Prospective evaluation of bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: Bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery may significantly affect the quality of life. Our study aimed to estimate the incidence and characterize the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). METHODS: Prospective evaluation of patients treated with anterior resection for rectal cancer at two hospitals followed for 12 months after ileostomy reversal. The assessment was performed at baseline, after neoadjuvant treatment, and 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months after bowel transit reconstruction using several scores (Bristol scale, LARS score, Memorial Sloan Kettering bowel function instrument, Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life, EORTC-QLQ30, and a visual analogue scale). RESULTS: Of 205 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer, 78 were followed for 12 months after the exclusion criteria. "Major LARS" at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months was 55.6%, 47.3%, and 34.6%, respectively. At 12 months, patients experienced significantly less diarrhea, higher LARS score, more percentage of "major LARS," and worse MSK-BFI score compared to baseline. Regarding the quality of life at 12 months, 77.7% of patients with "major LARS" reported impact according to the anchor question of the LARS score; all FIQL subscales were significantly lower; the overall EORTC-QLQ30 score and the functional subscales significantly correlated with the LARS and the MSK-BFI scores. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel dysfunction with an impact on the quality of life is common after rectal cancer surgery. The knowledge of the potential consequences of the treatments is essential to be able to provide patients with the best possible information.

Clinical application of the LARS score: results from a pilot study.

PURPOSE: The impact of the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) on quality of life has underscored the importance of measuring functional outcomes after treatment for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the LARS score as a single questionnaire was useful enough in the clinical setting. METHODS: Patients treated by curative anterior resection for rectal cancer were sent the LARS score and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 questionnaires by post. Patients classified as "minor" and "major" LARS according to the LARS score were visited. Assessment included several scores (Vaizey score, Altomare Obstructed Defecation Syndrome score, Bristol scale). Patients with urgency/faecal incontinence also filled in a bowel diary and the FIQL score. RESULTS: Seventy patients returned the questionnaires, 49 of whom ("major LARS" and "minor LARS") were visited and 19 ("no LARS") were assessed by phone. Four different clinical patterns were identified. The group with urgency/faecal incontinence was the largest (33.8 %), whereas 17.7 % referred evacuatory dysfunction. The LARS score did not correctly evaluate 18 patients: 5 who were classified as no LARS but had severe evacuatory dysfunction and 13 patients categorized as LARS but without significant bowel dysfunction, 9 of whom were classified as major LARS. CONCLUSION: The LARS score may overestimate the impact on quality of life in some patients and may underestimate the impact of severe evacuatory dysfunction. Due to the complexity of the LARS, the LARS score as a single questionnaire might not be enough to assess bowel function. A complete clinical evaluation and additional questionnaires might be required.