MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410355226 · doi:10.36315/2025inpact113

HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE IN RECTAL CANCER PATIENTS DURING ACTIVE TREATMENT

2025· article· en· W4410355226 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColorectal cancerQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineCancerOncologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The aim of this exploratory prospective observational study was to evaluate changes in Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in rectal cancer patients (RCPs) during active cancer treatment, i.e. after diagnosis, after preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy and after surgical resection.Furthermore, the study aims to investigate which physical and psychosocial factors better predict HRQoL in the different treatment phases.Deepening the understanding of the positive and negative predictive factors for patients' HRQoL at different phases could indeed improve screening programs for early detection and intervention.Methods: 43 RCPs, expected to be treated with preoperative (chemo)radiation and surgery, were enrolled after diagnosis and assessed at three different time points: diagnosis (T0), one month after the end of preoperative treatment (T1), and one month after resection surgery (T2).HRQoL (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, EORTC-QLQ-C30 and its disease-specific supplementary, the QLQ-CR29), psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS), coping (Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale, Mini-MAC), affectivity (Positive and Negative Affect Scale, PANAS), alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale, TAS-20) and social support (Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support Scale, MSPSS) were evaluate at the different time points.Results: The data showed that HRQoL decreased over time, especially between T1 and T2 (p=.005).Over time, patients' body image (p<.001) and urinary (p<.001), mouth (p=.015) and sexual (p<.001) symptoms worsened.Health anxiety (p<.001) and negative affectivity state (p=.037) improved after preoperative treatment, as did psychological distress (p<.001), although this increased again at T2 (p=.003).Baseline intestinal symptoms (p<.001) and negative affectivity trait (p=.03) were found to be significant predictors of HRQoL at T0. Baseline pain (p<.001), intestinal (p=.003) and urinary (p=.009) symptoms at T1 significantly predicted HRQoL at T1. Finally, a fatalistic coping style at T1 (p=.013), psychological distress (p=.003) and mouth symptoms (p=.001) at T2 significantly predicted HRQoL at T2.Conclusion: Our results suggest that several physical and psychological factors are involved in the changes occurring after diagnosis in RCPs' HRQoL, which decreases during active treatments.These data emphasise the importance of active screening, early diagnosis, and preventive psychological interventions immediately after diagnosis to improve HRQoL and psychological health outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→