4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Quality of Life of Survivors After Pelvic Exenteration for Rectal Cancer

Journal

DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM
Volume 53, Issue 8, Pages 1121-1126

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181e10c46

Keywords

Rectal cancer; Quality of life; Colon and rectum surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

INTRODUCTION: There is little information about the impact of pelvic exenteration on patients' quality of life. This study aimed to measure quality of life for longer-term disease-free survivors after pelvic exenteration. METHODS: A retrospective review to identify patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary or recurrent rectal cancer was performed. Telephone interviews to assess quality of life were performed using the Short Form 36 version 2 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal instruments. Responses were compared with normative data from the general Australian population and patients with rectal cancer who underwent low anterior resection or abdominoperineal excision. RESULTS: Of 75 patients with rectal cancer, 44 were alive and 37 (84%) completed the quality-of-life assessment a median 47 months after pelvic exenteration. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scores in the survivors were good (107) and comparable to those for patients who had a low anterior resection or abdominoperineal excision a median of 3 months previously (106). Although the physical component summary scale of the Short Form 36 was lower in pelvic exenteration patients (44.7) than for the Australian population, the mental component summary scale was high (53.5) and comparable. CONCLUSION: Despite the small sample, long-term quality of life in survivors of pelvic exenteration for rectal cancer is comparable to early results following primary rectal cancer resection and to mental but not physical norm-based population scores.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available