Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Surgical Treatment of Colorectal Cancer pp 221–228Cite as

Functional Outcomes in Rectal Cancer Patients After Surgical Treatment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Functional outcomes are clinically important in the treatment of rectal cancer patients as they provide clinicians with important information to judge the patient’s status. Quality of life is based on the patient’s functional status; these two terms are often synonymous in healthcare. The function or quality of life is affected by rectal cancer itself and by its treatment. Clinicians must manage the patient’s quality of life and the patient’s concerns about disease symptoms and adverse effects. Because statistically significant differences in quality of life subscales may not be clinically important, it is critical to define what differences are clinically relevant. In addition, response shift phenomenon should be considered when interpreting quality of life in longitudinal studies. Although preoperative chemoradiotherapy has shifted the treatment paradigm toward organ preservation, its impact on quality of life is somewhat controversial when compared with no radiotherapy. Minimally invasive surgery may have clinical benefits on quality of life compared with open surgery, but no randomized controlled trials have demonstrated whether laparoscopic, robot-assisted, or transanal total mesorectal excision provides superior effects on quality of life. Sphincter-preserving surgery does not appear to be superior to a permanent stoma. Rectal cancer patients usually suffer from postoperative bowel dysfunction and sexual-urinary dysfunction, but we lack effective tools to preventive these dysfunctions. Therefore, patients should receive information about postoperative dysfunction before undergoing surgery. More work is needed to develop tools to prevent postoperative dysfunction related to rectal cancer treatment and to manage the quality of life of rectal cancer patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Jorgensen ML, Young JM, Dobbins TA, Solomon MJ. Assessment of abdominoperineal resection rate as a surrogate marker of hospital quality in rectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1655–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith JJ, Garcia-Aguilar J. Advances and challenges in treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1797–808.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bryant CL, Lunniss PJ, Knowles CH, Thaha MA, Chan CL. Anterior resection syndrome. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:e403–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Giandomenico F, Gavaruzzi T, Lotto L, et al. Quality of life after surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review of comparisons with the general population. Exp Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;9:1227–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Juul T, Thaysen H, Chen T. Quality of life in rectal cancer patients. In: Longo WE, Reddy V, Audisio RA, editors. Modern management of cancer of the rectum. London: Springer; 2015. p. 349–66.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ho VP, Lee Y, Stein SL, Temple LK. Sexual function after treatment for rectal cancer: a review. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:113–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lundby L, Duelund-Jakobsen J. Management of fecal incontinence after treatment for rectal cancer. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2011;5:60–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Martin ST, Heneghan HM, Winter DC. Systematic review of outcomes after intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2012;99:603–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Saito N, Sugito M, Ito M, et al. Oncologic outcome of intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer. World J Surg. 2009;33:1750–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schiessel R, Karner-Hanusch J, Herbst F, Teleky B, Wunderlich M. Intersphincteric resection for low rectal tumours. Br J Surg. 1994;81:1376–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. van Duijvendijk P, Slors JF, Taat CW, et al. Prospective evaluation of anorectal function after total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma with or without preoperative radiotherapy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:2282–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gotay CC. Assessing cancer-related quality of life across a spectrum of applications. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2004;2004:126–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bottomley A. The cancer patient and quality of life. Oncologist. 