Cited by 245Colorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsPelvic floor disorders treatmentsEnhanced Recovery After Surgery

Development and external validation of a nomogram and online tool to predict bowel dysfunction following restorative rectal cancer resection: the POLARS score

Battersby, Nick J, Bouliotis, George, Emmertsen, Katrine J, Juul, Therese, Glynne-Jones, Rob, Branagan, Graham, Christensen, Peter, Laurberg, Søren +1 more·2018·Gut

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Bowel dysfunction is common following a restorative rectal cancer resection, but symptom severity and the degree of quality of life impairment is highly variable. An internationally validated patient-reported outcome measure, Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) score, now enables these symptoms to be measured. The study purpose was: (1) to develop a model that predicts postoperative bowel function; (2) externally validate the model and (3) incorporate these findings into a nomogram and online tool in order to individualise patient counselling and aid preoperative consent. DESIGN: Patients more than 1 year after curative restorative anterior resection (UK, median 54 months; Denmark (DK), 56 months since surgery) were invited to complete The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core 30 version3 (EORTC QLQ-C30 v3), LARS and Wexner incontinence scores. Demographics, tumour characteristics, preoperative/postoperative treatment and surgical procedures were recorded. Using transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines, risk factors for bowel dysfunction were independently assessed by advanced linear regression shrinkage techniques for each dataset (UK:DK). RESULTS: Patients in the development (UK, n=463) and validation (DK, n=938) datasets reported mean (SD) LARS scores of 26 (11) and 24 (11), respectively. Key predictive factors for LARS were: age (at surgery); tumour height, total versus partial mesorectal excision, stoma and preoperative radiotherapy, with satisfactory model calibration and a Mallow's Cp of 7.5 and 5.5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Pre-Operative LARS score (POLARS) is the first nomogram and online tool to predict bowel dysfunction severity prior to anterior resection. Colorectal surgeons, gastroenterologist and nurse specialists may use POLARS to help patients understand their risk of bowel dysfunction and to preoperatively highlight patients who may require additional postoperative support.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312695

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Battersby et al. (2018) used a patient-reported outcome measure to develop and validate an online tool to predict postoperative bowel dysfunction to support cancer specialists and patients.

    “For instance, Battersby et al. (2018) used a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to develop and validate an online tool to predict postoperative bowel dysfunction to support cancer specialists and patients.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Battersby, N. J., Bouliotis, G., Emmertsen, K. J., Juul, T., Glynne-Jones, R., Branagan, G., Christensen, P., Laurberg, S., & Moran, B. J.
Affiliations
  • Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Aarhus University Hospital (DK)
  • Radiotherapy Department, Mount-Vernon Cancer Centre, Mount-Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK
  • Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Moran, Brendan J
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-01-23
Volume
67
Issue
4
Pages
688-696
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2580028102
Cited by
245
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 4
FWCI
8.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Gut (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Pelican Cancer Foundation (IRAS 110623)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
Keywords
bowel dysfunction, low anterior resection syndrome, nomogram, prediction model, risk factors, preoperative counseling, preoperative consent, patient-reported outcomes, EORTC QLQ-C30, Wexner incontinence score, mesorectal excision, preoperative radiotherapy, stoma, colorectal cancer
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Colectomy, Defecation, Denmark, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Online Systems, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Rectal Neoplasms, Retrospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome, Recovery of Function, Nomograms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review