Abstract
Purpose
Rectal cancer and its treatment have a negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). If risk factors for sustained low HRQoL could be identified early, ideally before the start of treatment, individualised interventions could be identified and implemented to maintain or improve HRQoL. The study aimed to develop a multivariable prediction model for global HRQoL 12 months after rectal cancer treatment.
Methods
Within COLOR II, a randomised, multicentre, international trial of laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer, a sub-study on HRQoL included 385 patients in 12 hospitals and five countries. The HRQoL study was optional for hospitals in the COLOR II trial. EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-CR38 were analysed preoperatively and at 1 and 12 months postoperatively. In exploratory analyses, correlations between age, sex, fatigue, pain, ASA classification, complications, and symptoms after surgery to HRQoL were studied. Bivariate initial analyses were followed by multivariate regression models.
Results
Patient characteristics and clinical factors explained 4–10% of the variation in global HRQoL. The patient-reported outcomes from EORTC QLQ-C30 explained 55–65% of the variation in global HRQoL. The predominant predictors were fatigue and pain, which significantly impacted global HRQoL at all time points measured.
Conclusion
We found that fatigue and pain were two significant factors associated with posttreatment global HRQoL in patients treated for rectal cancer T1-T3 Nx. Interventions to reduce fatigue and pain could enhance global HRQoL after rectal cancer treatment.
Trial registration
This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT00297791
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Background
Local recurrence and survival outcomes after curative treatment for rectal cancer, surgery with/without (chemo)radiotherapy, have improved over the last 20 years [1, 2]. Surgery is still considered a keystone for curative treatment, but for a minority of patients, chemoradiation may result in a complete response. However, the safety of treatment with chemoradiation alone needs further evidence before implementation [3, 4].
Rectal cancer and its treatment can affect patient-reported bodily functions and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) [5,6,7,8]. About one third of patients receive a permanent stoma, which may affect HRQoL [9]. Since the tumour is situated in the pelvis, faecal, sexual, and urinary dysfunctions are relatively common after treatment [10, 11]. Patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is accepted as an important endpoint in clinical trials [12]. HRQoL is often measured by validated questionnaires, for example, EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), RAND-Short form 36 (SF-36), and instruments from the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Most instruments include the domains of physical, social, and emotional/psychological functioning as well as several symptom scales [13].
A comparison between patients with colon cancer in the COlorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial and patients with rectal cancer in the Colorectal Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection COLOR II trial found that the impact of treatment on HRQoL, as measured by EORTC Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), was more profound and longer lasting in rectal cancer patients [14, 15]. As there are many long-term survivors after treatment for rectal cancer, the need to evaluate long-term treatment effects on QoL has increased (1–2) but also to attempt to discover predictors of continued low HRQoL. Identifying predictors is a basis for studies on interventions aimed at improving HRQOL.
This study aimed to develop a model of predictors for global HRQoL 12 months after rectal cancer treatment, among treatment factors, domains, or symptoms. We also examined changes in these variables postoperatively (1 month) and long term (12 months) after surgery.
Methods
Source of data—clinical trial
COlorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open COLOR II was an international, randomised non-inferiority clinical trial in which 30 hospitals in eight countries took part. The primary aim was to compare local recurrence after laparoscopic and open surgery as treatment of rectal cancer, respectively, and patients were recruited between 2004 and 2010 [16]. The ratio of randomisation between laparoscopic and open surgery was two to one. Follow-up was yearly during 5 years.
Participants—clinical trial
Patients with rectal cancer within 15 cm from the anal verge, no metastases, and planned surgery with curative intent were eligible. Patients with tumours invading adjacent tissues or organs, T4 tumours, or T3 rectal cancers within 2 mm of the endopelvic fascia at preoperative workup were excluded. Further details about inclusion/exclusion criteria, randomisation, and short- and long-term clinical outcomes have been reported elsewhere [16, 17]. Annual clinical assessments were carried out for 5 years according to the trial protocol and reported in a standardised clinical record form.
