Time after ostomy surgery and type of treatment are associated with quality of life changes in colorectal cancer patients with colostomy.

PURPOSE: Quality of life in colorectal cancer patients may be affected by colostomy and treatment, but relevant studies are still scarce and contradictory. The present study aimed to evaluate the association between colostomy time and treatment type with quality of life in colorectal cancer patients.
METHODS: A prospective observational study of 41 patients with colorectal cancer was conducted on three occasions T0, T1 and T2 (0-2; 3-5 and 6-8 months after ostomy surgery, respectively). The treatments prescribed were: surgery alone, chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaires were used to evaluate quality of life. Worsening clinical changes were evaluated considering difference in scores between times of surgery ≥±9 points.
RESULTS: Regarding ostomy surgery, scores in physical function improved between T0 and T1 and these better scores were maintained at T1 to T2. The same was observed for urinary frequency, appetite loss and dry mouth. Chemoradiotherapy was associated with worse scores for global health status, nausea and vomiting, bloating and dry mouth. Although significant differences were not observed in some domains in the Generalized Estimating Equations analysis, patients showed noticeable changes for the worse in the pain, anxiety, weight concern, flatulence and embarrassment domains during these periods.
CONCLUSIONS: Colostomy improved quality of life at 3-5 months in most domains of quality of life and remained better at 6-8 months after surgery. Chemoradiotherapy had a late negative influence on quality of life. Health teams could use these results to reassure patients that this procedure will improve their quality of life in many functional and symptomatic aspects.

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has a high prevalence worldwide. According to global cancer statistics, new CRC cases in 2018–2020 were estimated at almost 2 million with more than 900,000 deaths, making it the third most frequently diagnosed cancer in males and the second in females [1,2].

The treatment of this cancer involves relieving symptoms (mainly low digestive haemorrhage, abdominal mass, abdominal pain, change in bowel habits, weight loss and anemia), limiting or ceasing disease progression; it may require chemo/radiotherapy treatment, bowel resection and ostomy confection [3,4]. The frequency of ostomy for CRC varies widely, from 6 to 47% of colostomies and from 5 to 69% of ileostomies, depending on the study design and population [5-8]. In addition, the presence of this cancer could lead to functional limitations, cognitive changes and emotional stress affecting the patient's general quality of life (QoL) [9]. However, studies regarding the impact of ostomy and type of treatment on QoL of patients who have had colostomy for CRC are still scarce and have contradictory results. While some studies showed ostomy to be associated with improved QoL [10], it was associated with worse QoL in others [11,12] and one study found no difference [13].

Work-life and productivity, interpersonal relationships and other social activities can be impacted by treatment [14] and ostomy surgery [11,12]. For example, it is common for patients to present a worsening of physical function, cognitive, role and social function and symptoms of pain, nausea and vomiting and constipation due to chemotherapy. Radiotherapy can cause problems in sexual and urinary function [15]. Ostomy surgery can also affect the QoL of these patients because there may be physical and psychological difficulties related to the limiting aspects of the stoma, such as activities of daily living, work capacity, and social interaction [16].

Although some studies have evaluated the QoL of patients with ostomy for CCR. However, very few of these were prospective studies [6,12,17,18]. Most were case-control [13,19,20] or cross-sectional [14,21,22] in design or compared patients with and without ostomies [5,6,10-12,23-25]. Some evaluated different reasons for ostomies [26], or considered colostomy and ileostomy together [8,17]. The few prospective studies developed did not evaluate QoL with a specific questionnaire for cancer patients [17,18]. So, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first prospective study to evaluate the association of ostomy surgery time and type of treatment in a group of specifically CRC patients, using an appropriate QoL questionnaire for cancer patients. This perspective is important since the symptoms and type of treatment are different among ostomized patients (ileum or colon) depending on the disease (e.g. cancer or inflammatory bowel disease). So, QoL may be affected differently when only colostomies are evaluated and only for one disease, i.e. CRC. In addition, some studies considered chemotherapy and radiation treatment and others did not.

These differences in studies design and population mix may explain the contradictory results between the authors and may not clearly show the real impact of the ostomy on individuals over time. A prospective study with a specific sample may clarify these outcomes, as it would allow evaluation over time. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the association between colostomy time and treatment type with QoL in CRC patients. We hypothesized that ostomy surgery and chemoradiotherapy could negatively change QoL in this follow-up.

