Prevalence of low anterior resection syndrome and impact on quality of life after rectal cancer surgery: population-based study - Chuyên Trang Chia Sẻ Kiến Thức Thời Trang Mới Nhất

Mục lục

Abstract

Background

The prevalence of major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) after rectal cancer surgery varies from 17·8 to 56·0 per cent, but data from high-quality studies are sparse. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of LARS and its association with quality of life (QoL) in a large, well defined, population-based cohort.

Methods

This was a population-based study that included all patients who had curative rectal cancer surgery with total or partial mesorectal excision in Stockholm County in Sweden between 2007 and 2013. Patients without a remaining stoma, free from cancer and alive in April 2017 were eligible for the study. The LARS score questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30 and Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence score were used as outcome measures. Adjusted mean scores (and differences) of EORTC QLQ-C30 for LARS groups were calculated using repeated measures ANCOVA regression models while adjusting for predefined confounders.

Results

In total, 481 patients (82·6 per cent response rate) were included in the analysis. Mean follow-up time was 6·7 (range 3·4–11·0) years after surgery. The prevalence of LARS was 77·4 per cent (370 of 478 patients), with 53·1 per cent (254 of 478) experiencing major LARS. Patients with major LARS reported worse on all EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales (except for financial difficulties) than patients without LARS. A higher mean LARS score was associated with a greater impact on bowel-related
QoL.

Conclusion

After anterior resection for rectal cancer, the majority of patients suffer from major LARS with a negative impact on QoL.

Resumen

Antecedentes

La prevalencia del síndrome de resección anterior baja (Low Anterior Resection Syndrome, LARS) mayor después de cirugía del cáncer de recto varía entre 17,8% y 56,0%, pero los datos procedentes de estudios de alta calidad son escasos. El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar la prevalencia de LARS y su asociación con la calidad de vida (quality of life, QoL) en una gran cohorte poblacional bien definida.

Métodos

Este fue un estudio de base poblacional con todos los pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía curativa de cáncer de recto con exéresis total o parcial del mesorrecto en el condado de Estocolmo en Suecia entre 2007-2013. Los pacientes sin estoma definitivo, sin recidiva y vivos en abril de 2017 fueron elegibles para el estudio. El cuestionario de puntuación LARS, el EORTC QLQ-C30 y el sistema de puntuación de incontinencia de la Cleveland Clinic Florida se usaron como medidas de resultado. Las puntuaciones medias ajustadas (y las diferencias) de EORTC QLQ-C30 para grupos LARS se calcularon utilizando modelos de regresión ANCOVA de medidas repetidas ajustando por factores de confusión predefinidos.

Resultados

En total, 481 pacientes (tasa de respuesta del 82,6%) se incluyeron en el análisis. El tiempo medio de seguimiento fue de 6,7 años después de la cirugía (rango 3,4-11,0 años). La prevalencia de LARS fue 77,4% (n = 370) y un 53,1% (n = 254) presentó un LARS mayor. Los pacientes con LARS mayor tuvieron peores resultados en todas las subescalas EORTC QLQ-C30 (excepto por dificultades financieras) que los pacientes sin LARS. Una puntuación LARS media más alta se asoció con un mayor impacto en la calidad de vida relacionada con el intestino.

Conclusión

Después de una resección anterior por cáncer de recto, la mayoría de los pacientes sufren un LARS mayor con un impacto negativo en la calidad de vida.

Graphical Abstract

Graphical Abstract Open in new tabDownload slide

A consequence of rectal cancer surgery is bowel dysfunction, also known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). In this cross-sectional study, the prevalence of major LARS was 53·1 per cent. Major LARS was associated with a greater impact on bowel-related quality of life.

