International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome.
consensus definition
low anterior resection syndrome
patient reported
rectal resection
Journal
ANZ journal of surgery
ISSN: 1445-2197
Titre abrégé: ANZ J Surg
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101086634
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
received:
24
07
2019
accepted:
28
07
2019
pubmed:
11
2
2020
medline:
15
1
2021
entrez:
11
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. This international patient-provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS. Three hundred and twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders.
METHODS
This international patient-provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS.
RESULTS
Three hundred and twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
300-307Subventions
Organisme : Auckland Medical Research Foundation
ID : 1415003
Pays : International
Organisme : Bowel Cancer Research Foundation
Pays : International
Organisme : European Society of Coloproctology
Pays : International
Organisme : Kraeftens Bekaempelse
Pays : International
Organisme : Danish Cancer Society
Pays : International
Organisme : The American Society of Colon & Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS)
Pays : International
Organisme : Colon and Rectal Surgery Section of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS)
Pays : International
Organisme : Royal Society of Medicine (RSM) Section of Coloproctology the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSSANZ)
Pays : International
Organisme : The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI)
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, by John Wiley & Sons Limited on behalf of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland and by John Wiley & Sons Australia on behalf of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.
Références
World Health Organization. Cancer: Key Facts. 2019. [Cited 27 Aug 2019.] Available from URL: https://www.who.int/cancer/about/facts/en/
Ståhle E, Påhlman L, Enblad P. Double stapling technique in the management of rectal tumours. Acta Chir. Scand. 1986; 152: 743-7.
Heald RJ, Ryall RD. Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1982; 1: 1479-82.
van Gijn W, Marijnen C, Nagtegaal ID et al. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer: 12-year follow-up of the multicentre, randomised controlled TME trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12: 575-82.
Denlinger CS, Barsevick AM. The challenges of colorectal cancer survivorship. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 2009; 7: 883-94.
McNair AGK, Heywood N, Tiernan J et al. A national patient and public colorectal research agenda: integration of consumer perspectives in bowel disease through early consultation. Colorectal Dis. 2017; 19: O75-85.
McNair AGK, Whistance RN, Forsythe RO et al. Core outcomes for colorectal cancer surgery: a consensus study. PLoS Med. 2016; 13: e1002071.
Bryant CL, Lunniss PJ, Knowles CH et al. Anterior resection syndrome. Lancet Oncol. 2012; 13: e403-8.
Keane C, Wells C, O'Grady G, Bissett IP. Defining low anterior resection syndrome: a systematic review of the literature. Colorectal Dis. 2017; 19: 713-22.
Chapman SJ, Bolton SW, Corrigan N et al. A cross-sectional review of reporting variation in post-operative bowel dysfunction following rectal cancer surgery. Dis. Colon Rectum 2017; 60: 240-7.
Scheer AS, Boushey RP, Liang S, Doucette S, OʼConnor AM, Moher D. The long-term gastrointestinal functional outcomes following curative anterior resection in adults with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis. Colon Rectum 2011; 54: 1589-97.
Emmertsen KJ, Laurberg S. 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: 922-8.
Croese AD, Lonie JM, Trollope AF, Vangaveti VN, Ho YH. Meta-analysis of the prevalence of low anterior resection syndrome and systematic review of risk factors. Int. J. Surg. 2018; 56: 234-41.
Juul T, Ahlberg M, Biondo S et al. Low anterior resection syndrome and quality of life: an international multicenter study. Dis. Colon Rectum 2014; 57: 585-91.
Hou XT, Pang D, Lu Q et al. Validation of the Chinese version of the low anterior resection syndrome score for measuring bowel dysfunction after sphincter-preserving surgery among rectal cancer patients. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2015; 19: 495-501.
Juul T, Ahlberg M, Biondo S et al. International validation of the low anterior resection syndrome score. Ann. Surg. 2014; 259: 728-34.
Juul T, Christensen P, Janjua AZ et al. Validation of the English translation of the low anterior resection syndrome score. Colorectal Dis. 2015; 17: 908-16.
Ribas Y, Aguilar F, Jovell-Fernández E, Cayetano L, Navarro-Luna A, Muñoz-Duyos A. Clinical application of the LARS score: results from a pilot study. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2017; 32: 409-18.
Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H et al. The COMET handbook: version 1.0. Trials 2017; 18: 280.
COMET Initiative. Guideline for Selecting Outcome Measurement Instruments for Outcomes Included in a Core Outcome Set. 2016. [Cited 27 Aug 2019.] Available from URL: http://www.comet-initiative.org/
Powell C. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J. Adv. Nurs. 2003; 41: 376-82.
Hsu CC, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2007; 12: 1-8.
Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag. Sci. 1963; 9: 458-67.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gaining consensus among stakeholders through the nominal group technique. 2018. [Cited 27 Aug 2019.] Available from URL: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief7.pdf
Juul T, Elfeki H, Christensen P, Laurberg S, Emmertsen KJ, Bager P. Normative data for the low anterior resection syndrome score (LARS score). Ann. Surg. 2018; 269: 1124-8.
Temple LK, Bacik J, Savatta SG et al. The development of a validated instrument to evaluate bowel function after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. Dis. Colon Rectum 2005; 48: 1353-65.