4.3 Article

Baseline quality of life predicts pelvic exenteration outcome

Journal

ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 87, Issue 11, Pages 935-939

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ans.13419

Keywords

pelvic exenteration; quality of life (QoL); recurrent rectal cancer; surgery

Categories

Funding

  1. Cancer Australia
  2. Cancer Council Australia through Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme (PdCCRS)
  3. Cancer Institute NSW through Academic Leader in Cancer Epidemiology grant [08-EPC_1-01]
  4. Mitchell J Notaras Fellowship in Colorectal Surgery - University of Sydney
  5. Training Board of Colorectal Surgery of the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia
  6. Training Board of Colorectal Surgery of the Colorectal Surgical Society of New Zealand

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundRecurrent rectal cancer affects a significant group of patients with no current consensus on management. This study investigated patients' quality of life (QoL) in the 12 months after pelvic exenteration. MethodProspective cohort study with clinical and QoL data collected at baseline and 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. QoL trajectories were modelled over 12 months from date of discharge using linear mixed models. ResultsOf 117 patients, 93 underwent pelvic exenteration surgery, 24 did not. Thirty-day mortality was nil for both groups. For patients who had surgery, 15 (16%) died within 12 months of surgery compared with nine (38%) of the non-surgery group. Baseline QoL scores were highly variable. The non-exenteration patients' QoL gradually declined over 12 months while exenteration patients declined then recovered. Patients with high baseline QoL scores remained high, and those with low baseline QoL remained low. Baseline QoL score, gender and bony resection were significant predictors of QoL score at 12 months. ConclusionBaseline QoL is a significant, independent predictor of patients' QoL after pelvic exenteration for recurrent rectal cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available