SWOG S1820: A pilot randomized trial of the Altering Intake, Managing Bowel Symptoms Intervention in Survivors of Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of rectal cancer experience persistent bowel dysfunction after treatments. Dietary interventions may be an effective approach for symptom management and posttreatment diet quality. SWOG S1820 was a pilot randomized trial of the Altering Intake, Managing Symptoms in Rectal Cancer (AIMS-RC) intervention for bowel dysfunction in survivors of rectal cancer. METHODS: Ninety-three posttreatment survivors were randomized to the AIMS-RC group (N = 47) or the Healthy Living Education attention control group (N = 46) after informed consent and completion of a prerandomization run-in. Outcome measures were completed at baseline and at 18 and 26 weeks postrandomization. The primary end point was total bowel function score, and exploratory end points included low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score, quality of life, dietary quality, motivation, self-efficacy, and positive/negative affect. RESULTS: Most participants were White and college educated, with a mean age of 55.2 years and median time since surgery of 13.1 months. There were no statistically significant differences in total bowel function score by group, with the AIMS-RC group demonstrating statistically significant improvements in the exploratory end points of LARS (p = .01) and the frequency subscale of the bowel function index (p = .03). The AIMS-RC group reported significantly higher acceptability of the study. CONCLUSIONS: SWOG S1820 did not provide evidence of benefit from the AIMS-RC intervention relative to the attention control. Select secondary end points did demonstrate improvements. The study was highly feasible and acceptable for participants in the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. Findings provide strong support for further refinement and effectiveness testing of the AIMS-RC intervention.

Patient perspective on adapting to bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery.

AIM: Bowel dysfunction continues to be a clinically significant consequence of rectal cancer surgery, affecting quality of life. Rectal cancer patients value self-empowerment and adaptation to change to improve their quality of life in the context of bowel dysfunction. There are limited qualitative data addressing patients' perspectives on adapting to bowel dysfunction. The aim of this study is to evaluate patients' perspectives on adapting to bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery. METHOD: Adult patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery with sphincter preservation at a single colorectal referral centre from July 2017 to July 2020 were included. Patients were excluded if they had surgery <1 year since recruitment, received a permanent stoma or developed recurrence or metastasis. Semistructured interviews were held by phone and transcribed verbatim. Bowel dysfunction was assessed via the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score. Thematic analysis was used to identify adaptations which patients found helpful for improving bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery. RESULTS: A total of 54 patient interviews were included. The distribution of patients with no, minor and major LARS was 39%, 22% and 39%, respectively. Four main themes were conceived from the analysis: implementing lifestyle changes, fostering supportive relationships and self-compassion, communication and access to resources, and adapting to social and cultural challenges. Associated subthemes were identified, namely forward planning, self-compassion and addressing social stigma. CONCLUSION: Patients' valuable perspective on adapting to bowel dysfunction involve subtle themes which expand the existing literature. These themes inform a patient-centred approach, which may improve outcomes and quality of care for rectal cancer patients.

Challenges in evaluating pelvic floor physiotherapy based strategies in low anterior resection syndrome: a systematic review and qualitative analysis.

AIM: Physiotherapy is an established treatment strategy for low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). However, data on its efficacy are limited. This is in part due to the inherent challenges in study design in this context. This systematic review aims to analyse the methodology of studies using pelvic floor physiotherapy for treatment of LARS to elucidate the challenges and limitations faced, which may inform the design of future prospective trials. METHODOLOGY: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken through MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library, yielding 345 unique records for screening. Five studies were identified for review. Content thematic analysis of study limitations was carried out using the Braun and Clarke method. Line-by-line coding was used to organize implicit and explicit challenges and limitations under broad organizing categories. RESULTS: Key challenges fell into five overarching categories: patient-related issues, cancer-related issues, adequate symptomatic control, intervention-related issues and measurement of outcomes. Adherence, attrition and randomization contributed to potential bias within these studies, with imbalance in the baseline patient characteristics, particularly gender and baseline pelvic floor function scores. Outcome measurements consisted of patient-reported measures and quality of life measures, where significant improvements in bowel function according to patient-reported outcome measures were not reflected in the quality of life scores. CONCLUSION: Upcoming trial design in the area of pelvic floor physiotherapy for faecal incontinence related to rectal cancer surgery can be cognisant of and design around the challenges identified in this systematic review, including the reduction of bias, exclusion of the placebo effect and the potential cultural differences in attitude towards a sensitive intervention.