Very common with significant impact on quality of life

Introduction

After sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery, 70–90 per cent of the patients suffer from bowel dysfunction of varying degree, commonly known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS)1–3. Symptoms include incontinence for flatus and/or faeces, urgency, clustering, emptying difficulties and frequent bowel movements, and can be recognized with a validated self-administered questionnaire, the LARS score questionnaire1,4. The development of LARS is thought to be multifactorial, including colonic dysmotility, impaired capacity and compliance of the neorectum, and sphincter dysfunction5. In addition, LARS has a significant impact on patients’ quality of life (QoL)3,6–8.

Several earlier studies9 have reported on functional outcome after rectal cancer surgery. There has been substantial variation in the outcome measures used, making it difficult to compare results9. The LARS score questionnaire is a short and easy instrument for measuring bowel dysfunction, and it enables comparison of results from other studies. Before development of the LARS score, the most commonly used instrument to evaluate bowel function after rectal cancer surgery was the Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score (CCFIS), also known as the Wexner score, which evaluated only symptoms related to incontinence9.

The reported prevalence of major LARS, the most severe bowel dysfunction according to the LARS score, varies between 17·8 and 56·0 per cent7,10–13. A summary of the prevalence of LARS in previously reported studies3,7,10–11,13–18 is presented in Table S1 (supporting information). Recently, the prevalence of LARS was investigated in a meta-analysis12 using the validated LARS score questionnaire, and the prevalence of major LARS was estimated to be 41 per cent based on 11 studies. A limitation mentioned was that the majority of the larger and more reliable studies included were from Denmark and the UK. Studies from other countries frequently involved a limited number of patients, resulting in more uncertain results, and it was concluded that further prevalence studies from other countries were needed12.

The primary aim of the present study was to investigate the prevalence of LARS in a large population-based Swedish cohort of patients who underwent surgery during 2007–2013. The secondary aim was to assess the association between symptoms of LARS and QoL. The CCFIS was included to obtain a more detailed evaluation of incontinence symptoms.

Methods

This was a population-based cohort study of all patients who had curative rectal cancer surgery with total (TME) or partial (PME) mesorectal excision between January 2007 and December 2013 in Stockholm County, Sweden. For healthcare, the island of Gotland is also included, and according to Statistics Sweden19 around 2·1 million inhabitants lived in Stockholm County in 2013.

Patients aged 18 years or more were identified through the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry (SCRCR)20. A combination of data obtained from the SCRCR and a review of patients’ medical records provided demographic information and data concerning surgery, neoadjuvant treatment, presence of dementia, and information on recurrent and/or disseminated disease. Patients without metastasis and/or recurrence at follow-up (irrespective of primary stage and neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment), alive on 4 April 2017, were included. Patients with a stoma, diagnosis of dementia or recurrent disease, and those who died, were excluded.

All patients who met the inclusion criteria were invited to participate in the study. A letter was sent to each patient with questionnaires for the LARS score, CCFIS, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 version 3.0, and a study-specific questionnaire concerning presence of a stoma or not.

Medical records of patients who did not respond were reviewed to ascertain the presence of a stoma or other exclusion criteria.

The study was approved by the local ethics committee of Stockholm (2016/1604-31/2 and 2017/605-32). Patients had given their informed consent.

Questionnaires

The LARS score questionnaire consists of five questions; each question has response alternatives with a weighted score1 and the total maximum score is 42 points. Patients are divided into three groups: no LARS (0–20 points), minor LARS (21–29 points) and major LARS (30–42 points)1,4.

The question, ‘Overall, how much does your bowel function affect your quality of life?’ was added to the questionnaire. This question has been validated through test–retest reliability and is commonly used in combination with the LARS score questionnaire1,4. The available response alternatives were ‘not at all’, ‘a little’, ‘some’ and ‘a lot’. The response alternatives ‘some’ and ‘a lot’ indicate a significant impact on QoL, and were grouped in analysis.

The CCFIS consists of five separate questions21. Three questions concern incontinence for flatus and/or faeces, one concerns the use of pads, and one concerns lifestyle alteration owing to bowel dysfunction. Each question has five different response alternatives (range 0–4 points), resulting in a maximum of 20 points21.

The study-specific questionnaire concerning presence of a stoma was developed for this study. It contains two questions: ‘Do you have a stoma?’ (yes or no); and ‘If yes, what is the reason for you having a stoma?’ (‘No stoma reversal was attempted after my primary rectal cancer operation’ or ‘I got a stoma later because of severe bowel dysfunction’ or ‘None of the above response alternatives’).

The EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items that generate nine multi-item scales (1 global health status/QoL scale, 5 functional scales and 3 symptom scales) and six single items measuring dyspnoea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhoea and financial difficulties22. The generated score for each scale and single item ranges from 0 to 100. A high score on the global health status/QoL and functional scales represents a high level of QoL and functioning. Conversely, a high score on the symptom scales and single items is equivalent to a high grade of symptoms22,23. To interpret the clinical relevance of observed mean differences in EORTC scores, the guidelines published by Cocks et al.24 were used. These guidelines, however, do not provide any guidance on the summary score and emotional functioning, and in these subscales a difference of 10 points or more was considered clinically relevant.

Endpoints

The primary endpoint of interest was the prevalence of LARS. Secondary endpoints were the association between the presence of LARS and QoL, and a more detailed evaluation of incontinence symptoms using the CCFIS.

Statistical analysis

The LARS and EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires were scored using the prescribed manuals, and missing data were handled according to the guidelines provided1,22,25. Descriptive statistics for patient characteristics are presented as frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and as mean(s.d.) values for continuous variables. The χ2 test and ANOVA were used to test patient characteristics between LARS groups, and χ2 and Student’s t test to test responders versus non-responders, and excluded versus included patients.

Adjusted mean scores of EORTC QLQ-C30 (difference and summary scores22,25) and CCFIS for LARS groups (no LARS, minor LARS and major LARS) were calculated using ANCOVA regression models with adjustment for predefined confounders. The adjusting model included age (per year), tumour level (per cm), T category, sex, surgical approach (TME or PME), radiotherapy (yes or no) and chemotherapy (yes or no). Statistically significant differences were defined as P < 0·050. The adjusted mean LARS score for response groups on the question of the impact of LARS on QoL in the LARS questionnaire was analysed by ANCOVA regression models, with adjustment for the above-mentioned predefined confounders. To be able to compare with existing relevant normative data, prevalence in the subgroup of patients aged 50–79 years is presented in the results26.

Statistical analysis was conducted using SAS® V.9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina,
USA).

Results

In total, 993 patients had undergone surgery for rectal cancer (with an anastomosis) between January 2007 and December 2013 (Fig. 1). Of these, 481 patients were included in the final analysis (response rate 82·6 per cent, 481 of 582). Three patients (who responded) did not complete the LARS score questionnaire and were excluded.

Fig. 1

Flow diagram for the study Open in new tabDownload slide

Flow diagram for the study

*Number of patients operated on for rectal cancer eligible for the study at the time of data extraction from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry (SCRCR). TME, total mesorectal excision; PME, partial mesorectal excision.

Non-responders and excluded patients

There were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics between included and excluded patients (data not shown).

Non-responders had a lower tumour level (10·0 cm versus 10·6 cm in responders; P = 0·048), but no other differences were observed between the groups.

Prevalence of low anterior resection syndrome

The characteristics of included patients are presented in Table 1, stratified by the presence of LARS. The mean duration of follow-up after surgery was 6·7 (range 3·4–11·0) years. The prevalence of some degree of LARS was 77·4 per cent (370 of 478) (Fig. 2 and Table 2). In an analysis restricted to patients aged 50–79 years, the distribution of patients in the different LARS categories was similar. Of the 78 patients who were excluded owing to the presence of a stoma, 25 (32 per cent) responded ‘I got a stoma later because of severe bowel dysfunction’ as the reason for the stoma.

Table 1

No LARS (n = 108)

Minor LARS (n = 116)

Major LARS (n = 254)

P†

Age at follow-up (years)* 74·4(11·5) 72·3(8·7) 70·2(9·5) < 0·001‡ Male sex 55 (50·9) 72 (62·1) 146 (57·5) 0·239 Length of follow-up after surgery (years)* 6·6(2·2) 6·8(2·0) 6·6(2·1) 0·863‡ Level of tumour from anal verge (cm)* 11·3(2·7) 11·0(2·7) 10·1(2·6) < 0·001‡ Preoperative T category 3–4 56 of 107 (52·3) 73 (62·9) 177 of 253 (70·0) 0·025 TME 82 (75·9) 91 of 115 (79·1) 230 of 252 (91·3) < 0·001 Preoperative radiotherapy 46 (42·6) 74 (63·8) 198 (78·0) < 0·001 Preoperative chemotherapy† 11 (10·2) 20 (17·2) 56 (22·0) 0·027

No LARS (n = 108)

Minor LARS (n = 116)

Major LARS (n = 254)

P†

Table 1

No LARS (n = 108)

Minor LARS (n = 116)

Major LARS (n = 254)

P†

No LARS (n = 108)

Minor LARS (n = 116)

Major LARS (n = 254)

P†

Fig. 2

Prevalence of low anterior resection syndrome in the total cohort and patients aged 50–79 years at follow-up Open in new tabDownload slide

Prevalence of low anterior resection syndrome in the total cohort and patients aged 50–79 years at follow-up

LARS, low anterior resection syndrome.

Table 2

LARS group

Total cohort (n = 478)*

Patients aged 50–79 years (n = 412)

No LARS 108 (22·6) 85 (20·6) Minor LARS 116 (24·3) 104 (25·2) Major LARS 254 (53·1) 223 (54·1) Minor + major LARS 370 (77·4) 327 (79·4) LARS group

Total cohort (n = 478)*

Patients aged 50–79 years (n = 412)

No LARS 108 (22·6) 85 (20·6) Minor LARS 116 (24·3) 104 (25·2) Major LARS 254 (53·1) 223 (54·1) Minor + major LARS 370 (77·4) 327 (79·4)
Open in new tab

Table 2

LARS group

Total cohort (n = 478)*

Patients aged 50–79 years (n = 412)

No LARS 108 (22·6) 85 (20·6) Minor LARS 116 (24·3) 104 (25·2) Major LARS 254 (53·1) 223 (54·1) Minor + major LARS 370 (77·4) 327 (79·4) LARS group

Total cohort (n = 478)*

Patients aged 50–79 years (n = 412)

No LARS 108 (22·6) 85 (20·6) Minor LARS 116 (24·3) 104 (25·2) Major LARS 254 (53·1) 223 (54·1) Minor + major LARS 370 (77·4) 327 (79·4)
Open in new tab

CCFIS in patients with low anterior resection syndrome

Patients with major LARS had a higher CCFIS than those in the minor and no LARS groups. The mean CCFIS was 3·2 in the no LARS group, 5·2 in the minor LARS group, and 10·5 in the major LARS group (Table 3).

Table 3

Comparison of CCFIS between groups

LARS group

LARS score

CCFIS

Groups

Score difference

No LARS 9·9 (8·6, 11·1) 3·2 (2·1, 4·3) Minor versus no LARS 2·0 (0·9, 3·1) < 0·001 Minor LARS 26·1 (25·6, 26·7) 5·2 (4·1, 6·3) Major versus minor LARS 5·3 (4·4, 6·3) <0·0001 Major LARS 35·6 (35·2, 36·1) 10·5 (9·6, 11·5) Major versus no LARS 7·3 (6·3, 8·3) <0·0001

Comparison of CCFIS between groups

LARS group

LARS score

CCFIS

Groups

Score difference

Table 3

Comparison of CCFIS between groups

LARS group

LARS score

CCFIS

Groups

Score difference

Comparison of CCFIS between groups

LARS group

LARS score

CCFIS

Groups

Score difference

Association between low anterior resection syndrome and quality of life

Clinically relevant (small, medium and large differences) and statistically significant differences between patients with major LARS and those with no LARS were observed for all EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales, except for the financial difficulties subscale24. In 11 of 15 subscales, patients with major LARS scored worse than those with minor LARS. Patients with minor LARS scored clinically and statistically worse than patients with no LARS in two subscales (fatigue and diarrhoea) (Tables 4 and 5).