Source of data—HRQoL study within clinical trial
In this explorative study, we used data for the cohort participating in the HRQoL study within the clinical trial COLOR II (15) to develop a model of predictors. Participation in the HRQoL study was optional at both the centre and individual level. Twelve hospitals in Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden opted to participate in the HRQL component of the COLOR II trial.
Participants—HRQoL study
All participants were part of the COLOR II randomised trial. Inclusion criteria for the HRQoL study were ability to understand the questionnaires, and informed consent after verbal and written information had been given with opportunities for questions.
Data collection and questionnaires
Data on demographics, clinical details, complications, and more was collected from the database for COLOR II trial. HRQoL was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC Quality of Life-Colorectal 38 (QLQ-CR38) validated questionnaires in Swedish, Dutch, Danish, English, and German translations [18, 19], as well as EuroQol 5D-3L (15). Patient-reported HRQoL was collected preoperatively and 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. In this study, we used data collected with the two EORTC instruments preoperatively and at 1 and 12 months postoperatively. Administration of questionnaires was by the research personnel at each centre (baseline) and by post for later follow-up points; return was by post in prepaid envelopes.
EORTC QLQ-C30 is a widely used validated instrument in cancer, which examines patient-reported HRQoL. It consists of 30 questions, which cover five functional domains (physical, role, social, cognitive, and emotional functioning), three symptom scales (pain, fatigue, and nausea/vomiting), six item scales of problems common in patients with cancer (dyspnoea, insomnia, loss of appetite, constipation, diarrhoea, and financial difficulties), and finally, a global health/QoL index—hereafter, global HRQoL.
EORTC QLQ-CR38 is a disease-specific validated supplement to EORTC QLQ-C30 for patients with colorectal cancer and consists of 38 additional questions. These questions cover four functional scales/single items (body image, sexual functioning, sexual enjoyment, future perspective) and eight symptom scales/items (micturition problems, chemotherapy side effects, symptoms related to the gastrointestinal tract, male sexual problems, female sexual problems, defecation problems, stoma-related problems, and weight loss). EORTC QLQ-CR38 has since been revised into EORTC QLQ-CR29 [20, 21].
Outcomes
To identify factors present at diagnosis of rectal cancer that predicted HRQoL 12 months after surgery by using EORTC instruments. Blinding was not practised.
Sample size
The HRQoL, symptoms, and functions were secondary outcomes in COLOR II, and thus no sample size calculations were made for this outcome. However, for the clinical trial as such, sample size calculations were made for the primary outcome “local recurrence” where results in the two randomisation arms were compared using a non-inferiority design (17).
Missing data
No imputations of missing values were performed. Complete case analyses were made.
Ethics
The appropriate ethical authorities gave consent to the trial including the HRQoL study in each participating country.
COLOR II was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT0029779).
Statistical analysis
EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-CR38 data were analysed according to the respective scoring manuals and expressed as scores ranging from 0 to 100. In a functional scale, a high score corresponds to a high level of functioning, while a high value in a symptom scale corresponds to a high level of symptoms. EORTC QLQ-CR38 questions regarding defecation problems were exclusively answered by patients without a stoma, while questions regarding stoma-related problems were only answered by patients with a stoma. The two symptom scales were merged into one in the analyses.
Predictors
All domains, symptom scales, and items were treated as continuous variables. American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) classification was dichotomised as no disease (ASA 1) versus ASA 2–4. Tumour class was dichotomised as T1 and T2 versus T3. Complications were analysed as classified in the clinical record form.
Statistical models
First, we examined the potential relationships between global QoL and patient factors, treatment factors, functional domains, and symptom scales in the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-CR38 questionnaires by bivariate analysis at each time point. Student t-test, Spearman rank correlation test, Pearson’s correlation test, and ANOVA were used when appropriate depending on the type of variable. These analyses were used for selecting variables to enter into a multiple regression model. In this pre-selection process, we used a p-value of 0.20.
