Abstract Purpose Preoperative radiotherapy (pRT) for rectal cancer (RC) reduces local recurrence rates. However, treatment-induced side effects may compromise patient-reported quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to report longitudinal QoL and physician-assessed toxicity in RC patients receiving preoperative intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Methods This prospective cohort study included 123 RC patients treated with short-course (SCRT) or long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCRT). Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and CR29 questionnaires at pretreatment, end of treatment, preoperatively, and at 1-year follow-up. Physician-reported toxicity was evaluated using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Longitudinal changes in PROs were analysed using mixed-effects regression modelling. CTCAE grades were reported as frequencies, and symptom transitions illustrated using Sankey diagrams. Results For EORTC C30 items, pRT-induced transient declines were observed for Global Health, physical, role and social functioning, fatigue, and pain, with scores recovering at preoperative assessment, except for persistent worsening for fatigue. At 1-year, Global Health remained stable; emotional functioning improved; fatigue and social functioning showed minor persistent worsening. Bowel and bladder symptoms peaked during pRT and gradually resolved or improved at 1Y. CTCAE grades were predominantly mild; diarrhoea and rectal bleeding improved over time, while urinary dysfunction and fatigue increased modestly. Sankey plots illustrate symptom transitions. Discrepancies were noted between physician- and patient-reported outcomes. Conclusion IMRT-based pRT was associated with largely preserved QoL at 1Y. Reported trajectories of PRO and CTCAE scores provide complementary insights to support physician–patient communication, with differences underlining the importance of integrating both perspectives.
Truelsen et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: