Information needs of people prior, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer
Evidence review E3
NICE Guideline, No. 151
Authors
National Guideline Alliance (UK).Information needs of people prior, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer
This evidence review supports recommendations 1.2.1 to 1.2.8.
Review question
What are the information needs of people prior, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer?
Introduction
Survival for colorectal cancer is continuing to improve (Verdecchia 2007) and there is also a growing body of work on cancer survivorship in the UK. It is estimated that 25% of cancer survivors in the UK experience treatment-related consequences (Macmillan Cancer Support 2013). People undergoing treatment for colorectal cancer might experience a variety of consequences, depending on their treatment, including change in bowel function and stomas related to surgery, peripheral neuropathy related to chemotherapy and changes in quality of life related to radiotherapy (Brown 2016). While health care professionals are increasingly aware of the need to inform patients of treatment consequences, there is a lack of evidence regarding patients’ information needs throughout their cancer journey. Therefore, the objective of this review is to determine the information needs and the gaps in current provision of information for people undergoing treatment for colorectal cancer.
Summary of the protocol
Please see Table 1 for a summary of the population, phenomenon of interest, and context (PICo) of this review.
Table 1
Summary of the protocol (PICo table).
For further details see the review protocol in appendix A.
Methods and process
This evidence review was developed using the methods and process described in Developing NICE guidelines: the manual 2014 Methods specific to this review question are described in the review protocol in appendix A.
Declarations of interest were recorded according to NICE’s 2014 conflicts of interest policy until 31 March 2018. From 1 April 2018, declarations of interest were recorded according to NICE’s 2018 conflicts of interest policy. Those interests declared until April 2018 were reclassified according to NICE’s 2018 conflicts of interest policy (see Register of Interests).
Clinical evidence
Included studies
Fifteen qualitative studies were included in this review (Abelson 2018; Anderson 2013; Beaver 2014; Brown 2016; Dowswell 2011; Gillis 2017; Hall 2012; Ho 2016; Hoedjes 2017; Maxwell-Smith 2017; McCaughan 2011; Steel 2016; Taylor 2013; Veitch 2006; Wilson 2010).
The included studies are summarised in Table 2.
One study focused on the perspective of male patients with colorectal cancer. Eleven studies focused on the perspective of both male and female patients with colorectal cancer.
Four studies used focus groups (Anderson 2013; Gillis 2017; Ho 2016; Hoedjes 2017), 10 studies used semi-structured interviews (Abelson 2018; Beaver 2014; Brown 2016; Bowswell 2011; Hall 2012; Maxwell-Smith 2017; McCaughan 2011; Steel 2011; Taylor 2013; Wilson 2010) and 1 study (Veitch 2006) used a combination of both focus groups and semi-structured interviews. The most common data analysis method was thematic content analysis.
See the literature search strategy in appendix B and study selection flow chart in appendix C.
Excluded studies
Studies not included in this review with reasons for their exclusions are provided in appendix K.
Summary of clinical studies included in the evidence review
Summaries of the studies that were included in this review are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Summary of included studies.
See the full evidence tables in appendix D. No meta-analysis was conducted as this was a qualitative review (and so there are no forest plots in appendix E).
See also appendix M – Qualitative evidence and quotes.
Quality assessment of themes included in the evidence review
See the GRADE CERQual tables in appendix F.
Economic evidence
Included studies
A systematic review of the economic literature was conducted but no economic studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.
Excluded studies
A global search of economic evidence was undertaken for all review questions in this guideline. See Supplement 2 for further information.
Economic model
No economic modelling was undertaken for this review because the committee agreed that other topics were higher priorities for economic evaluation.
Evidence statements
Clinical evidence statements
Theme 1: Surgery
Preparation for surgery
- Moderate quality evidence from 2 studies conducted in different countries (Australia, US) among 42 people with colorectal cancer found that people wanted to know what preparation was required prior to surgery. People wanted more thorough explanations, as receiving too much information at once regarding scheduling the surgery, colon preparation and reviewing test results could be overwhelming.
