Validation of the low anterior resection syndrome score in finnish patients: preliminary results on quality of life in different lars severity groups

Distinguishing Clinical From Statistical Significances in Contemporary Comparative Effectiveness Research

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of clinical significance reporting in contemporary comparative effectiveness research (CER).

BACKGROUND

In CER, a statistically significant difference between study groups may or may not be clinically significant. Misinterpreting statistically significant results could lead to inappropriate recommendations that increase health care costs and treatment toxicity.

METHODS

CER studies from 2022 issues of the Annals of Surgery , Journal of the American Medical Association , Journal of Clinical Oncology , Journal of Surgical Research , and Journal of the American College of Surgeons were systematically reviewed by 2 different investigators. The primary outcome of interest was whether the authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in the "Methods."

RESULTS

Of 307 reviewed studies, 162 were clinical trials and 145 were observational studies. Authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in 26 studies (8.5%). Clinical significance was defined using clinically validated standards in 25 studies and subjectively in 1 study. Seven studies (2.3%) recommended a change in clinical decision-making, all with primary outcomes achieving statistical significance. Five (71.4%) of these studies did not have clinical significance defined in their methods. In randomized controlled trials with statistically significant results, sample size was inversely correlated with effect size ( r = -0.30, P = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

In contemporary CER, most authors do not specify what they consider to be a clinically significant difference in study outcome. Most studies recommending a change in clinical decision-making did so based on statistical significance alone, and clinical significance was usually defined with clinically validated standards.

A predictive nomogram model for low anterior resection syndrome after rectal cancer resection

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to identify risk factors associated with the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) and to construct a nomogram capable of predicting the risk of LARS in patients who undergo rectal cancer resection.

METHODS

About 538 patients who had undergone anterior resection were recruited as a development set. In addition, 114 patients with rectal cancer were analysed as a validation set to test the new nomogram. Patients in the development set were grouped into two separate cohorts: those with major LARS and those with minor or no LARS. Multiple logistic regression was conducted to detect risk factors for major LARS.

RESULTS

The prevalence of major LARS was 40.7%, of minor LARS was 28.6% and the proportion with no LARS was 30.7% in the development set. In multivariate analysis, female gender, preoperative chemoradiation, low tumour height, diverting ileostomy, postoperative anastomotic leakage were shown to be independently associated with major LARS occurring in patients after rectal cancer resection. The area under the curve (AUC) values of the nomogram were 0.726 (95% CI: 0.682-0.769) and 0.750 (95% CI: 0.655-0.845) in the development and validation sets, respectively. The calibration curves and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit tests showed that the model was acceptably accurate.

CONCLUSION

A nomogram model based on risk factors could be valuable as a predictor of the probability of major LARS after rectal cancer surgery, and provides a guide that clinical staff can use to take preventive measures for high-risk patients.

Effectiveness and Validation of the Italian Translation of the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Score in an Italian High-Volume University Hospital

Background

The low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score is a validated questionnaire developed in Denmark to measure the severity of bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection. This retrospective study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the LARS score in the Italian language in a population of Italian patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal cancer. The convergent and discriminative validity and the test-retest reliability of the score were investigated.

Methods

A cohort of two hundred and five patients treated with low anterior resection were enrolled in an Italian high-volume university hospital between January 2000 and April 2018. The Italian version of the LARS score (tested twice), as translated from English original version, a single question on quality of life and the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire were submitted to patients.

Results

A high proportion of patients showed a perfect or moderate fit between the LARS score and QoL categories (convergent validity, p < 0.0005). All differences regarding the items of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire – Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) functional scales were statistically significant (p < 0.0005). The LARS score was able to discriminate between groups of patients who received or did not receive preoperative chemoradiotherapy (p < 0.0005) and those who received total or partial mesorectal excision (p < 0.0005). The test-retest reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.96).

Conclusion

The Italian translation of the LARS score is an easy and reliable tool for assessing bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection and its routine use in clinical practice should be recommended.

Trial registration number at www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04406311.