Table 4

No LARS

Minor LARS

Major LARS

Summary score 89·9 (85·9, 93·8) 87·5 (83·8, 91·3) 78·0 (74·6, 81·5) Global health status/QoL 79·6 (73·6, 85·6) 75·1 (69·3, 80·8) 62·6 (57·4, 67·9) Functional scales Physical functioning 92·0 (86·9, 97·1) 88·0 (83·2, 92·9) 82·8 (78·4, 87·3) Role functioning 90·4 (83·4, 97·5) 85·6 (78·9, 92·3) 76·0 (69·9, 82·1) Emotional functioning 88·6 (81·9, 95·4) 85·6 (79·2, 92·1) 75·9 (70·0, 81·8) Cognitive functioning 90·3 (84·7, 95·9) 90·8 (85·4, 96·1) 83·3 (78·3, 88·2) Social functioning 84·7 (77·7, 91·7) 82·8 (76·1, 89·5) 65·5 (59·4, 71·6) Symptom scales Fatigue 10·3 (4·1, 16·6) 17·1 (11·2, 23·0) 27·3 (21·9, 32·8) Nausea and vomiting 1·6 (−1·1, 4·3) 1·5 (−1·1, 4·1) 5·8 (3·4, 8·1) Pain 7·7 (1·6, 13·8) 12·9 (7·2, 18·7) 16·6 (11·3, 21·8) Single items Dyspnoea 8·5 (1·2, 15·7) 11·9 (5·0, 18·8) 17·8 (11·6, 24·1) Insomnia 17·0 (9·3, 24·8) 21·1 (13·7, 28·5) 32·3 (25·7, 39·1) Appetite loss 5·1 (−0·3, 10·5) 4·3 (−0·8, 9·5) 10·6 (5·9, 15·2) Constipation 20·8 (13·4, 28·2) 18·3 (11·3, 25·3) 29·4 (23·0, 35·8) Diarrhoea 9·3 (2·2, 16·5) 19·8 (13·0, 26·7) 39·9 (33·6, 46·2) Financial difficulties 7·4 (1·7, 13·1) 9·7 (4·3, 15·2) 12·1 (7·2, 17·1)

No LARS

Minor LARS

Major LARS

Table 4

No LARS

Minor LARS

Major LARS

No LARS

Minor LARS

Major LARS

Pairwise comparison of LARS score and impact of bowel function on quality of life

A higher mean LARS score was clearly associated with response alternatives corresponding to a greater impact on bowel-related QoL (Table 6).

Table 6

Comparison of LARS scores

Response to question

No. of patients (n = 478)

LARS score

†

Groups

Score difference

†

‡

‘Not at all’ (group 1) 52 (10·9) 11·4 (8·6, 14·1) 2 versus 3 8·8 (7·2, 10·4) < 0·001 ‘A little’ (group 2) 204 (42·7) 24·3 (22·4, 26·2) 1 versus 2 12·9 (10·3, 15·5) < 0·001 ‘Some’ or ‘a lot’ (group 3) 222 (46·4) 33·1 (31·2, 34·9) 1 versus 3 21·7 (19·1, 24·3) < 0·001

Comparison of LARS scores

Response to question

No. of patients (n = 478)

LARS score

†

Groups

Score difference

†

‡

Table 6

Comparison of LARS scores

Response to question

No. of patients (n = 478)

LARS score

†

Groups

Score difference

†

‡

Comparison of LARS scores

Response to question

No. of patients (n = 478)

LARS score

†

Groups

Score difference

†

‡

Discussion

In this study, the prevalence of LARS symptoms in patients treated with anterior resection surgery for rectal cancer was 77·4 per cent and the prevalence of major LARS was 53·1 per cent. There was an association between the CCFIS and LARS score for each LARS group, which helps to put the results in context with the literature published before development of the LARS score.

Of patients excluded because of the presence of a stoma, one-third responded that the reason for the stoma was severe bowel dysfunction. The authors assume that these patients also experienced major LARS before stoma surgery, although LARS scores were not available.

A multinational study6 reported on the prevalence of LARS in a Swedish cohort with a limited number of patients, presented as a subgroup from a larger international multicentre cohort. That study did not have a population-based design. Included patients were treated at two of five hospitals in Stockholm County. In the study, major LARS was experienced by 60 per cent of the Swedish patients at a mean postoperative follow-up of 5·3 years. The results of the present study were fairly concordant.

The present results are comparable with those from other long-term studies focusing on LARS. Chen and colleagues7 reported a prevalence of 46 per cent of major LARS with a longer follow-up. Symptoms of LARS may occur directly after surgery (if no protective stoma) or after stoma reversal, and may improve during the first year and stabilize thereafter3. This finding has been supported by longitudinal data8. In a previous study16, no association was shown between time from surgery and the presence of major LARS (range 25–97 months).

Interestingly, a recent study26 reporting normative data on LARS showed that the prevalence of LARS was 18 per cent (women 18·8 per cent and men 9·6 per cent) in people with no known previous rectal cancer surgery aged 50–79 years. As expected, the present study showed that major LARS was much more common after rectal cancer surgery in patients with an anastomosis than in normative comparators. However, it is likely that not all LARS symptoms are caused solely by rectal cancer surgery. More patients who already experienced complaints before surgery may have had creation of a definitive stoma.

The present study confirms an association between LARS and QoL. In all but one subscale (financial difficulties), a greater impact on QoL was seen in the major LARS group compared with that in the no LARS group. This association has been shown previously, but some of the previous studies3,6–7 had limitations owing to short duration of follow-up and selection bias of patients.

The main strength of this study is the population-based design, based on a large number of patients from Stockholm County. As patients with all stages of rectal cancer were treated in the same county, the risk of selection bias was limited. The study was based on high-quality data and data from the SCRCR (regarding exclusion criteria) were cross-checked using patients’ medical records. The response rate was high, with minimal differences in patient characteristics between responders and non-responders, and no significant differences between included and excluded patients.

A limitation of the study was the retrospective design, precluding determination of LARS at a specific time point after surgery. The design was also a limitation in terms of obtaining more detailed patient data and details of any attempted symptomatic treatment for LARS. Another limitation concerns the fact that only 481 of 993 patients were included in the final analysis. However, this reflects the reality in long-term follow-up of patients with cancer.

The fact that LARS is so common illustrates the need for every unit involved in rectal cancer surgery to have knowledge of the condition. Patients with LARS need to be recognized and offered ongoing support.

Acknowledgements

Funding support for this study was provided through the Bengt Ihre Foundation.

Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Emmertsen

Laurberg

Low anterior resection syndrome score: development and validation of a symptom-based scoring system for bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection for rectal cancer

Ann Surg

2012

;

255

922

–

928

Bryant

Lunniss

Knowles

Thaha

Chan

Anterior resection syndrome

Lancet Oncol

2012

;

e403

–

e408

Emmertsen

Laurberg

;

Rectal Cancer Function Study Group

Impact of bowel dysfunction on quality of life after sphincter-preserving resection for rectal cancer

Br J Surg

2013

;

100

1377

–

1387

Juul

Ahlberg

Biondo

Emmertsen

Espin

Jimenez

et al.

International validation of the low anterior resection syndrome score

Ann Surg

2014

;

259

728

–

734

Pucciani

A review on functional results of sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer: the anterior resection syndrome

Updates Surg

2013

;

257

–

263

Juul

Ahlberg

Biondo

Espin

Jimenez

Matzel

et al.