Methods

Participants and procedures

Design of study and ethical aspects

A prospective study was performed between August 2017 and May 2019 in a university hospital, among both hospitalized patients and outpatients, who had been given either a temporary or permanent colostomy for CRC a maximum of two months previously.

The Human Research Ethics Committee approved this study (protocol number 65975817.6.0000.5152), and all participants signed a free and informed consent form.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The study included all patients aged 18 years or older given a colostomy for CRC up to 2 months previously, regardless of stage, including those receiving palliative treatment. The following patients were excluded from the study: those with previous diagnosis of major depression, neuropsychopathies or other serious mental illness registered in clinical records, those with chronic diseases that required intense food intake modification and those who underwent bowel transit reconstruction during follow-up.

Data collection

Three interviews were conducted: T0, T1 and T2: T0 (0–2 months postoperative), T1 (3 months after T0) and T2 (3 months after T1). Thus, T1 was 3 to 5 months and T2 6 to 8 months after ostomy surgery (Fig 1). Overall, in the study period, 41 patients participated at baseline, 15 in T1 and 16 in T2 at the end (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Diagram reporting the number of patients with ostomies due to colorectal cancer screened and recruited in this study.

Diagnosis, ostomy surgery, intestinal resection, anatomopathological, treatment type and other clinical data were collected from clinical records. Sociodemographic (at T0), anthropometric and QoL data were collected by face to face interview on three occasions.

Treatment types

The standard treatment protocol in the evaluated service is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (5 weekly cycles of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) at 500mg / m2 for chemotherapy and 5 cycles of 50 Gy radiotherapy concurrently with chemotherapy) for patients with rectal cancer. The protocol for patients diagnosed with colon cancer is primarily surgery and in advanced cases, adjuvant chemotherapy. Some patients receive treatment only after ostomy surgery, if the diagnosis was made during the bowel resection procedure. Also, if complete tumor resection cannot be achieved, patients undergo adjuvant chemotherapy.

In the present study, investigating the different types and moments of treatment resulted in a small number of individuals, making it necessary to group them for a better analysis. The treatment types were grouped, regardless of treatment period: surgery alone (S), surgery plus chemotherapy or surgery plus radiotherapy (CT/RT), and surgery plus chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

Measures

Anthropometrics measures

Weight and height were measured at T0, T1 and T2, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) protocols [27]. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated from body weight (kg) divided by the square of height (m), following WHO reference for adults under 59 years old [kg/m2 (< 18.5 malnourished; ≥18.5 to < 25 well-nourished; ≥ 25 to < 30 overweight; and ≥ 30 obesity)], and the Pan American Health Organization for those aged 60 years or more [kg/m2 (< 23.0 malnourished; ≥ 23 to < 28 well-nourished; ≥ 28 to < 30 overweight; and ≥ 30 obesity)], [28-30].

Quality of life questionnaires

European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaires, EORTC-QLQ-C30 version 3.0 and EORTC-QLQ-CR29, were used to assess QoL, after authorization. EORTC-QLQ-C30 version 3.0 is a questionnaire for all cancer patients and consists of 30 questions, which are divided into scales: 5 for function and 2 for QoL (physical, emotional, cognitive, social, role performance, overall health and QoL); 3 for symptoms (fatigue, pain and nausea and vomiting); and 6 unique items (symptoms and financial impact of the disease). EORTC-QLQ-CR29 is a questionnaire for CRC patients containing 29 questions comprising 4 scales (urinary frequency, blood and mucus in stool, stool frequency and body image) and 19 unique items. According to the authors, this questionnaire should always be applied with EORTC-QLQ-C30 [31]. All scales and single items measures in both questionnaires were transformed to estimate scores from 0 to 100 according to the algorithm recommended by the EORTC scoring guidelines. For global QoL and function scales, a higher score means better function, and better QoL; for symptom scales, a higher scale means higher symptom burden and worse QoL [31,32].

Statistical analysis

The distribution of variables was tested by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Descriptive statistics were expressed as number and percentage or mean (standard deviation) or median (interval interquartile). Friedman's non-parametric test was used to test the differences in QoL scores between times.

Since all patients given colostomy surgery for CCR during the collection period were invited to participate, we did not perform sample size calculation a priori, but the post hoc effect size and observation power were performed a posteriori. All effect sizes for each domain were calculated by the Cohen method [33]. A post hoc test was then performed to estimate the observation power using the Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) test, 0.05 error, sample size 41 at T0, 15 at T1 and 16 at T2, using R version 3.5.3 [34]. Thus, the observation power of each domain was obtained. For the results and discussion of the present study, we considered only those domains with power equal to or above 0.80 in the prospective time and treatment type analysis. To account for losses during follow-up, we calculated baseline differences between the group that remained in the study and the group that did not complete using the ANOVA, Chi-square or Mann-Whitney tests (S1–S3 Tables).