Second, all factors with a p-value < 0.20 were included in four multiple linear regression models: (1) patient characteristics and treatment factors, (2) complications within the postoperative period and at the 1-year follow-up, (3) EORTC QLQ-C30 functioning scales and symptom, and (4) EORTC QLQ-CR38 functioning domains and symptoms. The significance level was set to p < 0.05. All models were adjusted for baseline, i.e. preoperative, global QoL. Finally, a multivariable model including significant variables from the four models was analysed at each of the three time points. The final multivariable analyses were adjusted for baseline global QoL. Significant factors (p < 0.05) in these analyses constitute the final results. Validation was not performed.
Assessment of model performance
Multiple correlation coefficient, i.e. determination coefficient R2.
All statistical calculations were performed in IBMSPSS (SPSS® 22 software, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).
Results
Out of 30 hospitals recruiting patients to COLOR II, 12 hospitals participated and included a total of 385 in the HRQL study (Fig. 1), and this constitutes the cohort for the current analysis.
Baseline patient characteristics and treatment factors are presented in Table 1. Response rates to questionnaires varied between 91% at baseline and 79% at 12 months, with a percentage of missing for EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline at 8.6%, at 1 month at 12.2%, and at 12 months at 20.8% and for EORTC QLQ-CR38; the corresponding figures were 9.3%, 11.4%, and 20.5%.
Patient characteristics as well as data on treatment to describe the cohort are detailed in Table 1. In comparison with the entire cohort in the trial COLOR II, there were no obvious differences in sex, age, body mass index, ASA category, preoperative radiotherapy, type of surgery performed, or conversion from laparoscopic technique [16]. Clinical tumour stage differed with a lower percentage in this study having stage I and a lower percentage had preoperative chemotherapy [16].
Complications within the 1 month (postoperative period) and at the 1-year follow-up are presented in Table 2. In comparison with the entire COLOR II trial results at 1 month, fewer patients with an anastomotic leak answered the questionnaires, but apart from this, the group participating in the HRQoL study was comparable [16].
Pre-selection—bivariate analyses
Analysing predictive factors among patient characteristics and treatment-related factors, ASA classification and length of hospital stay were found to be associated (bivariate analyses, p < 0.20) with global HRQoL, at all time points. Regarding body mass index (BMI), age and preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy, tumour (T)-classification, node status (N-status), and type of resection showed a varied pattern regarding significant association with global HRQoL over time. Male/female was not (p > 0.20) a predictive factor. Analysing factors within 1 month of surgery, that is complications, as predictors of global HRQoL, the bivariate analysis revealed that all complications except cardiac, respiratory, and readmission showed significant associations. In the analysis of long-term events within 12 months, complications, readmission, and recurrence were significantly associated with global HRQoL.
EORTC QLQ-C30 domains were analysed as possible predictors, and functioning and symptom scales were significantly associated with global HRQoL (p < 0.20) in the bivariate analyses at all time points except for constipation and financial difficulties, which varied over time. EORTC QLQ-CR38 functioning and symptom scales all significantly influenced global HRQoL (p < 0.20) at all time points except sexual enjoyment and male sexual problems, which showed a varied pattern.
Multivariable models
Analysing patient characteristics and complications in multivariate models, few factors were significantly associated with global HRQoL. The degree of explanation (R2 values) showed that 4–10% of global HRQoL was explained by these factors. After adjusting for baseline global QoL, R2 increased to 30% at 12 months (Supplementary Table 1).
Other domains, functioning, and symptom scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 explained 55–65% of global HRQoL with the strongest associations 1 month after surgery (Supplementary Table 2).
The models of EORTC QLQ-CR38 and global HRQoL correlations (R2) could explain 42–55% of global QoL (Supplementary Table 3).
The final models revealed fatigue and pain as significantly associated with global HRQoL, preoperatively, at 1 month and 12 months (Table 3).
No other factors were significantly associated with global HRQoL at all three time points (Supplementary Table 3).
Before surgery, fatigue and pain as well as physical and emotional function, insomnia, diarrhoea, and future perspective were associated with global HRQoL. One month after surgery, fatigue and pain were still of significantly associated with global HRQoL together with emotional and social function, nausea, vomiting, and appetite loss. Twelve months after surgery, the pattern of factors significantly associated with global HRQoL again included fatigue and pain, as well as social function. Of the common clinical factors, postoperative ileus was associated with global HRQoL 1 month after surgery. Age and recurrence correlated significantly with global HRQoL after 12 months.
Discussion
Our analysis of HRQoL suggested that fatigue and pain in the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire were significantly associated with global HRQoL in patients with potentially curable rectal cancer, both before and after surgery.
We previously reported compliance and outcomes using EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-CR38 in this cohort, including bodily functions [11, 15]. Our present work suggests that fatigue is an important factor for global HRQoL in patients undergoing curative treatment for rectal cancer. Previous studies in patients with metastasised cancer and breast cancer have reported fatigue as a major contributor to low global HRQoL [22, 23].
The emotional function domain in EORTC QLQ-C30 has been shown to predominantly assess anxiety rather than depression. However, in a previous study, depression was a stronger predictor of low HRQoL than anxiety using a combination of the Hospital Depression and Anxiety Scale (HADS) and the EORTC QLQ-C30 instrument [24]. Another study using the same instruments reported that depression, as well as anxiety, were associated with lower global HRQoL [25]. In our study, we did not measure depression and anxiety by HADS, which could in part explain, why our results differ from what has been reported earlier.
In our analysis, emotional functioning was associated with global HRQoL preoperatively and at 1 month after surgery, but not at 12 months. We suggest that this may have been due to a response shift during the path of treatment as patients adapted to their new situation [26]. Before surgery (baseline), patients had received a cancer diagnosis and a treatment plan. They then underwent (multimodal) treatment with a risk of morbidity and may have been uncertain of cure. This may have affected emotional function, insomnia, fatigue, and pain, which could subsequently influence global HRQoL. One month after surgery, most patients were not fully recovered, and some anticipated adjuvant chemotherapy with probable morbidity. These combined effects could have been reflected in the domains and symptom scales, such as nausea, vomiting, and appetite loss. At this time, patients may have also become aware of their social difficulties.
On the other hand, 12 months after surgery, most patients had finished their adjuvant treatment and recovered but may still have been affected by the long-term morbidity of the combined treatment. Fatigue has been considered a difficult-to-treat symptom. Trials are underway in other types of cancer to improve the symptom cluster of fatigue, pain, depression, and anxiety using cognitive behavioural therapy [27, 28]. Recently, randomised trials and meta-analyses have reported possible positive effects on fatigue by physical activity among patients with colorectal cancer and survivors after different types of cancer [29,30,31].
In our cohort, fixed patient-related factors, such as age, were not as important as modifiable factors, such as pain or urinary dysfunction. This is in accordance with earlier work and should encourage efforts to counteract modifiable risk factors through interventions [32]. Clinical variables affecting global HRQoL are not easy to modify, but consistent efforts to reduce recurrence have improved long-term outcomes. In particular, postoperative ileus has been addressed by systematic efforts for early mobilisation, and bowel obstruction has been improved over time through the increased use of laparoscopic surgery [33,34,35].
