A systematic review of outcome reporting in colorectal cancer surgery.

AIM: Evaluation of surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) is necessary to inform clinical decision-making and healthcare policy. The standards of outcome reporting after CRC surgery have not previously been considered. METHOD: Systematic literature searches identified randomized and nonrandomized prospective studies reporting clinical outcomes of CRC surgery. Outcomes were listed verbatim, categorized into broad groups (outcome domains) and examined for a definition (an appropriate textual explanation or a supporting citation). Outcome reporting was considered inconsistent if results of the outcome specified in the methods were not reported. Outcome reporting was compared between randomized and nonrandomized studies. RESULTS: Of 5644 abstracts, 194 articles (34 randomized and 160 nonrandomized studies) were included reporting 766 different clinical outcomes, categorized into seven domains. A mean of 14 ± 8 individual outcomes were reported per study. 'Anastomotic leak', 'overall survival' and 'wound infection' were the three most frequently reported outcomes in 72, 60 and 44 (37.1%, 30.9% and 22.7%) studies, respectively, and no single outcome was reported in every publication. Outcome definitions were significantly more often provided in randomized studies than in nonrandomized studies (19.0% vs 14.9%, P = 0.015). One-hundred and twenty-seven (65.5%) papers reported results of all outcomes specified in the methods (randomized studies, n = 21, 61.5%; nonrandomized studies, n = 106, 66.2%; P = 0.617). CONCLUSION: Outcome reporting in CRC surgery lacks consistency and method. Improved standards of outcome measurement are recommended to permit data synthesis and transparent cross-study comparisons

Clinical and psychometric validation of the EORTC QLQ-CR29 questionnaire module to assess health-related quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer

This international study aimed to test the measurement properties of the updated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaire module for colorectal cancer, the QLQ-CR29. The QLQ-CR29 was administered with the QLQ-C30, core questionnaire, to 351 patients from seven countries. Questionnaire scaling and reliability were established and clinical and psychometric validity examined. Patient acceptability and understanding were assessed with a debriefing questionnaire. Multi-trait scaling analyses and face validity refined the module to four scales assessing urinary frequency, faecal seepage, stool consistency and body image and single items assessing other common problems following treatment for colorectal cancer. Scales distinguished between clinically distinct groups of patients and did not correlate with QLQ-C30 scales, demonstrating construct validity. The QLQ-CR29 scores were reproducible over time in stable health