancer during the first 24 months following diagnosis

AIM

An increasing number of patients survive rectal cancer, resulting in more patients living with the side-effects of the treatment. Exploring quality of life before and after treatment enables follow-up and additional treatment to be adjusted to the patient's needs. The aim of the study was to describe the quality of life during the 24 months following diagnosis and to identify risk factors for poor quality of life.

METHOD

This is a prospective cohort study of patients with rectal cancer followed up by extensive questionnaires. Patients from 16 surgical departments in Denmark and Sweden from 2012 to 2015 were included. The self-assessed quality of life was measured with a seven-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

A total of 1110 patients treated with curative intent were included, and the response rate at the 24-month follow-up was 71%. Patients with rectal cancer assessed their quality of life before start of treatment as poorer than that of a reference population. At the 12- and 24-month follow-up, the quality of life on group level had recovered to the same level as for the reference population. Risk factors for poor quality of life included bother with urinary, bowel and stoma function. A reference population was used for comparison.

CONCLUSION

The quality of life of patients with resectable rectal cancer recovered to levels comparable to a reference population 12 and 24 months after diagnosis. Our results indicate that the urinary, bowel and stoma function has an impact on quality of life.

Timely access to care in the treatment of rectal cancer and the effect on quality of life

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate if a delay in a patient's first contact with a healthcare professional, and any subsequent delay in diagnosis, affected self-assessed quality of life prior to start of treatment for rectal cancer.

METHOD

Questionnaires were administered when patients had been informed of the diagnosis and planned treatment. The primary end-point was self-assessed quality of life according to a seven-point Likert scale. The response variables were dichotomized and analysed by unadjusted and adjusted binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

A reported duration of symptoms longer than 4 months was found to be associated with a lower quality of life than a reported duration of symptoms of less than 3 months. Furthermore, a reported period of longer than 2 months from first contact with a healthcare professional to a diagnosis was found to correlate with lower quality of life compared with a period shorter than 2 months. However, when adjusting for possible confounding variables the duration of symptoms and time to diagnosis were not found to affect self-assessed quality of life. Several variables were found to have significant influence in the statistical model, including sense of coherence, the presence of negative intrusive thoughts, comorbidity, depressed mood, male sex and comorbidity.

CONCLUSION

One conclusion of our study is that further efforts to shorten delay in rectal cancer care with the aim of improving quality of life may be futile. To improve the patient's quality of life at diagnosis other interventions should be considered, such as screening for depression and/or negative intrusive thoughts.