Surviving rectal cancer at the cost of a colostomy: global survey of long-term health-related quality of life in 10 countries.
Journal
BJS open
ISSN: 2474-9842
Titre abrégé: BJS Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101722685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 11 2022
02 11 2022
Historique:
received:
23
12
2021
revised:
22
04
2022
accepted:
20
05
2022
entrez:
22
12
2022
pubmed:
23
12
2022
medline:
24
12
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Colorectal cancer management may require an ostomy formation; however, a stoma may negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to compare generic and stoma-specific HRQoL in patients with a permanent colostomy after rectal cancer across different countries. A cross-sectional cohorts of patients with a colostomy after rectal cancer in Denmark, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, China, Portugal, Australia, Lithuania, Egypt, and Israel were invited to complete questionnaires regarding demographic and socioeconomic factors along with the Colostomy Impact (CI) score, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and five anchor questions assessing colostomy impact on HRQoL. The background characteristics of the cohorts from each country were compared and generic HRQoL was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 presented for the total cohort. Results were compared with normative data of reference European populations. The predictors of reduced HRQoL were investigated by multivariable logistic regression, including demographic and socioeconomic factors and stoma-related problems. A total of 2557 patients were included. Response rates varied between 51-93 per cent. Mean time from stoma creation was 2.5-6.2 (range 1.1-39.2) years. A total of 25.8 per cent of patients reported that their colostomy impairs their HRQoL 'some'/'a lot'. This group had significantly unfavourable scores across all EORTC subscales compared with patients reporting 'no'/'a little' impaired HRQoL. Generic HRQoL differed significantly between countries, but resembled the HRQoL of reference populations. Multivariable logistic regression showed that stoma dysfunction, including high CI score (OR 3.32), financial burden from the stoma (OR 1.98), unemployment (OR 2.74), being single/widowed (OR 1.35) and young age (OR 1.01 per year) predicted reduced stoma-related HRQoL. Overall HRQoL is preserved in patients with a colostomy after rectal cancer, but a quarter of the patients interviewed reported impaired HRQoL. Differences among several countries were reported and socioeconomic factors correlated with reduced quality of life.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Colorectal cancer management may require an ostomy formation; however, a stoma may negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to compare generic and stoma-specific HRQoL in patients with a permanent colostomy after rectal cancer across different countries.
METHOD
A cross-sectional cohorts of patients with a colostomy after rectal cancer in Denmark, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, China, Portugal, Australia, Lithuania, Egypt, and Israel were invited to complete questionnaires regarding demographic and socioeconomic factors along with the Colostomy Impact (CI) score, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and five anchor questions assessing colostomy impact on HRQoL. The background characteristics of the cohorts from each country were compared and generic HRQoL was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 presented for the total cohort. Results were compared with normative data of reference European populations. The predictors of reduced HRQoL were investigated by multivariable logistic regression, including demographic and socioeconomic factors and stoma-related problems.
RESULTS
A total of 2557 patients were included. Response rates varied between 51-93 per cent. Mean time from stoma creation was 2.5-6.2 (range 1.1-39.2) years. A total of 25.8 per cent of patients reported that their colostomy impairs their HRQoL 'some'/'a lot'. This group had significantly unfavourable scores across all EORTC subscales compared with patients reporting 'no'/'a little' impaired HRQoL. Generic HRQoL differed significantly between countries, but resembled the HRQoL of reference populations. Multivariable logistic regression showed that stoma dysfunction, including high CI score (OR 3.32), financial burden from the stoma (OR 1.98), unemployment (OR 2.74), being single/widowed (OR 1.35) and young age (OR 1.01 per year) predicted reduced stoma-related HRQoL.
CONCLUSION
Overall HRQoL is preserved in patients with a colostomy after rectal cancer, but a quarter of the patients interviewed reported impaired HRQoL. Differences among several countries were reported and socioeconomic factors correlated with reduced quality of life.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36546340
pii: 6955596
doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac085
pmc: PMC9772877
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Aarhus University Hospital
Organisme : Bengt Ihre Foundation
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.
Références
Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2012 Jan-Feb;20(1):93-100
pubmed: 22481726
J Surg Res. 2007 Mar;138(1):79-87
pubmed: 17196990
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2016 Dec;401(8):1191-1201
pubmed: 27659022
Dis Colon Rectum. 2005 Dec;48(12):2209-16
pubmed: 16228820
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2019 Feb;38:50-56
pubmed: 30717936
Ostomy Wound Manage. 2014 Oct;60(10):18-23
pubmed: 25299814
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012 Nov 21;10:136
pubmed: 23170951
Med Care. 2007 Sep;45(9):891-5
pubmed: 17712260
Qual Life Res. 2016 Jan;25(1):125-33
pubmed: 26123983
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002 May;17(5):571-6
pubmed: 12084031
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12:CD004323
pubmed: 23235607
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Oct 1;27(28):4664-70
pubmed: 19720920
Dis Colon Rectum. 2005 Dec;48(12):2180-91
pubmed: 16228842
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:79-88
pubmed: 26327487
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Colorectal Dis. 2018 Apr;20(4):O92-O102
pubmed: 29243393
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Jan;107:153-163
pubmed: 30576971
Colorectal Dis. 2012 Jun;14(6):e335-8
pubmed: 22251418
Colorectal Dis. 2021 Jul;23(7):1866-1877
pubmed: 33725386
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Mar 3;85(5):365-76
pubmed: 8433390
Qual Life Res. 2014 Oct;23(8):2183-93
pubmed: 24676897
Colorectal Dis. 2017 Jan;19(1):O25-O33
pubmed: 27883253
Dis Colon Rectum. 2012 Feb;55(2):147-54
pubmed: 22228157
Med J Aust. 2019 Jun;210(11):499-506
pubmed: 31155722
Source Code Biol Med. 2008 Dec 16;3:17
pubmed: 19087314