Low anterior resection syndrome and quality of life: an international multicenter study

Dis Colon Rectum

2014

;

585

–

591

Chen

Wiltink

Nout

Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg

Laurberg

Marijnen

et al.

Bowel function 14 years after preoperative short-course radiotherapy and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: report of a multicenter randomized trial

Clin Colorectal Cancer

2015

;

106

–

114

Pieniowski

EHA

Palmer

Juul

Lagergren

Johar

Emmertsen

et al.

Low anterior resection syndrome and quality of life after sphincter-sparing rectal cancer surgery: a long-term longitudinal follow-up

Dis Colon Rectum

2018

;

–

Keane

Wells

O’Grady

Bissett

Defining low anterior resection syndrome: a systematic review of the literature

Colorectal Dis

2017

;

713

–

722

Sturiale

Martellucci

Zurli

Vaccaro

Brusciano

Limongelli

et al.

Long-term functional follow-up after anterior rectal resection for cancer

Int J Colorectal Dis

2017

;

–

Hughes

Cornish

Morris

;

LARRIS Trial Management Group

Functional outcome following rectal surgery – predisposing factors for low anterior resection syndrome

Int J Colorectal Dis

2017

;

691

–

697

Croese

Lonie

Trollope

Vangaveti

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of low anterior resection syndrome and systematic review of risk factors

Int J Surg

2018

;

234

–

241

Croese

Zubair

Lonie

Trollope

Vangaveti

Mushaya

et al.

Prevalence of low anterior resection syndrome at a regional Australian centre

ANZ J Surg

2018

;

E813

–

E817

Sun

Dou

Chen

Lai

Zhang

Ruan

et al.

Impact of long-course neoadjuvant radiation on postoperative low anterior resection syndrome and quality of life in rectal cancer: post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Ann Surg Oncol

2018

;

746

–

755

Ekkarat

Boonpipattanapong

Tantiphlachiva

Sangkhathat

Factors determining low anterior resection syndrome after rectal cancer resection: a study in Thai patients

Asian J Surg

2016

;

225

–

231

Bregendahl

Emmertsen

Lous

Laurberg

Bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection with and without neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: a population-based cross-sectional study

Colorectal Dis

2013

;

1130

–

1139

Jimenez-Gomez

Espin-Basany

Trenti

Marti-Gallostra

Sanchez-Garcia

Vallribera-Valls

et al.

Factors associated with low anterior resection syndrome after surgical treatment of rectal cancer

Colorectal Dis

2017

;

195

–

200

Kupsch

Jackisch

Matzel

Zimmer

Schreiber

Sims

et al.

Outcome of bowel function following anterior resection for rectal cancer – an analysis using the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score

Int J Colorectal Dis

2018

;

787

–

798

Statistics Sweden

Population by Region and Year

. https://www.scb.se/en/ [accessed 2 March 2020].

Moberger

Skoldberg

Birgisson

Evaluation of the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry: an overview of completeness, timeliness, comparability and validity

Acta Oncol

2018

;

1611

–

1621

Jorge

Wexner

Etiology and management of fecal incontinence

Dis Colon Rectum

1993

;

–

Aaronson

Ahmedzai

Bergman

Bullinger

Cull

Duez

et al.

The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology

J Natl Cancer Inst

1993

;

365

–

376

Fayers

Interpreting quality of life data: population-based reference data for the EORTC QLQ-C30

Eur J Cancer

2001

;

1331

–

1334

Cocks

King

Velikova

Martyn St-James

Fayers

Brown

Evidence-based guidelines for determination of sample size and interpretation of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30

J Clin Oncol

2011

;

–

Fayers

Aaronson

Bjordal

Groenvold

Curran

Bottomley

; on behalf of the

EORTC Quality of Life Group

The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual (3rd edn)

EORTC

Brussels

2001

Juul

Elfeki

Christensen

Laurberg

Emmertsen

Bager

Normative data for the low anterior resection syndrome score (LARS score)

Ann Surg

2018

;

269

1124

–

1128

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ ), which permits non-commercial reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]