Quality of Life in Rectal Cancer Treatments: An Updated Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials (2013–2023)

• Published in: Cancers Vol. 17; no. 14; p. 2310
• Main Authors: Negro, Silvia, Bergamo, Francesca, Dell’Atti, Lorenzo, Prete, Alessandra Anna, Galuppo, Sara, Scarpa, Marco, Bao, Quoc Riccardo, Ferrari, Stefania, Lonardi, Sara, Spolverato, Gaya, Urso, Emanuele Damiano Luca
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 11.07.2025; MDPI
• Subjects: Bias; Cancer; Cancer therapies; Care and treatment; Chemotherapy; Clinical trials; Colorectal cancer; Decision making; Disease management; Evaluation; Fecal incontinence; Health aspects; Intervention; Medical Subject Headings-MeSH; Ostomy; Patient outcomes; Patients; Preservation; Quality of life; Questionnaires; Radiation therapy; Rectum; Sphincter; Surgery; Systematic Review; Italy; radiotherapy; health-related quality of life; organ-preserving strategies; rectal cancer
• ISSN: 2072-6694; 2072-6694
• DOI: 10.3390/cancers17142310

Background: Rectal cancer management involves surgery, chemotherapy (CT), radiotherapy (RT), and patient care strategies, all of which significantly affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Understanding these effects is critical for optimizing treatment protocols. This review aimed to systematically analyze the impact of rectal cancer treatment on HRQoL. Methods: Four databases, Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2013 and December 2023. RCTs specifically focusing on rectal cancer treatments (surgical interventions, pre- and/or post-CT and/or RT, and patient care strategies) were included. An abstract review, data extraction, and a risk-of-bias assessment were independently conducted by two reviewers. Results: The 41 included studies comprised 9240 patients: 16 evaluated surgical interventions (3507 patients), 15 evaluated pre- and/or post-CT and/or RT protocols (5114 patients), and 10 focused on patient-care strategies (619 patients). Sphincter-sparing procedures were associated with better HRQoL than abdominoperineal resection, and rectal-sparing techniques were associated with better overall HRQoL than rectal resection. RT was associated with a poorer HRQoL. Continuity-of-care interventions improved HRQoL in ostomy patients, whereas transanal irrigation improved HRQoL after ostomy closure. Conclusions: This systematic review of RCTs underscores the importance of organ-sparing strategies, such as rectum-sparing approaches and continuity-of-care packages, in improving HRQoL in patients with rectal cancer. Although RT negatively affects HRQoL, treatment regimens should be individualized. Tailored organ-preservation approaches and structured follow-up care are essential for optimizing HRQoL in patients with rectal cancer.