Nursing implications: symptom presentation and quality of life in rectal cancer patients

Abstract

Close monitoring of symptoms during preoperative chemoradiotherapy, particularly at week 4, will enable the implementation of timely interventions so that interruptions to treatment are prevented and the quality of life is optimised, which may hasten postoperative recovery times.

The Role of Gut Microbiome Perturbation in Fatigue Induced by Repeated Stress from Chemoradiotherapy: A Proof of Concept Study

“…Nonetheless, given the high association of tumor stage with fatigue, clinicians need to be aware of the possibility of worsening of fatigue among those who present with higher tumor stage. ese findings also suggest the need for clinicians to continuously assess, plan, and manage fatigue and other potential side effects of CRT in order to improve treatment outcomes in this understudied population [2]. A major gap in preventing and managing CRT-induced fatigue is that its biological mechanisms have not been identified.…”

“…Standard radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) fields are used, which encompass the rectum, regional nodes, and pelvic small bowel. Although CRT has improved local control of RC and survival, it often produces disruptive side effects such as fatigue with negative impacts on health-related quality of life [2]. e etiology and associated mechanism of the cancer-related fatigue during CRT treatment remain elusive [3].…”

Colorectal cancer survivors: an investigation of symptom burden and influencing factors

“…The assessment tools used to measure symptoms were the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire – Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire – Colorectal 29 (EORTC QLQ-CR29), and these have been published previously [ 25 ]. These widely used instruments with proven validity and reliability are recommended to be used in conjunction with each other; they contain items that measure symptom frequency in the previous week that are relevant to those diagnosed with cancer in general and colorectal cancer specifically [ 26 – 28 ].…”

“…Responses to the symptom scales (3 subscales and 4 single items on the QLQ-C30; 3 subscales on the CR29, which included urinary frequency, blood and mucous in stool and stool frequency, and 11 single items which included urinary incontinence, dysuria, abdominal pain, buttock pain, bloating, taste, flatulence, faecal incontinence, sore skin, impotence and dyspareunia) were scored using the EORTC guidelines, which involved raw scores being transformed to a linear scale ranging from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating that symptoms are experienced more frequently [ 28 – 30 ]. According to the scoring procedures, patients that experienced a symptom ‘quite a bit’ or ‘very much’ score ≥ 51 on the relevant subscale, whereas those that score ≤ 50 indicated a symptom was ‘not at all’ present, or there ‘a little’ [ 28 , 30 , 31 ]. In the current study, for the most part, analysis is performed with the symptom scores, but the percentage of participants who scored ≥51 is also examined, in order to indicate the most frequently reported symptoms.…”