Charlton, Mary E.

584 Background: Standard therapy for stage II/III rectal cancer includes surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Multiple trials demonstrated neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) provides better local control and decreased morbidity compared to adjuvant CRT, though differences in overall survival and long-term QoL have not been demonstrated. We examined impact of treatment (pre-op CRT/post-op CRT/no CRT) on long-term QoL. Methods: CanCORS patients with survey/medical record data diagnosed in 2003-2005 with stage II/III rectal (non-rectosigmoid) cancer had resection and survived > 7 years were included. QoL (SF-36, EQ-5D) measures and defecation problems were derived from surveys at 14 months and 7 years post-diagnosis. Mean scores were adjusted for the following when significant: age, gender, stage, sphincter preservation, comorbidities, and baseline self-reported health status and QoL scores. Results: Of 119 patients, 53% received pre-op CRT, 23% post-op CRT, and 24% no CRT. Of 114 patients with 14-month follow-up, Pre-op CRT and No CRT groups had better EQ-5D adjusted mean scores but worse defecation scale (DS) scores compared to the Post-op CRT group. Of 49 disease-free survivors with 7 years follow-up, there were no differences among groups in QoL scores, but the No CRT group had better DS scores than other groups. Conclusions: No major differences were detected in long-term QoL based on treatment aside from the DS, though sample sizes became small. Regardless of treatment, long term (7y) mental health and vitality were generally comparable to U.S. norms, while physical health and overall health status (EQ-5D) were somewhat lower. [Table: see text]

Neoadjuvant treatment may result in better quality of life and functional status 1 year after diagnosis.

AbstractPurposeDistance from health care facilities can be a barrier to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, especially for colonoscopy. Alternatively, an improved at‐home stool‐based screening tool, the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), requires only a single sample and has a better sensitivity‐specificity balance compared to traditional guaiac fecal occult blood tests. Our objective was to determine if FITs mailed to asymptomatic, average‐risk patients overdue for screening resulted in higher screening rates versus mailing educational materials alone or no intervention (ie, usual care).MethodsVeterans ages 51‐64, asymptomatic, at average risk for CRC, overdue for screening and in a veterans administration (VA) catchment area covering a large rural population were randomly assigned to 3 groups: (1) education only (Ed) group: mailed CRC educational materials and a survey of screening history and preferences (N = 499); (2) FIT group: mailed the FIT, plus educational materials and survey (N = 500); and (3) usual care (UC) group: received no mailings (N = 500).FindingsAt 6 months postintervention, 21% of the FIT group had received CRC screening by any method compared to 6% of the Ed group (and 6% of the UC group) (P < .0001). Of the 105 respondents from the FIT group, 71 (68%) were eligible to take the FIT. Of those, 64 (90%) completed the FIT and 8 (12%) tested positive.ConclusionsThis low‐intensity intervention of mailing FITs to average risk patients overdue for screening resulted in a significantly higher screening rate than educational materials alone or usual care, and may be of particular interest in rural areas.