2002;7:120–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, 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;85:365–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Engel J, Kerr J, Schlesinger-Raab A, Eckel R, Sauer H, Hölzel D. Quality of life in rectal cancer patients: a four-year prospective study. Ann Surg. 2003;238:203–13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Neuman HB, Schrag D, Cabral C, et al. Can differences in bowel function after surgery for rectal cancer be identified by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life instrument? Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1727–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gujral S, Conroy T, Fleissner C, et al. Assessing quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer: an update of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:1564–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yun YH, Park YS, Lee ES, et al. Validation of the Korean version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:863–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ihn MH, Lee SM, Son IT, et al. Cultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of the EORTC QLQ-CR29 in patients with colorectal cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:3493–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, et al. The EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual. 3rd ed. Brussels: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cocks K, King MT, Velikova G, Martyn St-James M, Fayers PM, Brown JM. 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;29:89–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kang SB, Park JW, Jeong SY, et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:637–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nord E. The significance of contextual factors in valuing health states. Health Policy. 1989;13:189–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gosselink MP, Busschbach JJ, Dijkhuis CM, Stassen LP, Hop WC, Schouten WR. Quality of life after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Color Dis. 2006;8:15–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sprangers MA. Response-shift bias: a challenge to the assessment of patients’ quality of life in cancer clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rev. 1996;22(Suppl A):55–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwartz CE, Sprangers MA. Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:1531–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ziv Y, Zbar A, Bar-Shavit Y, Igov I. Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS): cause and effect and reconstructive considerations. Tech Coloproctol. 2013;17:151–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Chen TY, Wiltink LM, Nout RA, 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;14:106–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Denost Q, Laurent C, Capdepont M, Zerbib F, Rullier E. Risk factors for fecal incontinence after intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:963–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ihn MH, Kang SB, Kim DW, et al. Risk factors for bowel dysfunction after sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery: a prospective study using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center bowel function instrument. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:958–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. O’Riordain MG, Molloy RG, Gillen P, Horgan A, Kirwan WO. Rectoanal inhibitory reflex following low stapled anterior resection of the rectum. Dis Colon Rectum. 1992;35:874–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rao SS, Welcher KD, Leistikow JS. Obstructive defecation: a failure of rectoanal coordination. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:1042–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Miller R, Bartolo DC, Cervero F, Mortensen NJ. Anorectal sampling: a comparison of normal and incontinent patients. Br J Surg. 1988;75:44–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lee WY, Takahashi T, Pappas T, Mantyh CR, Ludwig KA. Surgical autonomic denervation results in altered colonic motility: an explanation for low anterior resection syndrome? Surgery. 2008;143:778–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Brown CJ, Fenech DS, McLeod RS. Reconstructive techniques after rectal resection for rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;16:CD006040. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hüttner FJ, Tenckhoff S, Jensen K, Uhlmann L, Kulu Y, Büchler MW, Diener MK, Ulrich A. Meta-analysis of reconstruction techniques after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2015;102:735–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Park JG, Lee MR, Lim SB, et al. Colonic J-pouch anal anastomosis after ultralow anterior resection with upper sphincter excision for low-lying rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2005;11:2570–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Celentano V, Cohen R, Warusavitarne J, Faiz O, Chand M. Sexual dysfunction following rectal cancer surgery. Int J Color Dis. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-017-2826-4.