The GEE was used to estimate the association between time of colostomy (T0, T1 and T2) and type of treatment (S, CT/RT and CRT) considering the main exposures and the QoL domains (endpoints). The GEE models provide consistent estimates of the criteria for standard errors through robust estimators correlating the within-subject outcome variables of the treatment performed and the time of colostomy. The lower quasi-likelihood under the independence model criterion (QIC) was tested for all models, and the Tweedie with log link model was used in GEE analysis. The Bonferroni post hoc test was used for multiple comparisons and sex, age (years), BMI (kg/m2) and disease stage were considered as potential cofounders.

Although statistical differences are the final goal in many studies, some differences could be considered clinically important. As a result, recent studies with EORTC [35,36] recommended the evaluation of between score changes during follow-up in order to make a comprehensive assessment of QoL aspects. Following this recomendation, the cutoff value for our population was estimated by effect size (0.5) x standard deviation of the study population–considering global QoL score (SD = 18.45) = 9.23. Thus, difference in scores between times ≥±9 points in the scales by time was considered as clinically important, as in previous studies [37,38]. Only worsening between times was shown, holding the worse direction of the scales and items. The analyses were performed with SPSS version 24 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, United States of America) and p-value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Sociodemographics and clinical data are shown in Table 1. A total of 41 patients were included in this study; 53.7% were female, 43.9% were between 60 and 70 years old and 29.3% had an income of less than the two monthly minimum wage. Chemoradiotherapy was given to 51.2% of patients. Regarding nutritional diagnosis, 22.5% were malnourished at T0 which reduced to 14.3% at T2. At T0, 25.0% of patients were overweight or obese which increased to 33.3% at T2.

Table 1

Sociodemographic and clinical data of patients with colostomy for colorectal cancer (n = 41).

Variables		% (n)
Sociodemographic and economic
Age (years)
< 60		36.6 (15)
≥ 60 to <65		24.4 (10)
≥65 to < 70		19.5 (8)
≥ 70		19.5 (8)
Gender
Male		46.3 (19)
Female		53.7 (22)
Monthly Minimum Wage*
< 1		7.3 (3)
≥ 1 to < 2		22.0 (9)
≥ 2 to < 3		34.1 (14)
≥ 3		29.3 (12)
Not specified		7.3 (3)
Clinical Diagnosis
Colon tumor		34.1 (14)
Rectal tumor		65.9 (27)
Staging
I		22.0 (9)
II		19.5 (8)
III		29.3 (12)
IV		9.8 (4)
Pathological staging Y		13.0 (6)
Not specified or unknown		4.9 (2)
Treatment
Surgery only		14.6 (6)
Chemotherapy or radiotherapy		34.1 (14)
Chemoradiotherapy		51.2 (21)
Intention of primary treatment
Curative		68.3 (28)
Palliative		31.7 (13)
Ostomy
Permanent		29.3 (12)
Temporary		70.7 (29)
Comorbidities
Diabetes		14.6 (6)
Systemic Arterial Hypertension		36.6 (15)
Heart diseases		12.2 (5)
Other		17.1 (7)
Death		12.2 (5)
Nutritional status
T0	Malnourished	22.5 (9)
	Overweight / Obesity	25.0 (10)
T1	Malnourished	25.0 (6)
	Overweight / Obesity	25.0 (6)
T2	Malnourished	14.3 (3)
	Overweight / Obesity	33.3 (7)

*1 Monthly Minimum Wage was equivalent to US$312.00

Regarding the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-CR29 scores at different time periods, some differences were found in physical function, with the worst score at T0 (Table 2). Some symptom scales were also worse at T0 including fatigue, bloating, dry mouth and stoma care problems (Tables 2 and 3). The scores for these domains improved at T1 and this was maintained at T2.

Table 2

Synopsis of EORTC QLQ-C30 longitudinal score differences and corresponding p-values according to quality of life scales for patients with colostomy due to colorectal cancer.

Quality of Life domains	T0		T1		T2		p-value	Observation Power T0-T1	Observation Power T1-T2	Observation Power T0-T2
	Mean (SD)	Median (p25-p75) [min-max]	Mean (SD)	Median (p25-p75) [min-max]	Mean (SD)	Median (p25-p75) [min-max]
Global health status	74.16 (20.95)	79.16 (66.66–85.41)	82.50 (18.61)	91.66 (64.58–100.00)	80.83 (20.05)	87.50 (64.58–100.00)	0.157	0.90	0.99	0.87
Physical function	78.00 (14.53)	80.00 (65.00–85.75)	94.50 (9.26)	97.50 (93.75–100.00)	95.00 (8.16)	100.00 (90.00–100.00)	0.005	0.99	0.07	0.96
Role function	68.33 (36.38)	75.00 (41.66–100.00)	78.33 (34.29)	100.00 (50.00–100.00)	81.66 (25.39)	100.00 (62.50–100.00)	0.163	0.96	0.78	0.64
Emotional function	57.50 (37.15)	62.50 (20.83–100.00)	71.66 (29.44)	75.00 (62.50–93.75)	73.33 (31.13)	79.16 (56.25–100.00)	0.908	0.37	0.99	0.62
Cognitive function	73.33 (25.09)	66.66 (50.00–100.00)	76.66 (29.60)	83.33 (66.66–100.00)	80.00 (20.48)	83.33 (66.66–100.00)	0.772	0.91	0.99	0.43
Social function	80.00 (33.14)	100.00 (62.50–100.00)	95.00 (11.24)	100.00 (95.83–100.00)	95.00 (11.24)	100.00 (95.83–100.00)	0.086	0.39	0.33	0.08
Fatigue	42.22 (35.05)	33.33 (19.44–75.00)	15.55 (31.51)	0.00 (0.00–16.66)	10.00 (24.81)	0.00 (0.00–5.55)	0.012	0.96	0.40	0.18
Nausea and vomiting	18.33 (33.74)	0.00 (0.00–37.50)	8.33 (18.00)	0.00 (0.00–8.33)	6.66 (21.08)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.779	0.14	0.98	0.85
Pain	25.00 (36.21)	0.00 (0.00–54.16)	15.00 (19.95)	8.33 (0.00–25.00)	18.33 (32.82)	0.00 (0.00–25.00)	0.962	0.99	0.45	0.05
Dyspnea	6.66 (21.08)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.368	0.06	0.99	0.05
Insomnia	36.66 (42.88)	16.66 (0.00–75.00)	36.66 (45.67)	16.66 (0.00–100.00)	13.33 (32.20)	0.00 (0.00–8.33)	0.325	0.99	0.93	0.99
Appetite loss	16.66 (36.00)	0.00 (0.00–16.66)	10.00 (31.62)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	3.33 (10.54)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.223	0.99	0.99	0.53
Constipation	20.00 (43.16)	0.00 (0.00–25.00)	3.33 (10.54)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.156	0.57	0.99	0.66
Diarrhea	23.33 (41.72)	0.00 (0.00–50.00)	3.33 (10.54)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	10.00 (31.62)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.368	0.50	0.05	0.99
Financial difficulties	16.66 (36.00)	0.00 (0.00–16.66)	20.00 (42.16)	0.00 (0.00–25.00)	3.33 (10.54)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.779	0.07	0.99	0.15

Data presented for mean, standard deviation, median, interquartile range or minimum and maximum. p <0.05 was considered significant (Friedman test).

Table 3

Synopsis of EORTC QLQ-CR29 longitudinal score differences and corresponding p-values according to quality of life scales for patients with colostomy due to colorectal cancer.

Quality of Life domains	T0		T1		T2		p-value	Observation Power T0-T1	Observation Power T1-T2	Observation Power T0-T2
	Mean (SD)	Median (p25-p75) [min-max]	Mean (SD)	Median (p25-p75) [min-max]	Mean (SD)	Median (p25-p75) [min-max]
Urinary frequency	8.33 (14.16)	0.00 (0.00–20.83)	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	13.33 (28.10)	0.00 (0.00–16.66)	0.178	0.95	0.14	0.95
Blood or mucus in stools	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	3.33 (7.02)	0.00 (0.00–4.16)	0.135	0.99	0.20	0.71
Stool frequency	8.33 (26.35)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	3.33 (10.54)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.607	0.99	0.21	0.52
Body image	82.22 (35.60)	100.00 (75.00–100.00)	64.44 (43.12)	88.88 (25.00–100.00)	72.22 (36.38)	88.88 (47.22–100.00)	0.101	0.45	0.05	0.99
Urinary incontinence	3.33 (10.54)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	10.00 (22.49)	0.00 (0.00–8.33)	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.368	0.11	0.05	0.81
Dysuria	26.66 (40.97)	0.00 (0.00–50.00)	6.66 (21.08)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	10.00 (31.62)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.223	0.34	0.99	0.77
Abdominal pain	26.66 (37.84)	0.00 (0.00–66.66)	3.33 (10.54)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	16.66 (36.00)	0.00 (0.00–16.66)	0.431	0.99	0.13	0.17
Buttock pain	20.00 (35.83)	0.00 (0.00–41.66)	26.66 (40.97)	0.00 (0.00–50.00)	13.33 (32.20)	0.00 (0.00–8.33)	0.273	0.99	0.37	0.99
Bloating	30.00 (39.90)	16.66 (0.00–50.00)	3.33 (10.54)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.030	0.53	0.82	0.05
Dry mouth	60.00 (34.42)	66.66 (33.33–100.00)	16.66 (32.39)	0.00 (0.00–33.33)	13.33 (23.30)	0.00 (0.00–33.33)	0.018	0.99	0.89	0.99
Hair loss	20.00 (35.83)	0.00 (0.00–41.66)	13.33 (32.20)	0.00 (0.00–8.33)	10.00 (16.10)	0.00 (0.00–33.33)	0.926	0.99	0.10	0.48
Taste	10.00 (22.49)	0.00 (0.00–8.33)	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	10.00 (31.62)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.368	0.71	0.28	0.38
Anxiety	36.66 (48.30)	0.00 (0.00–100.00)	63.33 (36.68)	66.66 (33.33–100.00)	50.00 (45.13)	66.66 (0.00–100.00)	0.156	0.32	0.12	0.99
Weight	80.00 (35.83)	100.00 (58.33–100.00)	66.66 (35.13)	66.66 (33.33–100.00)	80.00 (32.20)	100.00 (66.66–100.00)	0.309	0.99	0.16	0.06
Flatulence	26.66 (40.97)	0.00 (0.00–50.00)	26.66 (40.97)	0.00 (0.00–50.00)	23.33 (31.62)	16.66 (0.00–33.33)	0.956	0.05	0.05	0.66
Fecal incontinence	10.00 (31.62)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	3.33 (10.54)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	10.00 (16.10)	0.00 (0.00–33.33)	0.368	0.36	0.26	0.50
Sore skin	10.00 (31.62)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	10.00 (22.49)	0.00 (0.00–8.33)	16.00 (23.57)	0.00 (0.00–33.33)	0.449	0.80	0.04	0.99
Embarrassment	33.33 (41.57)	16.66 (0.00–75.00)	20.00 (32.20)	0.00 (0.00–33.33)	30.00 (39.90)	16.66 (0.00–50.00)	0.513	0.27	0.40	0.99
Stoma care problems	46.66 (50.18)	33.33 (0.00–100.00)	10.00 (31.62)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.015	0.57	0.21	0.99
Sexual interest (men)	16.66 (33.33)	0.00 (0.00–50.00)	16.66 (19.24)	16.66 (0.00–33.33)	66.66 (38.49)	66.66 (33.33–100.00)	0.323	0.99	0.06	0.99
Impotence	16.66 (33.33)	0.00 (0.00–50.00)	8.33 (16.66)	0.00 (0.00–25.00)	25.00 (31.91)	16.66 (0.00–58.33)	0.607	0.41	0.99	0.13
Sexual interest (women)	11.11 (27.21)	0.00 (0.00–16.66)	22.22 (40.36)	0.00 (0.00–50.00)	16.67 (40.82)	0.00 (0.00–25.00)	0.867	0.68	0.99	0.99
Dyspareunia	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	22.22 (40.36)	0.00 (0.00–50.00)	0.135	0.99	0.07	0.55

Data presented for mean, standard deviation, median, interquartile range or minimum and maximum. p <0.05 was considered significant (Friedman test).

In the GEE analysis, many QoL domains improved between T0 and T1 and this improvement was maintained between T1 and T2. These included physical function, appetite loss, urinary frequency and dry mouth, showing a mean difference range from 10 to 49 points in the scores between times (Tables 4 and 5). The emotional function scale showed worsening at T1 to T2 while the insomnia domain improved at T1 to T2 and nausea and vomiting, insomnia, embarrassment and stoma care problems domains improved at T0 to T2. Furthermore, chemoradiotherapy showed worse scores than surgery alone in many domains such as global health status, emotional and cognitive functions, nausea and vomiting, pain, blood or mucus in stools, body image, abdominal and buttock pain, bloating, dry mouth and embarrassment. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy were associated with worse QoL than surgery alone in fatigue, insomnia, financial difficulties, embarrassment and men’s sexual interest.

