ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2025
Quality of life and functional outcomes after rectal sparing approaches following neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: a prospective cohort multicentre study.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Letter to the Editor: "Quality of life and functional outcomes after rectal sparing approaches following neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: a prospective cohort multicentre study".International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis prospective observational multicenter cohort study aimed to establish the functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL) of patients with rectal cancer who showed a major (mCR) or complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy and underwent a rectum sparing approach (watch and wait, WW, or local excision, LE). MATERIALS AND
methodsQoL and functional function were investigated using the EORTC QLQ-30, EORTC QLQ-CR29, the MSKCC bowel function instrument, and the FIQL index. Patients filled these questionnaires at the time of enrolment (T1), and 6 (T2) and 12 months (T3) thereafter. Variation overtime for each group and comparisons between cCR patients who underwent WW or LE were performed.
resultsOf 161 patients who were enrolled, 112 had a cCR (LE n = 50, WW n = 62) and 49 a mCR (all LE). LE patients showed changes after surgery, WW patients showed more gradual changes. LE patients showed reduced anxiety and depression and improved emotional functioning but also an increased fecal incontinence and reduced sexual function in men after surgery. WW patients showed a significant improvement overtime in role functioning and anxiety, while their diarrhea and stool frequency progressively reduced. Among patients with a cCR, LE patients showed a significantly higher incontinence compared to WW patients. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of impact of incontinence on QoL.
conclusionFunctional outcomes and QoL of patients underwent to WW or LE approach generally improve overtime, but LE patients also showed some impact of surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.