What to expect during surgery
- High quality evidence from 6 studies conducted in different countries (Australia, Canada, UK, US) among 146 people with colorectal cancer reported that participants wanted more information about what to expect during treatment, such as pain from inflating the abdomen for laparoscopic surgery, to feel better prepared for possible treatment side-effects. Participants wanted an explicit discussion prior to treatment about the possibility of changes to the treatment plan during the operation, such as the unexpected removal of additional organs, so as to not be taken by surprise.
What to expect after surgery
- High quality evidence from 4 studies conducted in different countries (Australia, UK, US) among 88 people with colorectal cancer reported that participants wanted to be informed about what to expect after surgery, including altered bowel function, potential treatment symptoms, other physical and mental changes, the presence of tubes and connections, and the length of the recovery process.
Theme 2: Recovery
Diet
- Moderate quality evidence from 1 study conducted in the UK among 19 people with colorectal cancer reported that prior to surgery, participants wanted to know about what adaptations to their diet would be required after surgery.
Accessing resources and services
- Moderate quality evidence from 1 study conducted in Canada among 27 people with colorectal cancer reported that participants were unaware of the resources available to them, therefore guidance on how to access the appropriate services could help reduce patients’ anxiety during the period prior to surgery.
Effect of treatment on sexual function
- High quality evidence from 2 studies conducted in the UK among 58 people with colorectal cancer reported that they did not think that they were adequately warned about the potential for sexual dysfunction post-surgery. When clinicians did provide information about the potential for altered sexual function, it was biased towards younger men and sometimes misleading. Most understood the importance of information about sexual matters being available to those that needed it.
Theme 3: Treatment decision making
Awareness of colorectal cancer and treatments
- Moderate quality evidence from 3 studies conducted in different countries (Australia, UK, US) among 92 people with colorectal cancer reported that they had limited knowledge on colorectal cancer prior to diagnosis and would have acted faster and sooner had they known more about the signs and symptoms. Additionally, ambiguous information about the efficacy of some treatments, such as adjuvant chemotherapy, made it difficult to make decisions. Participants noted the need to educate relatives on their need to be screened.
Cost of care
- Low quality evidence from 1 study conducted in Canada among 30 people with colorectal cancer reported that participants wanted to be informed about which supportive care medications were covered by the public healthcare system or private insurance, as the need to pay for medications out of pocket would affect their decision about whether to proceed with a medication.
Preoperative assessments
- Moderate quality evidence from 2 studies conducted in different countries (Canada, US) among 51 people with colorectal cancer reported that unawareness of the time needed to review and report preoperative assessments and results, such as biopsy results, caused undue preoperative stress. Receiving insufficient information could result in people regretting treatment decisions.
Theme 4: Timing and delivery of information
- High quality evidence from 4 studies conducted in different countries (Canada, UK, the Netherlands) among 100 people with colorectal cancer reported that many participants spoke of ‘information overload’ during the first consultation appointment and would have preferred that preoperative information be conveyed later when they were better able to absorb information, along with a binder or resource that they could consult. Participants also wanted to receive information updates directly after surgery, on the first hospital visit post-discharge, and during the follow-up period.
Theme 1: Diet
- Moderate quality evidence from 1 study conducted in the UK among 27 people with colorectal cancer reported that participants would have liked some guidance while they were in hospital as to the type of food that relatives could bring for them from home.
Theme 2: Others’ experiences
- Moderate quality evidence from 1 study conducted in the UK among 38 people with colorectal cancer reported that during treatment participants wanted to have the opportunity to learn from people who had similar experiences and to learn about possible treatment effects, such as chemotherapy side effects, from other patients.
Theme 3: Cancer prognosis
- Moderate quality evidence from 3 studies conducted in different countries (Canada, UK, US) among 89 people with colorectal cancer reported that lack of information regarding biopsy results and inaccessibility of surgeons caused anxiety during patients’ hospital stays. While some participants wanted to know how long they were likely to live with cancer and how long they could expect to be disease-free, others found that too much information about complication risks was unhelpful and caused more anxiety.
Theme 1: Lifestyle
Diet
- High quality evidence from 5 studies conducted in different countries (the Netherlands, UK) among 132 people with colorectal cancer reported that prior to hospital discharge, participants needed information on practical advice on dietary adaptations required following the removal of part of the bowel and on foods to avoid to prevent diarrhoea and flatulence. Participants also felt that it was important to have access to a dietician or support person to be able to ask questions and receive individually-tailored advice relating to appropriate nutrition and dietary supplements. Many interviewees reported the availability of leaflets or diet sheets from the dieticians whilst in hospital.
Physical activity
- Moderate quality evidence from 1 study conducted in Australia among 24 people with colorectal cancer reported that many participants were unaware of government guidelines and did not receive adequate advice regarding physical activity and would have liked information from medical professionals about the recommended duration, intensity, and frequency of exercising.
Managing bodily functions
- High quality evidence from 3 studies conducted in Australia and the UK among 66 people with colorectal cancer reported that after treatment, many participants struggled with changes in bowel function, diarrhoea and weight gain and would have liked more information on how to manage symptoms to facilitate adjusting to life post-surgery and return-to-work.
Theme 2: Medical information
Stoma care
- High quality evidence from 3 studies conducted in different countries (the Netherlands, UK) among 73 people with colorectal cancer reported that participants with a stoma received insufficient information on the provision of stoma bags and care. Participants needed practical information on how to dress with a stoma bag and how to adapt their lifestyles and diet in order to reduce the noise and odours caused by certain foods.
Medical issues
- High quality evidence from 5 studies conducted in different countries (Canada, the Netherlands, UK) among 122 people with colorectal cancer reported that many participants were unaware of medical issues, such as bleeding from the rectum or pain from radiotherapy that could arise as a result of treatment. Participants sought advice in regard to treatment-related issues, including lack of strength or energy, and lymphedema.
Sex specific issues
- Moderate quality evidence from 2 studies conducted in different countries (Canada, UK) among 58 people with colorectal cancer reported that they received insufficient sex-related advice and support after surgery. Many men did not know how or where to seek support for erectile dysfunction. Men sought information on how to ask for help and to gain a sense of what new norms might be. Women reported that male health care providers appeared uncomfortable discussing gynaecological side effects and would have preferred access to a gynaecologist.
Economic evidence statements
No economic evidence was identified which was applicable to this review question.
The committee’s discussion of the evidence
Interpreting the evidence
The outcomes that matter most
The committee considered that information regarding dietary adaptations to manage bowel function, ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols) and neuropathy were the most important themes for decision making due to these topics’ abilities to improve people’s quality of life throughout the treatment process and once the person is discharged.
The quality of the evidence
The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE CERQual and varied from moderate to high, with the majority of the evidence being of high quality. The quality of evidence was most often downgraded because of methodological limitations affecting the risk of bias and the adequacy of the findings.
Methodological limitations affecting the risk of bias were attributable to studies not critically reflecting on the researchers’ roles in the research, not describing methods to maintain ethical standards, or not discussing methods to ensure credibility, such as triangulation or participant validation.
The confidence in the adequacy of the evidence was downgraded as a result of data saturation not being reached. This was a result of evidence only being available from one study, which meant that themes were under-developed and analysing further data would likely reveal new data and concepts.
Benefits and harms
The evidence identified several benefits of the recommendations including people being better prepared for treatment, experiencing a faster recovery and being better able to manage side effects and enhance their quality of life post-discharge.
The evidence showed the importance of sharing information continuously throughout the treatment process. Based on the evidence as well as their expertise, the committee agreed that all information shared, regardless of topic, should be timely and in a manner that is sensitive to the person’s individual needs and preferences and taking into account the individuals circumstances and coexisting conditions, in line with NICE guideline on patient experience in adult NHS services (CG138) and NICE guideline on decision-making and mental capacity (NG108).
The evidence showed that people needed to be made aware of all of the treatment options available to them so as to better inform their treatment decision making process. The evidence also showed that it is also important to inform the people of potential changes to their care, particularly information needs specific to people receiving surgery included the need to have a flexible plan during surgery and information on stomas.
Based on their experience, the committee agreed that Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols and their value should be explained as they would allow for people to be aware of what changes they may need to make to prepare for treatment and also be able to actively manage their symptoms during and after treatment. The committee noted from their clinical experience that many people are unaware of ERAS and that a lack of understanding of the value and importance of protocols leads to noncompliance.
The evidence showed the importance of giving information on dietary adjustments to prevent issues with bowel function and potential changes to sexual function after surgery. The committee also agreed that information about potential changes to urinary functions after surgery should be shared. The evidence also showed that people would have liked to receive information about potential medical problems arising from the treatment, such as bleeding from the rectum. The committee agreed that appropriate specialists, such as dietitians or stoma professionals, should be involved in discussing potential side effects with the patient.
The committee noted that there was no evidence on information needs regarding neuropathy (caused by some chemotherapy drugs) and therefore discussed this based on their experience. During and after treatment, the committee highlighted the need for people to be informed of possible short-term, long-term, potentially permanent or late side-effects of surgical and non-surgical treatments (particularly radiotherapy or chemotherapy). The committee agreed that people should be told about the importance of monitoring side effects during non-surgical treatment in order to try to prevent permanent damage. The committee agreed that colorectal cancer and the potential consequences of the treatments can have a major impact on people’s mental and emotional life as well as influence their self-perception and social identity. This could mean changes from being a previously fit person to being someone with physical or mental problems, needing care and help from others, and potentially having limited life expectancy.
The committee agreed that it is important to prepare people for discharge after treatment by giving information about a number of issues that may impact their everyday life and quality of life. The evidence showed that after receiving treatment people wanted to receive guidance on physical activity as well as practical advice on dietary adaptations following surgical treatment, what foods to avoid to prevent diarrhoea and flatulence or other bowel dysfunction. Based on the evidence and the committee’s experience, people might also benefit from advice on weight management and life style choices. The evidence showed that people wanted to know how long the recovery after surgery would take. Finally, the committee agreed, based on their experience that it is important that people are made aware how, when and where to seek help if side effects of the cancer or its treatment become problematic.
Cost effectiveness and resource use
There was no economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of information provision to people before, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer.
The committee expressed the view that providing information regarding colorectal cancer treatment, including what to expect, recovery, prognosis and lifestyle changes are integral parts of most services and providing such supplementary advice would have only modest resource implications, if any, which are justifiable as these principles and factors are deemed essential in ensuring the success of care in people receiving treatment for colorectal cancer.
Similarly, the committee was of the view that staff training in providing effective support to people being treated for colorectal cancer undertaken by professionals (including medical staff) would not incur significant extra resource implications. The committee expressed the view that the cost of providing training of professionals is relatively small, taking into account that it has the potential to significantly change the behaviour of professionals in meaningful and positive ways (for example, making patients fully aware of treatment options, better preparing patients for treatment and facilitating patients to manage post-treatment symptoms) and making their overall interactions more efficient when dealing with patients. Overall, the committee considered that such staff training is expected to lead to savings to the NHS.
Other factors the committee took into account
The committee highlighted several moderated health forums and websites that provide reputable information on treatment for colorectal cancer and discussed the need for there to be greater awareness of the resources.
The committee were interested in evidence on particular subgroups, including people of different age groups, however, none of the identified evidence was among particular age groups. The committee recognised that information sharing and shared decision making may be more difficult with people with learning difficulties and people with dementia. It is important that people’s co-existing conditions, personal circumstances and mental capacity are taken into consideration when providing information about treatment options and about care in general. Therefore, a reference to NICE guideline on patient experience in adult NHS services (CG138) and NICE guideline on decision-making and mental capacity (NG108).
Given the absence of the published evidence about information needs related to peripheral neuropathy the committee discussed making a research recommendation about the information needs of people with colorectal cancer regarding long-term severe peripheral neuropathy following chemotherapy. Following their discussion the committee decided not to make this research recommendation because it was not considered a priority in comparison to the other research topics within this guideline. Implementing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols and ensuring compliance was also discussed as a potential research topic, but this was outside the scope of the evidence review protocol.
References
Abelson 2018
Abelson J, Chait A, Shen M, et al. (2018) Sources of distress among patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer: a qualitative study. Journal of Surgical Research 226: 140–149 [PubMed: 29661279]Anderson 2013
Anderson A, Steele R and Coyle J (2013) Lifestyle issues for colorectal cancer - perceived needs, beliefs and opportunities. Supportive Care in Cancer 21(1): 35–42 [PubMed: 22773297]Beaver 2010
Beaver K, Latif S, Williamson S, et al. (2010) An exploratory study of the follow-up care needs of patients treated for colorectal cancer. Journal of Clinical Nursing 19(23-24): 3291–3300 [PubMed: 20964750]Brown 2016
Brown S, Greenfield D and Thompson J (2016) Knowledge and awareness of long-term and late treatment consequences amongst colorectal cancer: A qualitative study. European journal of Oncology Nursing 20: 191–198 [PubMed: 26412577]Dowswell 2011
Dowswell G, Ismail T, Greenfield S, et al. (2011) Men’s experience of erectile dysfunction after treatment for colorectal cancer: qualitative interview study. British Medical Journal 18(343): d5824 [PMC free article: PMC3273733] [PubMed: 22010127]Gillis 2017
Gillis C, Gill M, Marlett N, et al. (2017) Patients as partners in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: A qualitative patient-led study. BMJ Open 7(6): e017002 [PMC free article: PMC5726093] [PubMed: 28647727]Hall 2012
Hall S, Gray N, Browne S, et al. (2012) A qualitative exploration of the role of primary care in supporting colorectal cancer patients. Supportive Care in Cancer 20(12): 3071–3078 [PubMed: 22402750]Ho 2016
Ho M, McBride M, Gotay C, et al. (2016) A qualitative focus group study to identify the needs of stage II and III colorectal cancer. Psycho-Oncology 25(12): 1470–1476 [PubMed: 26387559]Hoedjes 2017
Hoedjes M, De Kruif A, Mols F, et al. (2017) An exploration of needs and preferences for dietary support in colorectal cancer: A mixed-methods study. PLoS ONE 12(12): e0189178 [PMC free article: PMC5734680] [PubMed: 29253011]Maxwell-Smith 2017
Maxwell-Smith C, Zeps N, Hagger M, et al. (2017) Barriers to physical activity participation in colorectal cancer at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Psycho-Oncology 26(6): 808–814 [PubMed: 27478009]Macmillan Cancer Support 2013
Macmillan Cancer Support (2013) Throwing Light on the Consequences of Cancer and Its TreatmentMcCaughan 2011
McCaughan E, Parahoo K and Prue G, (2011) Comparing cancer experiences among people with colorectal cancer: A qualitative study. Journal of Advanced Nursing 67(12): 2686–2695 [PubMed: 21806670]Steel 2016
Steel E, Trainer A, Heriot A, et al. (2016) The Experience of Extended Bowel Resection in Individuals With a High Metachronous Colorectal Cancer Risk: A Qualitative Study. Oncology Nursing Forum 43(4): 444–452 [PMC free article: PMC5114664] [PubMed: 27314187]Taylor 2013
Taylor C and Bradshaw E (2013) Tied to the Toilet: Lived Experiences of Altered Bowel Function (Anterior Resection Syndrome) After Temporary Stoma Reversal. Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing 40(4): 415–421 [PubMed: 23820474]Veitch 2008
Veitch C, Crossland L, Steeghs M, et al. (2008) Patients’ experiences of colorectal cancer and oncology services in North Queensland. Australian Journal of Primary Health 14(3): 93–100Verdecchia 2007
Verdecchia A, Franciscia S, Brenner H, et al. (2007) Recent cancer survival in Europe: a 2000-02 period analysis of EUROCARE-4 data. Lancet Oncology 8(9): 784–96 [PubMed: 17714993]Wilson 2010
Wilson T, Birks Y, Alexander D et al. (2010) A qualitative study of patient perspectives of health-related quality of life in colorectal cancer: comparison with disease-specific evaluation tools. Colorectal Disease 12(8): 2010 [PubMed: 19341398]
Appendices
Appendix A. Review protocol
Review protocol for review question: What are the information needs of people prior, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer?
Appendix B. Literature search strategies
Literature search strategies for review question: What are the information needs of people prior, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer?
Appendix C. Clinical evidence study selection
Clinical study selection for: What are the information needs of people prior, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer?
Appendix D. Clinical evidence tables
Clinical evidence tables for review question: What are the information needs of people prior, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer?
Table 4. Clinical evidence tables (PDF, 359K)
Appendix E. Forest plots
Forest plots for review question: What are the information needs of people prior, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer?
Not applicable for this qualitative review.
Appendix F. GRADE CERQual tables
GRADE CERQual tables for review question: What are the information needs of people prior, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer?
Information needs prior to treatment
Table 5. Qualitative evidence profile for theme 1. Surgery
Table 6. Qualitative evidence profile for theme 2. Recovery
Table 7. Qualitative evidence profile for theme 3. Treatment decision making
Table 8. Qualitative evidence profile for theme 4. Timing and delivery of information
Information needs of colorectal cancer patients during treatment
Table 9. Qualitative evidence profile for theme 1. Diet
Table 10. Qualitative evidence profile for theme 2. Other’s experiences
Table 11. Qualitative evidence profile for theme 3. Cancer prognosis
Information needs of colorectal cancer patients after treatment
Table 12. Qualitative evidence profile for theme 1. Lifestyle
Table 13. Qualitative evidence profile for theme 2. Medical information
Appendix G. Economic evidence study selection
Economic evidence study selection for review question: What are the information needs of people prior, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer?
A global search of economic evidence was undertaken for all review questions in this 5 guideline. See Supplement 2 for further information.
Appendix H. Economic evidence tables
Economic evidence tables for review question: What are the information needs of people prior, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer?
No economic evidence was identified which was applicable to this review question.
Appendix I. Economic evidence profiles
Economic evidence profiles for review question: What are the information needs of people prior, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer?
No economic evidence was identified which was applicable to this review question.
Appendix J. Economic analysis
Economic evidence analysis for review question: What are the information needs of people prior, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer?
No economic analysis was conducted for this review question.
Appendix K. Excluded studies
Excluded clinical studies for review question: What are the information needs of people prior, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer?
Appendix L. Research recommendations
Research recommendations for review question: What are the information needs of people prior, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer?
No research recommendations were made for this review question.
Appendix M. Qualitative evidence and quotes
Qualitative evidence and quotes for review question: What are the information needs of people prior, during and after treatment for colorectal cancer?
Information needs prior to treatment
Information needs during treatment
Final
Evidence reviews
Developed by the National Guideline Alliance part of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
Disclaimer: The recommendations in this guideline represent the view of NICE, arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence available. When exercising their judgement, professionals are expected to take this guideline fully into account, alongside the individual needs, preferences and values of their patients or service users. The recommendations in this guideline are not mandatory and the guideline does not override the responsibility of healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or their carer or guardian.
Local commissioners and/or providers have a responsibility to enable the guideline to be applied when individual health professionals and their patients or service users wish to use it. They should do so in the context of local and national priorities for funding and developing services, and in light of their duties to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and to reduce health inequalities. Nothing in this guideline should be interpreted in a way that would be inconsistent with compliance with those duties.
NICE guidelines cover health and care in England. Decisions on how they apply in other UK countries are made by ministers in the Welsh Government, Scottish Government, and Northern Ireland Executive. All NICE guidance is subject to regular review and may be updated or withdrawn.