The effect of robotic surgery on low anterior resection syndrome in patients with lower rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many patients experience anorectal dysfunction after rectal surgery, which is known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Robotic systems have many technical advantages that may be suitable for functional preservation after low rectal resection. Thus, the study aimed to explore whether robotic surgery can reduce the incidence and severity of LARS. METHODS: Patients undergoing minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for low rectal cancer were enrolled between January 2015 and December 2020. The patients were divided into robotic or laparoscopic groups. The LARS survey was conducted at 6, 12 and 18 months postoperatively. Major LARS scores were analysed as the primary endpoint. In order to reduce confounding factors, one-to-two propensity score matches were used. RESULTS: In total, 342 patients were enrolled in the study. At 18 months postoperatively, the incidence of LARS was 68.7% (235/342); minor LARS was identified in 112/342 patients (32.7%), and major LARS in 123/342 (36.0%). After matching, the robotic group included 74 patients, and the laparoscopic group included 148 patients. The incidence of major LARS in the robotic group was significantly lower than that in the laparoscopic group at 6, 12, and 18 months after surgery. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, tumour location, laparoscopic surgery, intersphincteric resection, neoadjuvant therapy, and anastomotic leakage were independent risk factors for major LARS after minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for low rectal cancer. Furthermore, a major LARS prediction model was constructed. Results of model evaluation showed that the nomogram had good prediction accuracy and efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low rectal cancer may benefit from robotic surgery to reduce the incidence and severity of LARS. Our nomogram could aid surgeons in setting an individualized treatment program for low rectal cancer patients.

LASSO-based nomogram predicts the risk factors of low anterior resection syndrome for middle and low rectal cancer underwent robotic surgery.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to analyze the influencing factors of postoperative Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) in patients with middle and low rectal cancer who underwent robotic surgery. It also seeks to predict the probability of LARS through a visual, quantitative, and graphical nomogram. This approach is expected to lower the risk of postoperative LARS in these patients and improve their quality of life through effective prevention and early intervention. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This research involved patients with middle and low rectal cancer who underwent robotic surgery in the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from January 2015 to October 2022. A series of intestinal dysfunction symptoms arising from postoperative rectal cancer were diagnosed and graded using LARS scoring criteria. After the initial screening of all variables related to LARS with Lasso regression, they were included in logistic regression for further univariate and multivariate analysis to identify independent risk factors for LARS. A prediction model was then constructed. RESULTS: The study included 358 patients. The parameters identified by Lasso regression included obstruction, BMI, tumor localization, maximum tumor diameter, AJCC stage, stoma, neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), and postoperative adjuvant therapy (AT). Univariate and multivariate analyses indicated that a higher BMI, lower tumor localization, higher AJCC stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and postoperative adjuvant therapy were independent risk factors for total LARS. The AUC of the prediction nomogram was 0.834, with a sensitivity of 0.825 and specificity of 0.741. The calibration curve demonstrated excellent concordance with the nomogram, indicating the prediction curve fit the diagonal well. CONCLUSION: Higher BMI, lower tumor localization, higher AJCC stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and adjuvant therapy were identified as independent risk factors for total LARS. A new predictive nomogram for postoperative LARS in patients with middle and low rectal cancer undergoing robotic surgery was developed, proving to be stable and reliable. This tool will assist clinicians in managing the postoperative treatment of these patients, facilitating better clinical decision-making and maximizing patient benefits.