  39. da Silva GM, Hull T, Roberts PL, et al. The effect of colorectal surgery in female sexual function, body image, self-esteem and general health: a prospective study. Ann Surg. 2008;248:266–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sanoff HK, Morris W, Mitcheltree AL, Wilson S, Lund JL. Lack of support and information regarding long-term negative effects in survivors of rectal cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2015;19:444–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Leon-Carlyle M, Schmocker S, Victor JC, et al. Prevalence of physiologic sexual dysfunction is high following treatment for rectal cancer: but is it the only thing that matters? Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58:736–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Chorost MI, Weber TK, RJ LEE, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Petrelli NJ. Sexual dysfunction, informed consent and multimodality therapy for rectal cancer. Am J Surg. 2000;179:271–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hendren SK, O’Connor BI, Liu M, et al. Prevalence of male and female sexual dysfunction is high following surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2005;242:212–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Angenete E, Asplund D, Andersson J, Haglind E. Self reported experience of sexual function and quality after abdominoperineal excision in a prospective cohort. Int J Surg. 2014;12:1221–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Duran E, Tanriseven M, Ersoz N, et al. Urinary and sexual dysfunction rates and risk factors following rectal cancer surgery. Int J Color Dis. 2015;30:1547–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lee SY, Kang SB, Kim DW, HK O, Ihn MH. Risk factors and preventive measures for acute urinary retention after rectal cancer surgery. World J Surg. 2015;39:275–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Jang JH, Kang SB, Lee SM, Park JS, Kim DW, Ahn S. Randomized controlled trial of tamsulosin for prevention of acute voiding difficulty after rectal cancer surgery. World J Surg. 2012;36:2730–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wiltink LM, Chen TY, Nout RA, et al. Health-related quality of life 14 years after preoperative short-term radiotherapy and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: report of a multicenter randomised trial. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:2390–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Huang M, Lin J, Yu X, et al. Erectile and urinary function in men with rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone: a randomized trial report. Int J Color Dis. 2016;31:1349–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. De Caluwé L, Van Nieuwenhove Y, Ceelen WP. Preoperative chemoradiation versus radiation alone for stage II and III resectable rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;28:CD006041. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006041.pub3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1346–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1356–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Andersson J, Angenete E, Gellerstedt M, et al. Health-related quality of life after laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer in a randomized trial. Br J Surg. 2013;100:941–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Lim RS, Yang TX, Chua TC. Postoperative bladder and sexual function in patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open resection of rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol. 2014;18:993–1002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Panteleimonitis S, Ahmed J, Harper M, Parvaiz A. Critical analysis of the literature investigating urogenital function preservation following robotic rectal cancer surgery. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;8:744–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Broholm M, Pommergaard HC, Gögenür I. Possible benefits of robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery regarding urological and sexual dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Color Dis. 2015;17:375–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Pontallier A, Denost Q, Van Geluwe B, Adam JP, Celerier B, Rullier E. Potential sexual function improvement by using transanal mesorectal approach for laparoscopic low rectal cancer excision. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:4924–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Sideris L, Zenasni F, Vernerey D, et al. Quality of life of patients operated on for low rectal cancer: impact of the type of surgery and patients’ characteristics. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:2180–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Temple LK, Romanus D, Niland J, et al. Factors associated with sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer at national comprehensive cancer network centers. Ann Surg. 2009;250:260–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Morris E, Quirke P, Thomas JD, Fairley L, Cottier B, Forman D. Unacceptable variation in abdominoperineal excision rates for rectal cancer: time to intervene? Gut. 2008;57:1690–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Lim SB, Heo SC, Lee MR, et al. Changes in outcome with sphincter preserving surgery for rectal cancer in Korea, 1991-2000. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005;31:242–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Tilney HS, Heriot AG, Purkayastha S, et al. A national perspective on the decline of abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2008;247:77–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Russell MM, Ganz PA, Lopa S, et al. Comparative effectiveness of sphincter-sparing surgery versus abdominoperineal resection in rectal cancer: patient-reported outcomes in National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomized trial R-04. Ann Surg. 2015;261:144–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Monastyrska E, Hagner W, Jankowski M, Głowacka I, Zegarska B, Zegarski W. Prospective assessment of the quality of life in patients treated surgically for rectal cancer with lower anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:1647–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Näsvall P, Dahlstrand U, Löwenmark T, Rutegård J, Gunnarsson U, Strigård K. Quality of life in patients with a permanent stoma after rectal cancer surgery. Qual Life Res. 2017;26:55–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. How P, Stelzner S, Branagan G, et al. Comparative quality of life in patients following abdominoperineal excision and low anterior resection for low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:400–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Kasparek MS, Hassan I, Cima RR, Larson DR, Gullerud RE, Wolff BG. Quality of life after coloanal anastomosis and abdominoperineal resection for distal rectal cancers: sphincter preservation vs quality of life. Color Dis. 2011;13:872–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Pachler J, Wille-Jorgensen P. Quality of life after rectal resection for cancer, with or without permanent colostomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;18:CD004323.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

The author has no potential conflicts of interest to declare. The author received no commercial support for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea

    Sung-Bum Kang & Sung Il Kang

Authors
  1. Sung-Bum Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sung Il Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sung-Bum Kang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (Republic of)

    Nam Kyu Kim

  2. Department of Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan

    Kenichi Sugihara

  3. Department of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital and College of Medicine, Taipei City, Taiwan

    Jin-Tung Liang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kang, SB., Kang, S.I. (2018). Functional Outcomes in Rectal Cancer Patients After Surgical Treatment. In: Kim, N., Sugihara, K., Liang, JT. (eds) Surgical Treatment of Colorectal Cancer. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5143-2_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5143-2_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-5142-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-5143-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation