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.

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.

Pelvic Floor Rehabilitation After Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial (FORCE Trial).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of PFR after LAR compared to usual care without PFR. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Functional complaints, including fecal incontinence, often occur after LAR for rectal cancer. Controversy exists about the effectiveness of PFR in improving such postoperative functional outcomes. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial involving 17 Dutch centers. Patients after LAR for rectal cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to usual care or PFR and stratified by sex and administration of neoadjuvant therapy. Selection was not based on severity of complaints at baseline. Baseline measurements were taken 3 months after surgery without temporary stoma construction or 6 weeks after stoma closure. The primary outcome measure was the change in Wexner incontinence scores 3 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes were fecal incontinence-related quality of life, colorectal-specific quality of life, and the LARS scores. RESULTS: Between October 2017 and March 2020, 128 patients were enrolled and 106 randomly assigned (PFR n = 51, control n = 55); 95 patients (PFR n = 44, control n = 51) were assessable for final analysis. PFR did not lead to larger changes in Wexner incontinence scores in nonselected patients after LAR compared to usual care [PFR: -2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.3 to -1.4, control: -1.3, 95% CI -2.2 to -0.4, P = 0.13]. However, PFR was associated with less urgency at follow-up (odds ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.86). Patients without near-complete incontinence reported larger Wexner score improvements after PFR (PFR: -2.1, 95% CI -3.1 to -1.1, control: -0.7, 95% CI -1.6 to 0.2, P = 0.045). For patients with at least moderate incontinence PFR resulted in relevant improvements in all fecal incontinence-related quality of life domains, while the control group deteriorated. These improvements were even larger when patients with near-complete incontinence were excluded. No serious adverse PFR-related events occurred. CONCLUSION: No benefit was found of PFR in all patients but several subgroups were identified that did benefit from PFR, such as patients with urgency or with at least moderate incontinence and no near-complete incontinence. A selective referral policy (65%-85% of all patients) is suggested to improve postoperative functional outcomes for patients after LAR for rectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registration, NTR5469, registered on 3 September 2015.

Predictors of undergoing multivisceral resection, margin status and survival in Dutch patients with locally advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this nationwide observational study was to evaluate factors associated with multivisceral resection (MVR), margin status and overall survival in locally advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with (y)pT4, cM0 CRC between 2006 and 2017 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Cox-proportional hazards modelling was used for survival analysis, stratified for T4a and T4b. Annual hospital volume cut-off was 75 for colon and 40 for rectal resections. RESULTS: A total of 11.930 patients were included and 2410 patients (20.2%) underwent MVR. Factors associated with MVR for colon and rectal cancer besides cT4 category were more recent diagnosis (OR 3.61, CI 95% 3.06-4.25 (colon) and OR 2.72, CI 95% 1.82-4.08 (rectum)) and high hospital volume (OR 1.20, CI 95% 1.05-1.38 (colon) and OR 2.17, CI 95% 1.55-3.04 (rectum)). Patients ≥70 year were less likely to undergo MVR for colon cancer (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.90). Risk factors for incomplete resection were cT4 (OR 3.08, CI 95% 2.35-4.04 (colon) and OR 1.82, CI 95% 1.13-2.94 (rectum)) and poor/undifferentiated tumors (OR 1.41, CI 95% 1.14-1.72 (colon) and OR 1.69, CI 95% 1.05-2.74 (rectum)). More recent diagnosis was independently associated with less incomplete resections in colon cancer (OR 0.58, CI 95% 0.40-0.76). Independent predictors of survival were age, resection margin, nodal status and adjuvant chemotherapy, but not MVR. CONCLUSION: Treatment of locally advanced CRC with MVR at population level was influenced by year of diagnosis and hospital volume. Margin status in colon cancer improved substantially over time.