Table 4

Model effect, comparisons and post hoc tests of the variables of quality of life of EORTC QLQ-C30 with time and treatment factors using Generalized Estimating Equations.

Quality of Life domains	Effect	Df3	Wald χ2	p-value	Comparisons (pairwise method)	Mean difference (I-J)	p–value (Bonferroni)	Results*
Global health status	Time	2	5.50	>0.05	T0 (I) T1 (J)	-	-	-
					T1 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	-
					T0 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	-
	Treatment	2	16.83	<0.001	S (I) CRT (J)	21.374	<0.001	Worse (CRT)
Physical function	Time	2	14.64	0.001	T0 (I) T1 (J)	-15.749	<0.001	Improved(T1)
					T0 (I) T2 (J)	-14.394	0.011	Improved (T2)
Role function	Time	2	5.36	>0.05	T0 (I) T1 (J)	-	-	-
Emotional function	Time	2	8.82	0.012	T1 (I) T2 (J)	11.887	0.025	Worse (T2)
	Treatment	2	7.96	0.019	S (I) CRT (J)	23.295	0.011	Worse (CRT)
	Time*Treatment	4	26.34	<0.001	-	-	<0.05	-
Cognitive function	Time	2	0.62	>0.05	T0 (I) T1 (J)	-	-	-
					T1 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	-
	Treatment	2	7.23	0.027	S (I) CRT (J)	21.103	0.022	Worse (CRT)
Fatigue	Time	2	148.85	<0.001	T0 (I) T1 (J)	26.572	<0.001	Improved (T1)
	Treatment	2	964.66	<0.001	S (I) CT/RT (J)	-10.606	0.010	Worse (CT/RT)
					S (I) CRT (J)	-25.747	0.001	Worse (CRT)
	Time*Treatment	4	439.68	<0.001	-	-	<0.05	-
Nausea and vomiting	Time	2	190.15	<0.001	T1 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	Maintained
					T0 (I) T2 (J)	13.180	0.002	Improved (T2)
	Treatment	2	336.95	<0.001	S (I) CT/RT (J)	-	-
					S (I) CRT (J)	-13.170	0.036	Worse (CRT)
					CT/RT (I) CRT (J)	-12.808	0.040	Worse (CRT)
Pain	Time	2	551.85	<0.001	T0 (I) T1 (J)	31.185	0.001	Improved (T1)
	Treatment	2	692.95	<0.001	S (I) CRT (J)	-38.626	0.001	Worse (CRT)
					CT/RT (I) CRT (J)	-38.529	0.001	Worse (CRT)
Dyspnea	Time	2	31.40	<0.001	T1 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	-
	Time*Treatment	4	68.46	<0.001	-	-	<0.05	-
Insomnia	Time	2	126.57	<0.001	T0 (I) T1 (J)	-	-	-
					T1 (I) T2 (J)	39.465	0.005	Improved (T2)
					T0 (I) T2 (J)	36.013	<0.001	Improved (T2)
	Treatment	2	64.90	<0.001	S (I) CT/RT (J)	-31.251	0.031	Worse (CRT)
					S (I) CRT (J)	-20.712	0.026	Worse (CRT)
Appetite loss	Time	2	398.55	<0.001	T0 (I) T1 (J)	28.384	0.003	Improved (T1)
					T1 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	Maintained
Constipation	Time	2	35.636	<0.001	T1 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	-
Diarrhea	Time	2	67.68	<0.001	T0 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	-
Financial difficulties	Time	2	290.13	<0.001	T1 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	Maintained
	Treatment	2	237.04	<0.001	S (I) CT/RT (J)	-0.189	0.013	Worse (CT/RT)
					S (I) CRT (J)	-3.271	0.027	Worse (CRT)
					CT/RT (I) CRT (J)	-3.080	0.041	Worse (CRT)
	Time*Treatment	4	228.09	<0.001	-	-	<0.05	-

Treatment: S, surgery alone and/or radiotherapy; CT/RT, chemotherapy or radiotherapy; CRT, chemotherapy + radiotherapy. Data adjusted for age, sex, Body Mass Index and disease stage. df, Degree of freedom.