In our analysis, the degree of explanation (R2) was relatively high when EORTC QLQ-CR38 sub-items were analysed as predictive for global HRQoL, compared with the degree of explanation when, for example, postoperative complications were tested as predictive factors. This could partly be explained by a cognitive bias (halo effect) as global HRQoL was addressed at the end of the same questionnaire as the sub-items [36]. Further research could examine how the relationship between sub-items and global HRQoL changes in response to the order of the questions, e.g. if the global HRQoL question is asked before the sub-items or if questions about postoperative complications are added to the same questionnaire. It would also be of interest to study R2 longitudinally to see if global HRQoL is equally explained by EORTC QLQ-CR38 sub-items over time. We adjusted for baseline global HRQoL in all models as this has been reported as the most important predictive factor [22]. In our analysis, the impact of baseline global HRQoL increased over time, with the highest association at 12 months after surgery. This may be due to patients’ assessment of HRQoL being influenced by personality factors [37] and individual coping strategies introduced when the patient received his/her cancer diagnosis [31, 38, 39].
Our findings of the impact of pain and fatigue symptoms on global HRQoL should intensify attempts to identify patients with these problems before surgery. Most preoperative risk assessments have focused on physical health problems. It should be noted that an association between severe low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) and low HRQoL measured by EORTC QLQ-C30 has been reported [40]. However, the LARS instrument was first described towards the end of the inclusion period in the COLOR II trial and, thus, was not an instrument used in this study. Nevertheless, assessment of bowel function was part of the EORTC instruments [15].
Limitations and strengths
One limitation of this study is its explorative nature. Results should be interpreted cautiously, as validation of the model was not performed. A further limitation is that participation in the HRQoL study was optional for centres and patients participating in the COLOR II trial. As described previously, there was a selection bias in the cohort with somewhat healthier participants (ASA classification) in the HRQoL study than the entire COLOR II trial population which to some degree could affect possible generalisations [15].
The major strength of this study was the use of validated questionnaires administered before (baseline) and after surgery at predetermined time points, thus minimising the risk of recall bias. Furthermore, questionnaires were returned to the trial secretariat, a third party [41], reducing the risk of bias. Also, our homogenous cohort, consisting of newly diagnosed patients with potentially curable rectal cancer, should reduce variability and make the outcomes clinically useful. In all 12 centres from five countries participated, the rate of patient participation was 66% of the eligible. Compliance (answering questionnaires) among participants was high at all three time-points.
Interpretation and clinical implications
Fatigue and pain before the start of treatment was significantly associated with patient-reported global HRQoL also at 12 months after treatment among patients with potentially curable rectal cancer. Our findings suggest that patients with these symptoms could be identified at diagnosis.
Physical activity has been evaluated in several studies and trials with effects on fatigue, also with a sustainable impact on global HRQoL. Another possible intervention against fatigue is cognitive behavioural therapy. However, both suggested interventions need further evidence of efficacy and importantly any clinical implementation should be in a form possible to evaluate.
Conclusions
A multivariable model of predictors of postoperative HRQoL was developed revealing baseline fatigue and pain in patients with rectal cancer as significantly associated with global HRQoL postoperatively. Clinical interventions aiming to decrease fatigue and pain at baseline could improve global HRQoL but need further evaluation.
Data availability
Due to the sensitivity of the data and restrictions in some of the ethical permissions, original data cannot be made available.
References
Dehlaghi Jadid K, Cao Y, Petersson J et al (2022) Long term oncological outcomes for laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer – a population-based nationwide noninferiority study. Colorectal Dis 24:1308–1317. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.16204
Hemminki K, Försti A, Hemminki A (2021) Survival in colon and rectal cancers in Finland and Sweden through 50 years. BMJ Open Gastroenterol 8:e000644. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2021-000644
Quezada-Diaz FF, Smith JJ (2022) Nonoperative management for rectal cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 36:539–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hoc.2022.03.003
Downing A, Morris EJA, Richards M et al (2015) Health-related quality of life after colorectal cancer in England: a patient-reported outcomes study of individuals 12 to 36 months after diagnosis. JCO 33:616–624. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.56.6539
Sandberg S, Asplund D, Bisgaard T et al (2020) Low anterior resection syndrome in a Scandinavian population of patients with rectal cancer: a longitudinal follow-up within the QoLiRECT study. Colorectal Dis 22:1367–1378. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15095
Sandberg S, Asplund D, Bock D et al (2021) Predicting life with a permanent end colostomy: a prospective study on function, bother and acceptance. Colorectal Dis 23:2681–2689. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15842
Karlsson L, Bock D, Asplund D et al (2020) Urinary dysfunction in patients with rectal cancer: a prospective cohort study. Colorectal Dis 22:18–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14784
Pachler J, Wille-Jørgensen P (2012) Quality of life after rectal resection for cancer, with or without permanent colostomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004323.pub4
Stephens RJ, Thompson LC, Quirke P et al (2010) Impact of short-course preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer on patients’ quality of life: data from the Medical Research Council CR07/National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group C016 Randomized Clinical Trial. JCO 28:4233–4239. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.26.5264
Eveno C, Lamblin A, Mariette C, Pocard M (2010) Sexual and urinary dysfunction after proctectomy for rectal cancer. J Visc Surg 147:e21–e30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2010.02.001
Andersson J, Abis G, Gellerstedt M et al (2014) Patient-reported genitourinary dysfunction after laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgery in a randomized trial (COLOR II). Br J Surg 101:1272–1279. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9550
Quinten C, Coens C, Mauer M et al (2009) Baseline quality of life as a prognostic indicator of survival: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from EORTC clinical trials. Lancet Oncol 10:865–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70200-1
Osoba D (2011) Health-related quality of life and cancer clinical trials. Ther Adv Med Oncol 3:57–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758834010395342
Janson M, Lindholm E, Anderberg B, Haglind E (2007) Randomized trial of health-related quality of life after open and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 21:747–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9217-9
Andersson J, Angenete E, Gellerstedt M et al (2013) Health-related quality of life after laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer in a randomized trial. Br J Surg 100:941–949. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9144
van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14:210–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70016-0
Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Haglind E, COLOR II Study Group (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 373:194. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1505367
Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al (1993) 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 85:365–376. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.5.365
Sprangers MAG, te Velde A, Aaronson NK (1999) The construction and testing of the EORTC colorectal cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire module (QLQ-CR38). Eur J Cancer 35:238–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8049(98)00357-8
Gujral S, Conroy T, Fleissner C et al (2007) Assessing quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer: an update of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire. Eur J Cancer 43:1564–1573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2007.04.005
Whistance RN, Conroy T, Chie W et al (2009) Clinical and psychometric validation of the EORTC QLQ-CR29 questionnaire module to assess health-related quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 45:3017–3026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2009.08.014
Beijer S, Kempen GIJM, Pijls-Johannesma MCG et al (2008) Determinants of overall quality of life in preterminal cancer patients. Int J Cancer 123:232–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.23497
So WKW, Marsh G, Ling WM et al (2009) The symptom cluster of fatigue, pain, anxiety, and depression and the effect on the quality of life of women receiving treatment for breast cancer: a multicenter study. Oncol Nurs Forum 36:E205–214. https://doi.org/10.1188/09.ONF.E205-E214
Aminisani N, Nikbakht H, Jafarabadi MA, Shamshirgaran SM (2017) Depression, anxiety, and health related quality of life among colorectal cancer survivors. J Gastrointest Oncol 8:81–88. https://doi.org/10.21037/jgo.2017.01.12
Mols F, Schoormans D, de Hingh I et al (2018) Symptoms of anxiety and depression among colorectal cancer survivors from the population-based, longitudinal PROFILES Registry: prevalence, predictors, and impact on quality of life. Cancer 124:2621–2628. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31369