Bowel function, quality of life, and mental health of patients with high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia or T1 colorectal cancer after organ-preserving versus organ-resection surgeries: a cross-sectional study at a Chinese tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the postoperative intestinal functioning, quality of life (QoL), and psychological well-being of patients treated either with organ-preserving surgery (OPS) or organ-resection surgery (ORS) for high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HIN) or T1 colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at a single tertiary care center. In total, 175 eligible individuals with T1 CRC or HIN were divided into the OPS (n = 103) or ORS (n = 72) group based on whether the relevant segment of the intestine was preserved or resected. Intestinal function was evaluated using low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) scores. QoL was evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ)-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-CR29. Psychological status was evaluated using the Fear of Progression Questionnaire-Short Form and the Self-rating Anxiety and Depression scales. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize the influence of potential confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 130 of 175 patients (74.29%) responded to the questionnaires; 56 and 74 were in the ORS and OPS groups, respectively. Thirty-five patient pairs were successfully matched through PSM. The mild and severe LARS rates were significantly higher in the ORS group than in the OPS group (P < 0.001). The EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-CR29 scores revealed significantly better physical, role, and emotional functioning and an overall improved state of health (with multiple reduced symptom scores) in the OPS group than in the ORS group (P < 0.05). Significantly more patients were depressed in the ORS group than in the OPS group (P = 0.034), whereas anxiety or fear of disease progression did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: OPS for the treatment of HIN or T1 CRC was found to be more advantageous for patients in terms of improved intestinal function, QoL, and psychological status than was ORS.

Lesion size and location in deep infiltrating bowel endometriosis: Correlation with gastrointestinal dysfunction and pain.

INTRODUCTION: Presence of deep infiltrating bowel endometriosis (DE) is associated with occurrence of dyschezia and gastrointestinal symptoms. The degree of the disease, the lesion length, and the location, that is, lesion-to-anal-verge distance (LAVD) of DE, as well as the severity of the symptoms appear to be correlated. Nevertheless, it is not yet known to what extent the size and LAVD of bowel DE influence the severity of gastrointestinal symptoms. The present study aims to evaluate a possible correlation of lesion location (LAVD) and size (according to the #Enzian classification) with preoperative symptoms. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective study, premenopausal patients with histologically confirmed DE undergoing modified limited nerve-vessel sparing rectal segmental bowel resection or full-thickness discoid resection were evaluated. Extent of endometriosis was defined according to the #Enzian classification during surgery. The primary outcome measure was the correlation between lesion size and location with the GI function impairment reflected by presurgical lower anterior resection syndrome (LARS) scores; the secondary outcome was differences in presurgical numeric rating scale pain scores of dyschezia, dyspareunia, and dysmenorrhea as well as the impact of concomitant DE of other locations on symptom intensity. RESULTS: Of 162 consecutive patients, 151 were included in the final analysis. No significant correlation was observed between lesion size (#Enzian compartments C1/C2/C3) or LAVD and GI dysfunction reflected by LARS-like symptoms (p = 0.314 and p = 0.185, respectively) or pain symptoms (dyschezia, p = 0.440; dyspareunia, p = 0.136; and dysmenorrhea p = 0.221). Furthermore, no significant correlation was observed between lesion size and GI dysfunction when merging two severity grades (#Enzian compartments C1 plus C2 vs. C3; p = 0.611). In addition, LAVD did not affect the degree of dyschezia (p = 0.892), dyspareunia (p = 0.395), or dysmenorrhea (p = 0.705). Finally, the presence of concomitant DE lesions infiltrating the vagina/rectovaginal space (#Enzian compartment A) and/or sacrouterine ligaments/parametrium (#Enzian compartment B) did not alter the severity of preoperative dyschezia (p = 0.493) or dysmenorrhea (p = 0.128) but showed a trend toward affecting gastrointestinal function (p = 0.078) and was significantly associated with dyspareunia (p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: In present study, we could not find a correlation between colorectal DE lesion size and location (LAVD) and gastrointestinal function impairment or intensity of dyschezia and dysmenorrhea. Additional involvement of vagina/rectovaginal space (#Enzian compartment A) and/or sacrouterine ligaments/parametrium (#Enzian compartment B) exerts a significant impact on the degree of dyspareunia in women with colorectal DE.

Effect of a Mobile Health-Based Remote Interaction Management Intervention on the Quality of Life and Self-Management Behavior of Patients With Low Anterior Resection Syndrome: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: People who undergo sphincter-preserving surgery have high rates of anorectal functional disturbances, known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). LARS negatively affects patients' quality of life (QoL) and increases their need for self-management behaviors. Therefore, approaches to enhance self-management behavior and QoL are vital. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a remote digital management intervention designed to enhance the QoL and self-management behavior of patients with LARS. METHODS: From July 2022 to May 2023, we conducted a single-blinded randomized controlled trial and recruited 120 patients with LARS in a tertiary hospital in Hefei, China. All patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group (using the "e-bowel safety" applet and monthly motivational interviewing) or the control group (usual care and an information booklet). Our team provided a 3-month intervention and followed up with all patients for an additional 3 months. The primary outcome was patient QoL measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30. The secondary outcomes were evaluated using the Bowel Symptoms Self-Management Behaviors Questionnaire, LARS score, and Perceived Social Support Scale. Data collection occurred at study enrollment, the end of the 3-month intervention, and the 3-month follow-up. Generalized estimating equations were used to analyze changes in all outcome variables. RESULTS: In the end, 111 patients completed the study. In the intervention group, 5 patients withdrew; 4 patients withdrew in the control group. Patients in the intervention group had significantly larger improvements in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 total score (mean difference 11.51; 95% CI 10.68-12.35; Cohen d=1.73) and Bowel Symptoms Self-Management Behaviors Questionnaire total score (mean difference 8.80; 95% CI 8.28-9.32; Cohen d=1.94) than those in the control group. This improvement effect remained stable at 3-month follow-up (mean difference 14.47; 95% CI 13.65-15.30; Cohen d=1.58 and mean difference 8.85; 95% CI 8.25-9.42; Cohen d=2.23). The LARS score total score had significantly larger decreases after intervention (mean difference -3.28; 95% CI -4.03 to -2.54; Cohen d=-0.39) and at 3-month follow-up (mean difference -6.69; 95% CI -7.45 to -5.93; Cohen d=-0.69). The Perceived Social Support Scale total score had significantly larger improvements after intervention (mean difference 0.47; 95% CI 0.22-0.71; Cohen d=1.81). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings suggest that the mobile health-based remote interaction management intervention significantly enhanced the self-management behaviors and QoL of patients with LARS, and the effect was sustained. Mobile health-based remote interventions become an effective method to improve health outcomes for many patients with LARS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2200061317; https://tinyurl.com/tmmvpq3.

Incidence of low anterior resection syndrome and its association with the quality of life in patients with lower rectal tumors.

PURPOSE: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) causes devastating symptoms and impairs the quality of life (QOL). This study investigated the incidence and risk factors of LARS and their association with the QOL in patients with lower rectal tumors. METHODS: Patients who underwent anus-preserving surgery for lower rectal tumors between 2014 and 2019 and who had anal defecation between 2020 and 2021 were surveyed. The LARS score measured severity, and the QOL was evaluated using the Japanese version of the Fecal Incontinence Quality-of-Life Scale (JFIQL). The primary endpoint was the incidence of Major LARS, and the secondary endpoints were risk factors and association with the JFIQL. RESULTS: Of 107 eligible patients, 82 (76.6%) completed the LARS survey. The incidence of Major LARS was 48%. Independent risk factors included neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and a short interval (< 24 months after surgery; odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-19, both). The LARS score was moderately correlated with the JFIQL generic score (correlation coefficient: - 0.54). The JFIQL scores were significantly worse in the Minor and Major LARS groups than in the No LARS group. CONCLUSIONS: Major LARS was found in 48% of lower rectal tumors, and independent risk factors include neoadjuvant CRT and a short interval. The QOL was significantly impaired in patients with both Minor and Major LARS.

Incidence and risk factors of bowel dysfunction after minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery and discrepancies between the Wexner score and the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score.

PURPOSE: Bowel dysfunction after sphincter-preserving-surgery (SPS) impacts quality of life. The Wexner score (WS) and the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score (LS) are instruments for assessing postoperative bowel dysfunction. We analyzed the incidence of and risk factors for each symptom and examined the discrepancies between the two scores. METHODS: A total of 142 patients with rectal cancer, who underwent minimally invasive SPS between May, 2018 and July, 2019, were included. A questionnaire survey using the two scores was given to the patients 2 years after SPS. RESULTS: Tumor location and preoperative radiotherapy were independent risk factors for major LARS. Intersphincteric resection with a hand-sewn anastomosis (HSA) was an independent risk factor for high WS. Among the patients who underwent HSA, 82% experienced incontinence for liquid stools, needed to wear pads, and suffered lifestyle alterations. Of the 35 patients with minor LARS, only 1 had a high WS, and 80.0% reported no lifestyle alterations. Among the 75 patients with major LARS, 58.7% had a low WS and 21.3% reported no lifestyle alterations. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide practical data to help patients understand potential bowel dysfunction after SPS. The discrepancies between the WS and LS were clarified, and further efforts are required to utilize these scores in clinical practice.

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) and quality of life after colectomy.

PURPOSE: Clinical experience shows complaints similar to LARS not only after rectal surgery, but even after other types of colorectal surgery. Our aim was to investigate the occurrence of LARS after several types of colorectal surgery and its impact on quality of life. METHODS: We included adult patients who underwent colorectal surgery at our centre from January 2016 until March 2019, regardless of indication. A questionnaire was sent evaluating LARS and quality of life. RESULTS: The questionnaire was answered by 119 patients. We noticed highest LARS-score after rectum surgery (26.1), but also surprisingly higher LARS-score after right-sided colectomy (21.0) compared to left-sided colectomy (16.4). We report lowest quality of life after rectal surgery, but higher quality of life in left colectomy compared to right colectomy. CONCLUSION: LARS-score did not significantly correlate with type of procedure; however, higher LARS-scores were noted after right-sided colectomy compared to left-sided colectomy with similar impact on quality of life. We suggest CORS (colorectal resection syndrome) as a more suiting conceptual name instead of LARS to describe functional bowel complaints after colorectal surgery.

Sacral neuromodulation for low anterior resection syndrome: current status-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: It is estimated that approximately 70% of patients with rectal cancer who undergo surgery will suffer from Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS). In the last decades, sacral neuromodulation (SNM) has been widely used in urinary dysfunction and in faecal incontinence refractory to medical treatment. Its application in LARS has been investigated and has shown promising results. The paper's aim is to present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature and evaluate the therapeutic success of SNM in patients with LARS. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in international health-related databases: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed and SciELO. No restrictions on year of publication or language were applied. Retrieved articles were screened and selected according to set inclusion criteria. Data items were collected and processed for each included article and a meta-analysis was done according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was the number of successful definitive SNM implants. Further outcomes included changes in bowel habits, incontinence scores, quality of life scores, anorectal manometry data and complications. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were included, with 164 patients being submitted to percutaneous nerve evaluation (PNE) with 91% responding successfully. During follow-up of therapeutic SNM some devices were explanted. The final clinical success rate was 77% after permanent implant. Other outcomes, such as the frequency of incontinent episodes, faecal incontinence scores, quality of life scores were overall improved after SNM. The meta-analysis showed a decrease in 10.11 incontinent episodes/week; a decrease of 9.86 points in the Wexner score and an increase in quality of life of 1.56 (pooled estimate). Changes in anorectal manometry were inconsistent. Local infection was the most common post-operative complication, followed by pain, mechanical issues, loss of efficacy and haematoma. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This is the largest systematic review and meta-analysis concerning the use of SNM in LARS patients. The findings support the available evidence that sacral neuromodulation can be effective in the treatment of LARS, with significant improvement in total incontinent episodes and patients´ quality of life.

The impact of the anastomotic configuration on low anterior resection syndrome 3 years after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a national cohort study.

AIM: After low anterior resection, the bowel can be anastomosed in different ways. It is not clear which configuration is optimal from a functional and complication point of view. The primary aim was to investigate the impact of the anastomotic configuration on bowel function evaluated by the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score. Secondarily, the impact on postoperative complications was evaluated. METHOD: All patients who had undergone low anterior resection from 2015 to 2017 were identified in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Three years after surgery, patients were sent an extensive questionnaire and were analysed based on anastomotic configuration ('J-pouch/side-to-end anastomosis' or 'straight anastomosis'). Inverse probability weighting by propensity score was used to adjust for confounding factors. RESULTS: Among 892 patients, 574 (64%) responded, of whom 494 patients were analysed. After weighting, the anastomotic configuration had no significant impact on the LARS score (J-pouch/side-to-end OR 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.34). The J-pouch/side-to-end anastomosis was significantly associated with overall postoperative complications (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.06-1.95). No significant difference was seen regarding surgical complications (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.78-1.66). CONCLUSION: This is the first study investigating the impact of the anastomotic configuration on long-term bowel function, evaluated by the LARS score, in an unselected national cohort. Our results suggested no benefit for J-pouch/side-to-end anastomosis on long-term bowel function and postoperative complication rates. The anastomotic strategy may be based upon the anatomical conditions of the patient and surgical preference.

Should anorectal manometry be routine before stoma reversal in patients after an intersphincteric resection?

INTRODUCTION: Anorectal manometry (ARM) is sometimes performed before ostomy reversal in patients with an intersphincteric resection (ISR) to predict bowel function. However, no clinical predictive data exist regarding its utility. METHODS: The single-centre, retrospective data of ISR patients who had an ARM prior to ostomy reversal, and bowel functional assessment with the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) and Wexner incontinence scores at least 6 months after reversal, were considered. Correlation statistics were performed with each of the manometric parameters and functional outcome categories. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were included. The median basal and squeeze pressures were 41 and 100 mmHg, respectively. Any LARS (score ≥20) and major incontinence (score ≥11) was observed in 51.7% and 16.9%, respectively. None of the manometric parameters (median basal or maximum squeeze pressure, anal canal length, volume at urge and the ability to expel) correlated with LARS or incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Anorectal manometry (ARM) before ostomy reversal to predict bowel function at 6 months or beyond was not helpful in patients with an ISR and diverting stoma. No manometric parameter correlated with the LARS or Wexner incontinence scores.

An online educational and supportive care application for rectal cancer survivors with low anterior resection syndrome: A mixed methods pilot study.

AIM: Restorative proctectomy is commonly associated with significant bowel dysfunction, known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), which has a negative impact on patients' quality of life. We developed an online patient-centred application on LARS (eLARS) for rectal cancer survivors. The primary objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of eLARS for rectal cancer survivors with LARS following restorative proctectomy. The secondary objective was to explore participants' experiences with LARS and the eLARS application. METHODS: This was a mixed methods study, which included a feasibility and qualitative analysis. Participants were rectal cancer survivors who underwent restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer within 3 years, completed all adjuvant treatment, and suffered from bowel dysfunction postoperatively. Participants were given access to the application over a 2-month study period. Feasibility was defined as 75% of study participants using the application ≥4 times per month. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants after the study period and were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Our sample included eight rectal cancer survivors, five women and three men. The median age was 58.5 years (56.5-64.5). Most participants (75%) were >1-year post-restorative proctectomy. 75% of study participants used the application ≥4 times per month for 2 months. Our thematic analysis revealed that participants felt that they lacked access to credible information and emotional support around the time of ileostomy closure, and found that eLARS addressed these challenges. CONCLUSION: eLARS is a feasible educational and supportive care intervention for patients with LARS and has the potential to improve patients' quality of life.

'He's a surgeon, like I'm not going to waste his time': interviews to determine healthcare needs of people with low anterior resection syndrome after rectal cancer surgery.

AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the views of people on their healthcare needs when managing their bowel symptoms following an anterior resection. METHOD: One-to-one, semi-structured interviews were undertaken, after consent and completion of three questionnaires. Results were analysed using a modified framework analysis and presented narratively. RESULTS: Twenty three participants aged 38-75 years were interviewed; 10 were men. Most had low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) scores indicating 'major LARS', Bowel Function Index scores ranged from 28 to 65. The two most bothersome symptoms were faecal incontinence and unpredictable bowel function. Data were grouped into three broad themes: 'treatment consequences', 'strategies and compromises' and 'healthcare needs.' Each theme had four subthemes, such as 'bowel dysfunction' in the theme 'treatment consequences'. Bowel symptoms were common and persistent. Symptom management often required multiple interventions. Expressed healthcare needs included managing expectations through clinician-led information. Participants needed knowledgeable clinicians to enquire about and assess symptoms, provide and reiterate information as well as making an onward referral to enable symptom management. Peers improved the adaptation process through support and advice. Our findings indicate that participants' needs are not being fully met. CONCLUSION: People with LARS have unmet healthcare requirements needed to meet their individual goals. We propose these are addressed by using the acronym 'LARS': a Learned clinician who Asks and assesses bowel symptoms, Revisiting the topic to address new or persisting symptoms as well as Signposting, advising or referring onwards as needed.

Intervention pathways for low anterior resection syndrome after sphincter-saving rectal cancer surgery: A systematic scoping review.

AIM: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) has a large impact on patients' quality of life. Several heterogeneous intervention pathways are suggested in the literature. The steps and timing of the different steps in the pathways are unclear. This systematic scoping review aims to map the range of intervention pathways for LARS after sphincter-saving rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: A search was undertaken on four databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science). Any type of paper describing intervention pathways for patients with LARS following sphincter-saving surgery was included. Excluded were patients with a stoma, no full paper, no intervention pathway and not being written in English or Dutch. The review was registered with Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/JB5H8). Narrative synthesis of the results was performed by charting and summarising key results. RESULTS: A total of 373 records were screened and 12 papers were included. There was a high variability among the intervention pathways, including which patients should be included. The number of pathway steps ranged from 2-6. Most intervention pathways were treatment-led. Intervention options ranged from conservative measures to a permanent stoma. Pathway flow was highly variable and sometimes not well described, with different or no timings provided for the start, progression, or end of the pathways. Three studies discussed the use of a nurse to coordinate the pathway. CONCLUSION: This systematic scoping review shows that despite similarities in treatment options there are variations in which treatments are included, when treatments should be instigated, and even which patients should be treated.

Patient- and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity of short-course radiotherapy with a prolonged interval to surgery for rectal cancer.

AIM: A prolonged interval (>4 weeks) between short-course radiotherapy (25 Gy in five fractions) (SCRT-delay) and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer has been associated with a decreased postoperative complication rate and offers the possibility of organ preservation in the case of a complete tumour response. This prospective cohort study systematically evaluated patient-reported bowel dysfunction and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity for 8 weeks following SCRT-delay. METHOD: Patients who were referred for SCRT-delay for intermediate risk, oligometastatic or locally advanced rectal cancer were included. Repeated measurements were done for patient-reported bowel dysfunction (measured by the low anterior resection syndrome [LARS] questionnaire and categorized as no, minor or major LARS) and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity (according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0) before start of treatment (baseline), at completion of SCRT and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 weeks thereafter. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were included; 31 (61%) were men and the median age was 67 years (range 44-91). Patient-reported bowel dysfunction and physician-reported radiation-induced toxicity peaked at weeks 1-2 after completion of SCRT and gradually declined thereafter. Major LARS was reported by 44 patients (92%) at some time during SCRT-delay. Grade 3 radiation-induced toxicity was reported in 17 patients (33%) and concerned predominantly diarrhoea. No Grade 4-5 radiation-induced toxicity occurred. CONCLUSION: During SCRT-delay, almost every patient experiences temporary mild-moderate radiation-induced toxicity and major LARS, but life-threatening toxicity is rare. SCRT-delay is a safe alternative to SCRT-direct surgery that should be proposed when counselling rectal cancer patients on neoadjuvant strategies.

A prospective evaluation of the effect of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) on low anterior resection syndrome.

PURPOSE: Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is a surgical alternative to transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), transanal excision and proctectomy in the management of benign rectal polyps and early rectal cancers. Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) describes the constellation of symptoms which result from and are common after distal colorectal resection. Symptoms include incontinence, frequency, urgency and evacuatory dysfunction. The aim of the current study was to prospectively evaluate pre- and post-operative LARS in patients who undergo TAMIS. METHODS: We conducted a prospective analysis of a consecutive series of patients who underwent TAMIS at our institution between January 2021 and February 2022. A LARS questionnaire was undertaken preoperatively, at 1 month and at 6 months post-operatively. RESULTS: Twenty patients were recruited to this pilot study. The mean age was 63 ± 12 years, 11 of the patients were male, mean pre-operative BMI was 29 ± 6 kg/m2, and 30% (n = 6) of patients underwent TAMIS for an invasive rectal cancer, with all patients receiving an R0 resection. Mean distance from the anal verge was 5.7 ± 3.2 cm, and mean lesion diameter was 46 ± 20.5 mm. A statistically significant interval reduction was observed between preoperative (20.3 ± 12.9) and 6-month post-operative (12.6 ± 9.7) LARS scores (p = 0.02) and also between 1-month (18.2 ± 10.6) and 6-month post-operative scores (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We noted a high prevalence of LARS across our cohort preoperatively, and this had improved significantly at 6-month review post-TAMIS. This study reaffirms the safety and efficacy of TAMIS for the treatment of early rectal neoplasia.

Early closure compared to late closure of temporary ileostomy in rectal cancer: a randomized controlled trial study.

BACKGROUND: A temporary loop ileostomy is one of the most common methods for the prevention of anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer patients who underwent low anterior resection. However, the optimal timing of loop ileostomy reversal remains unknown. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the debilitating complications caused by early closure of ileostomy in comparison with late closure in rectal cancer patients. DESIGN: A randomized, controlled, unblinded, and monocentric trial. METHODS: A total of 104 rectal cancer patients were randomly assigned to the case group of early closure of ileostomy (n = 50) and the control group of late closure of ileostomy (n = 54). This trial was undertaken in a single colorectal institution, a university-affiliated teaching hospital in Tehran, Iran. Randomization and allocation to the trial group were conducted by using variable block randomization based on quadruple numbers. The primary endpoint of this trial was determined by the complications of early ileostomy closure versus those of late closure in rectal cancer patients who had undergone low anterior resection. In early closure, loop ileostomy is reversed 2-3 weeks after the first two courses of adjuvant chemotherapy, while in late closure, the ileostomy is reversed 2-3 weeks after the last course of adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: Follow-up of 1 year demonstrated a reduction in the risk of complications and an improved quality of life in patients with rectal cancer following low anterior resection and chemotherapy (neoadjuvant and adjuvant) in the case group but did not reach a significant difference (p = 0.555). In addition, there was no significant difference in perioperative outcomes, such as blood loss, operative time, readmission, and reoperation; also, no statistically significant differences were reported between the groups in patients' quality of life or LARS score. CONCLUSION: In summary, it seems that early closure of ileostomy is not better than late closure in improving patients' quality of life with rectal cancer following low anterior resection and chemotherapy (neoadjuvant and adjuvant); no statistical difference was observed for reduction of risk of ostomy complications. Thus, neither of these methods (early closure versus late closure) is superior to the other, and controversy still exists. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: IRCT20201113049373N1.