Transanal total mesorectal excision and low anterior resection syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery is common, with some experiencing low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is common after rectal cancer surgery. This study examined if transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has a similar risk of LARS and altered quality of life (QoL) as patients who undergo low anterior resection (LAR). METHODS: Patients who underwent TaTME or traditionally approached total mesorectal excision in a prospective colorectal cancer cohort study (2014-2019) were propensity score matched in a 1 : 1 ratio. LARS and QoL scores were assessed before and after surgery with a primary endpoint of major LARS at 12 months analysed for possible association between factors by logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 61 TaTME and 317 LAR patients eligible, 55 from each group were propensity score matched. Higher LARS scores (30.6 versus 25.4, P = 0.010) and more major LARS (65 versus 42 per cent, P = 0.013; OR 2.64, 95 per cent c.i. 1.22 to 5.71) were reported after TaTME. Additionally, QoL score differences (body image, bowel frequency, and embarrassment) were worse in the TaTME group. CONCLUSIONS: TaTME may be associated with more severe bowel dysfunction than traditional approaches to rectal cancer.

Functional complaints and quality of life after transanal total mesorectal excision: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal excision (TME) gives excellent oncological results in rectal cancer treatment, but patients may experience functional problems. A novel approach to performing TME is by single-port transanal minimally invasive surgery. This systematic review evaluated the functional outcomes and quality of life after transanal and laparoscopic TME. METHODS: A comprehensive search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and the trial registers was conducted in May 2019. PRISMA guidelines were used. Data for meta-analysis were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 11 660 studies were identified, from which 14 studies and six conference abstracts involving 846 patients (599 transanal TME, 247 laparoscopic TME) were included. A substantial number of patients experienced functional problems consistent with low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Meta-analysis found no significant difference in major LARS between the two approaches (risk ratio 1·13, 95 per cent c.i. 0·94 to 1·35; P = 0·18). However, major heterogeneity was present in the studies together with poor reporting of functional baseline assessment. CONCLUSION: No differences in function were observed between transanal and laparoscopic TME.

ANTECEDENTES: La escisión total del mesorrecto (total mesorectal excision, TME) proporciona excelentes resultados oncológicos en el tratamiento del cáncer de recto, pero los pacientes pueden presentar trastornos funcionales. Un abordaje novedoso para realizar la TME es mediante cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva de puerto único. En esta revisión sistemática se evaluaron los resultados funcionales y la calidad de vida después de TME transanal (TaTME) y TME laparoscópica (LapTME). MÉTODOS: En mayo de 2019 se realizó una búsqueda exhaustiva en las bases de datos de Pubmed, Biblioteca Cochrane, EMBASE y en los registros de ensayos clínicos. Se utilizaron las guías PRISMA. Los datos para el metaanálisis se agruparon utilizando un modelo de efectos aleatorios. RESULTADOS: Se identificaron un total de 11.660 estudios, de los cuales se incluyeron 14 estudios y 6 resúmenes de congresos con 846 pacientes (599 TaTME/247 LapTME). Un número sustancial de pacientes presentó trastornos funcionales consistentes con el síndrome de resección anterior baja (low anterior resection syndrome, LARS). El metaanálisis no encontró diferencias significativas en los porcentajes de LARS grave entre los dos abordajes (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR 1,13; i.c. del 95% 0,94-1,35; P = 0,18). Sin embargo, los estudios globalmente presentaron una gran heterogeneidad, así como una deficiente información sobre la evaluación funcional basal. CONCLUSIÓN: No se observaron diferencias en la función entre TaTME y LapTME.

Pelvic floor rehabilitation to improve functional outcome and quality of life after surgery for rectal cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (FORCE trial).