*For global QoL and function scales, a higher score means better function, and better QoL; for symptom scales, a higher scale means higher symptom burden and worse QoL. p <0.05 was considered significant.

Table 5

Model effect, comparisons and post hoc test of the variables of quality of life of EORTC QLQ-CR29 with time and treatment factors using Generalized Estimating Equations.

Quality of Life domains	Effect	Df3	Wald χ2	p-value	Comparisons (pairwise method)	Mean difference (I-J)	p–value (Bonferroni)	Results*
Urinary frequency	Time	2	219.24	<0.001	T0 (I) T1 (J)	10.950	0.005	Improved (T1)
					T0 (I) T2 (J)	10.942	0.005	Improved (T2)
Blood or mucus in stools	Time	2	376.73	<0.001	T0 (I) T1 (J)	1.213	0.001	Improved (T1)
	Treatment	2	28.08	<0.001	S (I) CRT (J)	-0.043	0.005	Worse (CRT)
Stool frequency	Time	2	18.14	<0.001	T0 (I) T1 (J)	-	-	-
Body image	Time	2	0.61	>0.05	T0 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	-
	Treatment	2	6.36	0.042	S (I) CRT (J)	34.752	0.028	Worse (CRT)
Urinary incontinence	Time	2	32.12	<0.001	T0 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	-
Dysuria	Time	2	144.82	<0.001	T1 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	Maintained
Abdominal pain	Time	2	280.68	<0.001	T0 (I) T1 (J)	20.152	0.005	Improved (T1)
	Treatment	2	48.35	<0.001	S (I) CRT (J)	-13.859	0.048	Worse (CRT)
Buttock pain	Time	2	69.80	<0.001	T0 (I) T1 (J)	-	-	-
					T0 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	-
	Treatment	2	447.44	<0.001	S (I) CRT (J)	-14.030	0.018	Worse (CRT)
					CT/RT (I) CRT (J)	-14.003	0.018	Worse (CRT)
Bloating	Time	2	187.14	<0.001	T1 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	Maintained
	Treatment	2	212.20	<0.001	S (I) CT/RT (J)	-1.144	0.021	Worse (CT/RT)
Dry mouth	Time	2	411.88	<0.001	T0 (I) T1 (J)	49.395	<0.001	Improved (T1)
					T1 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	Maintained
					T0 (I) T2 (J)	49.359	<0.001	Improved (T2)
	Treatment	2	387.02	<0.001	S (I) CRT (J)	-22.906	0.041	Worse (CRT)
	Time*Treatment	4	504.61	<0.001	-	-	<0.05	-
Hair loss	Time	2	39.22	<0.001	T0 (I) T1 (J)	-	-	-
Anxiety	Time	2	11.79	0.003	T0 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	-
Weight	Time	2	2.55	>0.05	T0 (I) T1 (J)	-	-	-
Sore skin	Time	2	38.89	<0.001	T0 (I) T1 (J)	0.346	0.014	Improved (T1)
					T0 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	-
Embarrassment	Time	2	65.30	<0.001	T0 (I) T2 (J)	3.086	0.008	Improved (T2)
	Treatment	2	76.23	<0.001	S (I) CT/RT (J)	-3.681	0.041	Worse (CT/RT)
					S (I) CRT (J)	-5.967	0.048	Worse (CRT)
Stoma care problems	Time	2	694.68	<0.001	T0 (I) T2 (J)	25.839	0.005	Improved (T2)
Sexual interest (men)	Time	2	99.97	<0.001	T0 (I) T1 (J)	-	-	-
					T0 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	-
	Treatment	2	165.31	<0.001	S (I) CT/RT (J)	-27.405	0.028	Worse (S)
					CT/RT (I) CRT (J)	26.112	0.048	Worse (CRT)
Impotence	Time	2	170.86	<0.001	T1 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	-
Sexual interest (women)	Time	2	55.04	<0.001	T1 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	-
					T0 (I) T2 (J)	-	-	-
Dyspareunia	Time	2	57.61	<0.001	T0 (I) T1 (J)	-	-	-

Treatment: S, surgery alone and/or radiotherapy; CT/RT, chemotherapy or radiotherapy; CRT, chemotherapy + radiotherapy. Data adjusted for age, sex, Body Mass Index and disease stage. df, Degree of freedom.

*For global QoL and function scales, a higher score means better function, and better QoL; for symptom scales, a higher scale means higher symptom burden and worse QoL. p <0.05 was considered significant.