Sprangers MA, Schwartz CE (1999) Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 48:1507–1515. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00045-3
Kwekkeboom KL, Abbott-Anderson K, Cherwin C et al (2012) Pilot randomized controlled trial of a patient-controlled cognitive-behavioral intervention for the pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbance symptom cluster in cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 44:810–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.12.281
Fleming L, Randell K, Harvey C-J, Espie CA (2014) Does cognitive behaviour therapy for insomnia reduce clinical levels of fatigue, anxiety and depression in cancer patients? Psychooncology 23:679–684. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3468
McGettigan M, Cardwell CR, Cantwell MM, Tully MA (2020) Physical activity interventions for disease-related physical and mental health during and following treatment in people with non-advanced colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012864.pub2
Huizinga F, Westerink N-DL, Berendsen AJ et al (2021) Home-based physical activity to alleviate fatigue in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc 53:2661–2674. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000002735
Hiensch AE, Bolam KA, Mijwel S et al (2020) Sense of coherence and its relationship to participation, cancer-related fatigue, symptom burden, and quality of life in women with breast cancer participating in the OptiTrain exercise trial. Support Care Cancer 28:5371–5379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05378-0
Gray NM, Hall SJ, Browne S et al (2011) Modifiable and fixed factors predicting quality of life in people with colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 104:1697–1703. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.155
Li N, Liu Y, Chen H, Sun Y (2023) Efficacy and safety of enhanced recovery after surgery pathway in minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery: a systemic review and meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 33:177–187. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2022.0349
Angenete E, Jacobsson A, Gellerstedt M, Haglind E (2012) Effect of laparoscopy on the risk of small-bowel obstruction: a population-based register study. Arch Surg 147:359–365. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2012.31
Duepree H-J, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW (2003) Does means of access affect the incidence of small bowel obstruction and ventral hernia after bowel resection? Laparoscopy versus laparotomy. J Am Coll Surg 197:177–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1072-7515(03)00232-1
Nisbett RE, Wilson TD (1977) The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol 35:250–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250
Siassi M, Weiss M, Hohenberger W et al (2009) Personality rather than clinical variables determines quality of life after major colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 52:662–668. https://doi.org/10.1007/DCR.0b013e31819ecf2e
Asiedu GB, Eustace RW, Eton DT, Radecki Breitkopf C (2014) Coping with colorectal cancer: a qualitative exploration with patients and their family members. Fam Pract 31:598–606. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmu040
Asplund D, Bisgaard T, Bock D et al (2018) Correction to: pretreatment quality of life in patients with rectal cancer is associated with intrusive thoughts and sense of coherence. Int J Colorectal Dis 33:355–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-017-2953-y
Kupsch J, Kuhn M, Matzel KE et al (2019) To what extent is the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) associated with quality of life as measured using the EORTC C30 and CR38 quality of life questionnaires? Int J Colorectal Dis 34:747–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-019-03249-7
Månsson A, Henningsohn L, Steineck G, Månsson W (2004) Neutral third party versus treating institution for evaluating quality of life after radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 46:195–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2004.04.010
Acknowledgements
Associate professor Ulf Angerås is gratefully acknowledged for his contributions to this work.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Gothenburg. The study received financial support from the Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils, the ALF-agreement (ALFGBG-138751; ALFGBG-4307771; ALFGBG-718221; ALFGBG-965245), the Swedish Cancer Society (CAN 2010/593CAN 2013/497; CAN 2016/362; Pj19 0303), the Alice Swenson Foundation, Anna-Lisa and Bror Björnsson Foundation, Axel Linders Foundation, Assar Gabrielsson Foundation, and the Gothenburg Medical Society.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors (JA, EA, MG, EH) contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and analysis were performed by John Andersson and Martin Gellerstedt. The first draft of the manuscript was written by John Andersson, and all authors commented on all subsequent versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
The study was approved by the institutional ethical review board at each participating centre or by a national equivalent.
Consent to participate
All randomised patients received trial information according to the ethical approval and consented to participation.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Andersson, J., Angenete, E., Gellerstedt, M. et al. Developing a multivariable prediction model of global health-related quality of life in patients treated for rectal cancer: a prospective study in five countries. Int J Colorectal Dis 39, 35 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-024-04605-y
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-024-04605-y