gms | German Medical Science

132. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Chirurgie

28.04. - 01.05.2015, München

Sphincter-preserving rectal cancer resection: New aspects of functional outcome and quality of life

Meeting Abstract

  • Jan Scheele - Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Ulm, Deutschland
  • Johannes Lemke - Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Ulm, Deutschland
  • Marcus Meier - Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Ulm, Deutschland
  • Doris Henne-Bruns - Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Ulm, Deutschland
  • Marko Kornmann - Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Ulm, Deutschland

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Chirurgie. 132. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie. München, 28.04.-01.05.2015. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2015. Doc15dgch495

doi: 10.3205/15dgch495, urn:nbn:de:0183-15dgch4958

Published: April 24, 2015

© 2015 Scheele et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Outline

Text

Introduction: With more survivors to expect by advanced surgical technique and multi-modal therapy, Quality of Life (QoL) becomes increasingly important in modern treatment of rectal cancer (RC). However, the standard surgical approach in terms of sphincter-preserving anterior resection (AR) was found non-superior to abdomino-perineal resection (APR), which may be attributed to poor functional outcome. To assess the impact of bowl dysfunction we evaluated QoL after AR in comparison with non-AR controls, right hemicolectomy for cancer (CC) and lay persons (healthy lays, HL), on long-term follow up.

Material and methods: We identified 293 RC patients receiving an AR between 1998 and 2008. From the same period, 201 CC patients receiving an oncologic colon resection and HL of the same age were used as a surgical and a non-surgical control group, respectively. Patients and lays were requested to answer the standardized EORTC QoL questionnaires QLQ-C 30 and –CR 38. Additionally, the estimated stool frequency per day should be stated.

Results: 116 QoL questionnaires from RC patients, 105 from CC patients and 103 from HL were evaluable. The global health status did not differ between the groups and was also found stable with the subgroup of RC patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment. As expected, defecation problems and diarrhea were significantly more frequent in RC patients compared with HL. The median stool frequency varied from 2.5 (range: 0.33-25) to 1.5 (range: 0.5-11) to 1 (range: 0.5-2) for RC, CC, and HL, respectively. Role functioning, future perspectives, and financial difficulties tended to poorer scores in the cancer groups, especially in CC, compared to HL. Interestingly, physical functioning was regarded better for RC and CC patients compared to lay persons.

Conclusion: Despite clear long-term symptoms associated with AR the global health status did not differ from controls. Worse functional outcome in terms of diarrhea and defecation problems did not result in worse QoL, even in case of multi-modal treatment. Interestingly, the knowledge of surviving cancer may be associated with a better physical functioning.