Evaluation of surgical strategy for low anterior resection syndrome using preoperative low anterior resection syndrome score in China.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Yang-Tao Pan, Yi-Min Lv, Shi-Chao Zhou, Dan-Yan Luo, Hao Sun, Wei-Feng Lao, Wei Zhou
{"title":"Evaluation of surgical strategy for low anterior resection syndrome using preoperative low anterior resection syndrome score in China.","authors":"Yang-Tao Pan, Yi-Min Lv, Shi-Chao Zhou, Dan-Yan Luo, Hao Sun, Wei-Feng Lao, Wei Zhou","doi":"10.4240/wjgs.v17.i1.100910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite improved survival rates in rectal cancer treatment, many patients experience low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). The preoperative LARS score (POLARS) aims to address the limitations of LARS assessment by predicting outcomes preoperatively to enhance surgical planning.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To investigate the predictive accuracy of POLARS in assessing the occurrence of LARS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study enrolled a total of 335 patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic low anal sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal tumors. Patients were categorized into three groups according to their POLARS score: no LARS (score 0-20), minor LARS (score 21-29), and major LARS (score 30-42). The QLQ-C30/CR29 scores were compared among these groups, and the agreement between POLARS predictions and the actual LARS scores was analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study population was divided into three groups: major LARS (<i>n</i> = 51, 27.42%), minor LARS (<i>n</i> = 109, 58.6%), and no LARS (<i>n</i> = 26, 13.98%). Significant differences in the QLQ-C30 scales of social function, diarrhea, and financial impact were detected between the no LARS and major LARS groups (<i>P</i> < 0.05) and between the minor LARS and major LARS groups (<i>P</i> < 0.05). Similarly, significant differences were detected in the QLQ-CR29 scales for blood and mucus in the stool, fecal incontinence, and stool frequency between the no LARS and minor LARS groups (<i>P</i> < 0.05), as well as between the minor LARS and major LARS groups (<i>P</i> < 0.05). The predictive precision for major LARS using the POLARS score was 82.35% (42/51), with a recall of 35.89% (42/117). The mean absolute error (MAE) between the POLARS score and the actual LARS score was 8.92 ± 5.47. In contrast, the XGBoost (extreme gradient boosting) model achieved a lower MAE of 6.29 ± 4.77, with a precision of 84.39% and a recall of 74.05% for predicting major LARS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The POLARS score demonstrated effectiveness and precision in predicting major LARS, thereby providing valuable insights into postoperative symptoms and patient quality of life. However, the XGBoost model exhibited superior performance with a lower MAE and higher recall for predicting major LARS compared to the POLARS model.</p>","PeriodicalId":23759,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","volume":"17 1","pages":"100910"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11757172/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v17.i1.100910","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite improved survival rates in rectal cancer treatment, many patients experience low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). The preoperative LARS score (POLARS) aims to address the limitations of LARS assessment by predicting outcomes preoperatively to enhance surgical planning.

Aim: To investigate the predictive accuracy of POLARS in assessing the occurrence of LARS.

Methods: This study enrolled a total of 335 patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic low anal sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal tumors. Patients were categorized into three groups according to their POLARS score: no LARS (score 0-20), minor LARS (score 21-29), and major LARS (score 30-42). The QLQ-C30/CR29 scores were compared among these groups, and the agreement between POLARS predictions and the actual LARS scores was analyzed.

Results: The study population was divided into three groups: major LARS (n = 51, 27.42%), minor LARS (n = 109, 58.6%), and no LARS (n = 26, 13.98%). Significant differences in the QLQ-C30 scales of social function, diarrhea, and financial impact were detected between the no LARS and major LARS groups (P < 0.05) and between the minor LARS and major LARS groups (P < 0.05). Similarly, significant differences were detected in the QLQ-CR29 scales for blood and mucus in the stool, fecal incontinence, and stool frequency between the no LARS and minor LARS groups (P < 0.05), as well as between the minor LARS and major LARS groups (P < 0.05). The predictive precision for major LARS using the POLARS score was 82.35% (42/51), with a recall of 35.89% (42/117). The mean absolute error (MAE) between the POLARS score and the actual LARS score was 8.92 ± 5.47. In contrast, the XGBoost (extreme gradient boosting) model achieved a lower MAE of 6.29 ± 4.77, with a precision of 84.39% and a recall of 74.05% for predicting major LARS.

Conclusion: The POLARS score demonstrated effectiveness and precision in predicting major LARS, thereby providing valuable insights into postoperative symptoms and patient quality of life. However, the XGBoost model exhibited superior performance with a lower MAE and higher recall for predicting major LARS compared to the POLARS model.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
5.00%
发文量
111
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信