Outcomes of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary rectal cancer: Overall survival and quality of life.

INTRODUCTION: Radical surgery with pelvic exenteration offers the only potential for cure in patients with locally advanced primary rectal cancer. This study describes the clinical and patient-reported quality of life outcomes over 12 months for patients having pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary rectal cancer at a specialised centre for pelvic exenteration. METHODS: Clinical data of consecutive patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary rectal cancer and patient-reported outcomes were collected at baseline, hospital discharge and at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Patient-reported outcomes included cancer-specific quality of life (QoL) and physical and mental health status. Quality of life trajectories were modelled over the 12 months from the date of surgery using linear mixed models. RESULTS: 104 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer underwent pelvic exenteration at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, between December 1994 and October 2014. Complete soft tissue exenteration was performed in 38%. A clear margin was obtained in 86% with a 62% overall five-year survival. QoL outcome questionnaires were completed by 62% of patient cohort. The average FACT-C score returned to pre-surgery QoL by 2 months after surgery, and the average QoL continued to increase slowly over the 12 months. CONCLUSION: Our results support an aggressive approach to advanced primary rectal cancer and lend weight to the oncological role of pelvic exenteration for this group of patients. Quality of life improves rapidly after pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary rectal cancer and continues to improve over the first year.

Quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes following exenteration for pelvic malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration is highly radical surgery offering the only potential cure for locally advanced pelvic cancer. This study compared quality of life and other relevant patient-reported outcomes over 12 months for patients who did and those who did not undergo pelvic exenteration. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for consideration of pelvic exenteration completed clinical and patient-reported outcome assessments at baseline, hospital discharge (exenteration patients only), and 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Outcomes included cancer-specific quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Colorectal; FACT-C), physical and mental health status (Short Form 36 version 2), psychological distress (Distress Thermometer), and pain (study-specific composite) scores. Linear mixed modelling compared trajectories between exenteration and no-exenteration groups. RESULTS: Among 182 patients, 148 (81.3 per cent) proceeded to exenteration. There were no baseline differences between the two groups. Among patients who had exenteration, the mean FACT-C score at baseline of 93.0 had reduced by 14·4 points at hospital discharge, but increased to 86·7 at 1 month after surgery and continued to improve, returning to baseline by 9 months. For patients in the no-exenteration group, FACT-C scores decreased between baseline and 1 month, increased slowly to 6 months and then began to decline at 9 months. There were few statistically or clinically significant differences in any patient-reported outcomes between the groups. CONCLUSION: Quality of life and related patient-reported outcomes improve rapidly after pelvic exenteration surgery. For 9 months after surgery, these outcomes are comparable with those of similar do patients who do not have surgery; thereafter, there is a decline in patients who do not have exenteration. Pelvic exenteration can be performed with acceptable quality of life and patient-reported outcomes.

Identifying indicators of colorectal cancer care coordination: a Delphi study.

AIM: Care coordination is an important aspect of the quality of cancer care but is difficult to evaluate due to the lack of valid and reliable measures. This study was conducted to identify a set of objective measures of colorectal cancer care coordination that could be included in a medical record audit tool. METHOD: A two-stage Delphi study was conducted to gain consensus among a national panel of experts about the validity of 41 potential indicators of colorectal cancer care coordination that had been identified during a literature review. The expert panel comprised 20 members from the National Health and Medical Research Colorectal Cancer Guidelines Working Party plus representatives from cancer nursing/coordination, general practice and cancer consumers. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on the validity of 15 of 41 potential indicators, including those that focused on practical aspects of communication (legibility, clarity, content and timeliness of hospital discharge letters, documentation of outcomes of multidisciplinary team meetings) and appropriateness (documentation of preoperative consultation with a stoma therapist, discussions and referrals for adjuvant therapy for appropriate patients, and treatment by an experienced colorectal surgeon). There was lack of consensus on the validity of indicators relating to access to and efficiency of services. CONCLUSION: The study has identified a core set of measures considered to be valid indicators of colorectal cancer care coordination. A medical record audit based on these measures could be used to monitor adequacy of cancer care coordination and will complement subjective measures based on self-reported experiences of patients and carers.