Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr;24(4):353-368.
doi: 10.1111/codi.16028. Epub 2022 Jan 30.

Patient-reported outcomes after pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer: A systematic review

Andreas Denys  1 , Yves van Nieuwenhove  1 , Dirk Van de Putte  1 , Eva Pape  1 , Piet Pattyn  1 , Wim Ceelen  1 , Gabriëlle H van Ramshorst  1
Affiliations

Patient-reported outcomes after pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer: A systematic review

Andreas Denys et al. Colorectal Dis. 2022 Apr.

Abstract

Aim: Pelvic exenteration (PE) carries high morbidity. Our aim was to analyse the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in PE patients.

Method: Search strategies were protocolized and registered in PROSPERO. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched with the terms 'patient reported outcomes', 'pelvic exenteration' and 'colorectal cancer'. Studies published after 1980 reporting on PROMs for at least 10 PE patients were considered. Study selection, data extraction, rating of certainty of evidence (GRADE) and risk of bias (ROBINS-I) were performed independently by two reviewers.

Results: Nineteen of 173 studies were included (13 retrospective, six prospective). All studies were low to very low quality, with an overall moderate/serious risk of bias. Studies included data on 878 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (n = 344), recurrent rectal cancer (n = 411) or cancer of unknown type (n = 123). Thirteen studies used validated questionnaires, four used non-validated measures and two used both. Questionnaires included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal questionnaire (n = 6), Short Form Health Survey (n = 6), European Organization for Research and Treatment for Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (n = 6), EORTC-CR38 (n = 4), EORTC-BLM30 (n = 1), Brief Pain Inventory (n = 2), Short Form 12 (n = 1), Assessment of Quality of Life (n = 1), Short Form Six-Dimension (n = 1), the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Sphincter Function Scale (n = 1), the Cleveland Global Quality of Life (n = 1) or other (n = 4). Timing varied between studies.

Conclusions: Whilst the use of validated questionnaires increased over time, this study shows that there is a need for uniform use and timing of PROMs to enable multicentre studies.

Keywords: colorectal cancer; patient-reported outcomes; pelvic exenteration; quality of life.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Austin KK, Young JM, Solomon MJ. Quality of life of survivors after pelvic exenteration for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53(8):1121-6.
    1. Lopez MJ, Standiford SB, Skibba JL. Total pelvic exenteration. A 50-year experience at the Ellis Fischel Cancer Center. Arch Surg. 1994;129(4):390-5; discussion 5-6.
    1. Rodriguwz-Bigas MA, Petrelli NJ. Pelvic exenteration and its modifications. Am J Surg. 1996;171(2):293-8.
    1. Yu HH, Leong C, Ong G. Pelvic exenteration for advanced pelvic malignancies 1. Aust N Z J Surg. 1976;46(3):197-201.
    1. Brunschwig A. Complete excision of pelvic viscera for advanced carcinoma. A one-stage abdominoperineal operation with end colostomy and bilateral ureteral implantation into the colon above the colostomy. Cancer. 1948;1(2):177-83.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources