International validation of the low anterior resection syndrome score

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to investigate the convergent and discriminative validity and reliability of the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score in an international setting. BACKGROUND: The LARS score is a simple self-administered questionnaire measuring bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery. The score is intended to be commonly used in international research and clinical practice in the future. Therefore, a thorough validation in an international setting is of utmost importance. METHODS: The LARS score was translated using methods in keeping with current international recommendations. A total of 801 patients operated for rectal cancer in Sweden, Spain, Germany, and Denmark completed the LARS score questionnaire, including an anchor question assessing the impact of bowel function on quality of life. A subgroup of 218 patients completed the LARS score twice. Data were analyzed per country. RESULTS: The LARS score has demonstrated a high convergent validity in terms of a high correlation between LARS score and quality of life (P < 0.001). Sensitivity ranged from 67.7% to 88.3% and specificity from 58.1% to 86.3%. The LARS score was able to discriminate between groups of patients differing with regard to radiotherapy, surgery, and age (P < 0.05). The score also demonstrated high reliability at test-retest with narrow limits of agreement and no statistically significant difference between scores at the first and second test. CONCLUSIONS: The Swedish, Spanish, German, and Danish versions of the LARS score have proven to be valid and reliable tools for measuring LARS in European rectal cancer patients

Translation and international validation of the Colostomy Impact score.

AIM: Optimal oncological resection in cancers of the lower rectum often requires a permanent colostomy. However, in some patients a colostomy may have a negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The Colostomy Impact (CI) score is a simple questionnaire that identifies patients with stoma dysfunction that impairs HRQoL by dividing patients into 'minor' and 'major' CI groups. This aim of this study is to evaluate construct and discriminative validity, sensitivity, specificity and reliability of the CI score internationally, making it applicable for screening and identification of patients with stoma-related impaired HRQoL. METHOD: The CI score was translated in agreement with WHO recommendations. Cross-sectional cohorts of rectal cancer survivors with a colostomy in Australia, China, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden were asked to complete the CI score, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life 30-item core questionnaire, the stoma-specific items of the EORTC quality of life 29-item colorectal-specific questionnaire and five anchor questions assessing the impact of colostomy on HRQoL. RESULTS: A total of 2470 patients participated (response rate 51%-93%). CI scores were significantly higher in patients reporting reduced HRQoL due to their colostomy than in patients reporting no reduction. Differences in EORTC scale scores between patients with minor and major CI were significant and clinically relevant. Sensitivity was high regarding dissatisfaction with a colostomy. Regarding evaluation of discriminative validity, the CI score relevantly identified groups with differences in HRQoL. The CI score proved reliable, with equal CI scores between test and retest and an intraclass correlation coefficient in the moderate to excellent range. CONCLUSION: The CI score is internationally valid and reliable. We encourage its use in clinical practice to identify patients with stoma dysfunction who require further attention.RD&E staff can access the full-text of this article by clicking on the 'Additional Link' above and logging in with NHS OpenAthens if prompted.Accepted version (12 month embargo