BACKGROUND: After low anterior resection (LAR), up to 90% of patients develop anorectal dysfunction. Especially fecal incontinence has a major impact on the physical, psychological, social, and emotional functioning of the patient but also on the Dutch National Healthcare budget with more than €2000 spent per patient per year. No standardized treatment is available to help these patients. Common treatment nowadays is focused on symptom relief, consisting of lifestyle advices and pharmacotherapy with bulking agents or antidiarrheal medication. Another possibility is pelvic floor rehabilitation (PFR), which is one of the most important treatments for fecal incontinence in general, with success rates of 50-80%. No strong evidence is available for the use of PFR after LAR. This study aims to prove a beneficial effect of PFR on fecal incontinence, quality of life, and costs in rectal cancer patients after sphincter-saving surgery compared to standard treatment. METHODS: The FORCE trial is a multicenter, two-armed, randomized clinical trial. All patients that underwent LAR are recruited from the participating hospitals and randomized for either standard treatment or a standardized PFR program. A total of 128 patients should be randomized. Optimal blinding is not possible. Stratification will be done in variable blocks (gender and additional radiotherapy). The primary endpoint is the Wexner incontinence score; secondary endpoints are health-related and fecal-incontinence-related QoL and cost-effectiveness. Baseline measurements take place before randomization. The primary endpoint is measured 3 months after the start of the intervention, with a 1-year follow-up for sustainability research purposes. DISCUSSION: The results of this study may substantially improve postoperative care for patients with fecal incontinence or anorectal dysfunction after LAR. This section provides insight in the decisions that were made in the organization of this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registration, NTR5469, registered on 03-09-2015. Protocol FORCE trial V18, 19-09-2019. Sponsor Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen.

The low anterior resection syndrome in a reference population: prevalence and predictive factors in the Netherlands.

AIM: The low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) severely affects quality of life (QoL) after colorectal cancer surgery. There are no data about these complaints and the association with QoL in a reference population. The aim of this study was to assess LARS and the association with QoL in a reference population. METHODS: Six hundred patients who visited the outpatient clinic because of general or trauma surgical indications were asked to participate in this study. They received an invitation letter containing three validated questionnaires to assess LARS (assessed with the LARS score) and both general [European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30] and colorectal-specific (EORTC QLQ-CR29) QoL. RESULTS: Five hundred and one respondents could be included for the analyses. The median age at inclusion was 68 years and 47.3% were men. Major LARS was observed in 15% of patients (11.4% in men and 18.9% in women, P = 0.021). Women reported more urgency (P = 0.070) and incontinence for both flatus (P < 0.001) and stool (P = 0.063) compared to men. In univariate analyses, women reported major LARS significantly more often than men (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.10-3.01). Patients with major LARS scored significantly worse in most QoL domains compared to patients with no/minor LARS. CONCLUSION: This is the first study demonstrating major LARS and the association with QoL in a reference population of patients without colorectal cancer. Our data can assist in the interpretation of LARS in past and future research about abdominal complaints after colorectal cancer surgery.

What you should know about the low anterior resection syndrome - Clinical recommendations from a patient perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Functional bowel complaints, referred to as Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS), are common after sphincter-saving surgical procedures and have a severe impact on quality of life (QoL). Care for LARS patients is complex and surgeons underestimate or misinterpret its associated symptoms. This study aimed to explore the impact of LARS from a patient perspective facilitating the construction of a set of recommendations improving current care stratagems. METHODS: In a non-academic Dutch teaching hospital, three focus group sessions were conducted with 16 patients (males = 50%) who had undergone colorectal surgery between 2012 and 2017. A trained moderator orchestrated patient-discussion regarding illness perception and health-care needs. Transcripts were analysed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: illness perception, preoperative care and postoperative supportive care. Specific attention and screening for LARS is deemed necessary for breaking the taboo surrounding it. Extension of preoperative counselling on the normal postoperative course, including ways to optimize social support, were identified as crucial. After discharge, patients experienced a lack of supportive care regarding functional complaints and did not know who to counsel. In addition, they felt intrinsically motivated to actively prepare for surgery, i.e. by participating in prehabilitation programs. CONCLUSION: Exploring perspectives in LARS patients resulted in the identification of potential improvements in current care pathways. Recommendations on ways to improve information provision, screening of LARS and methods to intervene in the gap of supportive care after discharge are presented. We recommend to implement these measures as QoL of patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery may be improved.