Psychological well-being outcomes in disease-free survivors of mid-low rectal cancer following curative surgery.

Department of Oncological and Surgical Sciences, Clinica Chirurgica II, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Psycho-Oncology (Impact Factor: 4.04). 05/2010; 20(7):706-14. DOI: 10.1002/pon.1763
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate psychological well-being outcomes in disease-free survivors who previously underwent radical surgery for rectal adenocarcinoma.
All patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent primary surgery at a single institution from 1990 to 2002 were considered for inclusion in the study. We identified and sent questionnaires to 145 patients after excluding those who had died or had recurrent disease. One hundred and seventeen patients (men/women: 74/43; median age: 65 years) returned the questionnaires. Patients' well being was evaluated using the Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI) questionnaire. The mean PGWBI score was compared with normative data of the general population. The impact of patient-, tumor- and treatment-related factors on patients' long-term psychological well-being status was also evaluated.
Compared with the general population, study patients had significantly better anxiety, depressed mood, positive well being, general health, vitality scales and global index scores. On multivariate analysis, positive well being was independently affected by time from diagnosis (36 months; p=0.025) and occurrence of early major complications (p=0.024). Variables that were independently associated with worse self-control included primary education (p=0.04) and the presence of fecal urgency (p=0.049). General health was negatively affected by time from diagnosis (36 months; p=0.047) and fecal urgency (p=0.009).
Patients who have survived cancer are likely to re-evaluate the importance of everyday events and this may explain why they had better PGWBI scores. This study also identified that a short time from diagnosis, early adverse events and bowel dysfunction had a negative impact on patients' well being.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and aim The literature continues to emphasize the advantages of treating patients in “high volume” units by “expert” surgeons, but there is no agreed definition of what is meant by either term. In September 2012, a Consensus Conference on Clinical Competence was organized in Rome as part of the meeting of the National Congress of Italian Surgery (I Congresso Nazionale della Chirurgia Italiana: Unità e valore della chirurgia italiana). The aims were to provide a definition of “expert surgeon” and “high-volume facility” in rectal cancer surgery and to assess their influence on patient outcome. Method An Organizing Committee (OC), a Scientific Committee (SC), a Group of Experts (E) and a Panel/Jury (P) were set up for the conduct of the Consensus Conference. Review of the literature focused on three main questions including training, “measuring” of quality and to what extent hospital and surgeon volume affects sphincter-preserving procedures, local recurrence, 30-day morbidity and mortality, survival, function, choice of laparoscopic approach and the choice of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Results and conclusion The difficulties encountered in defining competence in rectal surgery arise from the great heterogeneity of the parameters described in the literature to quantify it. Acquisition of data is difficult as many articles were published many years ago. Even with a focus on surgeon and hospital volume, it is difficult to define their role owing to the variability and the quality of the relevant studies.
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease 07/2014; 29(7). · 2.42 Impact Factor