Pelvic Floor Rehabilitation After Rectal Cancer Surgery One-year follow-up of a Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial (FORCE trial).

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effects of pelvic floor rehabilitation (PFR) after low anterior resection (LAR) at one-year follow-up. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: After LAR, with restoration of bowel continuity, up to 90% of patients develop anorectal dysfunction, significantly impacting their quality of life. However, standardized treatment is currently unavailable. The FORCE trial demonstrated the beneficial effects of PFR after three months regarding specific domains of the Fecal Incontinence QoL (FIQL) questionnaire and urgency compared to usual care. METHODS: The FORCE trial is a multicenter, two-arm, randomized clinical trial. All patients undergoing LAR were randomly assigned to receive either usual care or a standardized PFR program. The primary outcome measure is the Wexner incontinence score, and the secondary endpoints included the LARS score, the EORTC colorectal-specific QoL questionnaire, and health- and fecal incontinence-related QoL. Assessments were conducted at baseline before randomization, at three months and one-year follow-ups. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients were included (PFR: n=40, control: n=46). After one year, PFR did not significantly improve Wexner incontinence scores (PFR: -3.33, 95% CI -4.41 to -2.26, control: -2.54, 95% CI -3.54 to -1.54, P=0.30). Similar to the three-month follow-up, patients without near-complete incontinence at baseline showed sustained improvement in fecal incontinence (PFR: -2.82, 95% CI -3.86 to -1.76, control: -1.43, 95% CI -2.36 to -0.50, P=0.06). Significant improvement was reported in the FIQL domains Lifestyle (PFR: 0.51, control: -0.13, P=0.03) and Coping and Behavior (PFR: 0.40, control: -0.24, P=0.01). CONCLUSION: At one-year follow-up, no significant differences were found in fecal incontinence scores; however, PFR was associated with improved fecal incontinence related QoL compared to usual care.

Long-Term Functional Outcome After Early vs. Late Stoma Closure in Rectal Cancer Surgery: Sub-analysis of the Multicenter FORCE Trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of early stoma closure on bowel function after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients participating in the FORCE trial who underwent LAR with protective stoma were included in this study. Patients were subdivided into an early closure group (< 3 months) and late closure group (> 3 months). Endpoints of this study were the Wexner Incontinence, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), EORTC QLQ-CR29, and fecal incontinence quality of life (FIQL) scores at 1 year. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2020, 38 patients had received a diverting stoma after LAR for rectal cancer and could be included. There was no significant difference in LARS (31 vs. 30, p = 0.63) and Wexner score (6.2 vs. 5.8, p = 0.77) between the early and late closure groups. Time to stoma closure in days was not a predictor for LARS (R2 = 0.001, F (1,36) = 0.049, p = 0.83) or Wexner score (R2 = 0.008, F (1,36) = 0.287, p = 0.60) after restored continuity. There was no significant difference between any of the FIQL domains of lifestyle, coping, depression, and embarrassment. In the EORTC QLQ-29, body image scored higher in the late closure group (21.3 vs. 1.6, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Timing of stoma closure does not appear to affect long-term bowel function and quality of life, except for body image. To improve functional outcome, attention should be focused on other contributing factors.

Implementation of Pelvic Floor Rehabilitation after rectal cancer surgery: A qualitative study guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

BACKGROUND: Pelvic Floor Rehabilitation (PFR) is effective in a selection of patients with low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) after rectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to identify barriers and enablers to prepare for successful implementation into clinical practice. METHODS: A qualitative study was performed, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Individual interviews (n = 27) and two focus groups were conducted to synthesize the perspectives of rectal cancer patients, pelvic floor (PF) physiotherapists, and medical experts. RESULTS: Barriers were found to be the absence of guidelines about LARS treatment, underdeveloped network care, suboptimal patient information, and expectation management upfront to PFR. Financial status is frequently a barrier because insurance companies do not always reimburse PFR. Enablers were the current level of evidence for PFR, the positive relationship between patients and PF physiotherapists, and the level of self-motivation by patients. CONCLUSION: The factors identified in our study play a crucial role in ensuring a successful implementation of PFR after rectal cancer surgery.