Although some domains showed no significant statistical differences in GEE, some clinically important differences were observed. At least 30% of patients showed worse pain, anxiety, weight, flatulence, embarrassement and dyspareunia at different times (Fig 2). Comparing T0 to T2, for example, many domains showed worsening scores (ranging from 20 to 30% of patients) including global health status, cognitive function, fatigue, abdominal pain, fecal incontinence and women's sexual interest.

Fig 2

Percentage of patients worsening of clinically significant difference of EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-CR29 of patients with ostomies due to colorectal cancer at T0 to T1, T1 to T2 and T0 to T2.

Regarding follow-up losses, the differences at baseline between the final sample and those who withdrew from the study were tested (S1 and S2 Tables). As we can see, there were no differences between the general characteristics of patients or EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-CR29 at baseline for patients who remained in the study and those lost to follow-up. There were not differences between patients who underwent curative versus palliative intent surgeries or those with temporary or definitive colostomy, except for the financial difficulty domain, in which patients with temporary ostomy showed worse score.

Discussion

In the present study, QoL of CRC patients living with a colostomy was evaluated using a specific questionnaire on three occasions after surgery, T0 (0–2 months), T1 (3–5 months) and T2 (6–8 months). QoL improved between T0 to T1 and this improvement was maintained at T1 to T2 in some domains; for example, physical function, appetite loss, urinary frequency and dry mouth. Regarding type of treatment, chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy or radiotherapy were associated with worse QoL in several domains, such as global health status, emotional and cognitive functions, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain, blood or mucus in stools, body image, abdominal and buttock pain, bloating and dry mouth. Finally, even when a significant association between time or treatment exposures was not observed, important clinical differences were observed between times.

The results of QoL studies in patients living with a colostomy are contradictory and differences in sample and study designs may contribute to this, as well as the different time of evaluation. Also, comparing patients with colostomy and ileostomy together [17,24] in the same analysis may affect the results, since the characteristics and symptoms of the ileum are different from the colon. Therefore, it is important to evaluate a specific group, as in this study. In addition, the variety of questionnaires can make it difficult to compare results between studies because the domains assessed may be different. According to a 2012 systematic review, studies that used general questionnaires tended not to show significant differences, unlike those that used specific instruments [39]. The present study was designed specifically to evaluate only patients living with a colostomy for CRC to better estimate the impact of ostomy and type of treatment on QoL, using a specific questionnaire.

Regarding the function scales, the present study showed an improvement in physical, role and cognitive function at T1 compared to T0 (3–5 months after colostomy); other studies showed a worsening in the first month postoperative compared to preoperative [12,17] and improvement in the sixth month [12,17,18], helping the recovery of health status and minimizing symptoms. Lower scores found on the function scales may be due to surgery and adaptation to the ostomy and daily activities, so the scores increase over time [18]. On the other hand, emotional function showed a worsening at T1 to T2, unlike another study, in which emotional function improved in the sixth postoperative month [17]. Worsening of emotional function shows that patients need greater psychological support in order to improve their QoL [23].

Abdominal pain, appetite loss and dry mouth were associated with time, improving at T1, probably due to recovery from the surgical procedure. Likewise, pain tends to decrease with tumor resection and postoperatively over time [24]. The domains of nausea and vomiting and stoma care problems showed improvement at T0 to T2. Bowel changes are expected and may occur due to various factors including the size of the intestinal resection and the type of adjuvant therapy; these changes include diarrhea, flatulence, bloating and blood or mucus in stools [15,40]. Therefore, a treatment protocol is usually followed before surgery and once the patient has learned ostomy care, we can see an improvement in these domains over time [5,23].

As expected, treatment may affect the QoL of individuals with colostomies and CRC. In the present study, chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and chemoradiotherapy were associated with later QoL worsening in several function scales and domains. Other studies showed that individuals undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy had worse scores for physical, social and role functions [23] and those undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy had worse physical, social, cognitive and emotional functions [5,11]. Our results showed worse scores for emotional and cognitive functions in patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy when compared to those who had surgery alone. Better QoL was expected in patients undergoing surgery alone, as they usually have stage 0 or 1 cancer and surgery is sufficient for complete treatment. Thus, these patients do not suffer as much from the short and long-term adverse reactions of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy [15].

Chemoradiotherapy was also associated with worse gastrointestinal symptom scores, such as abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting and bloating. Pain, mainly abdominal and perianal, may be one of the most acute toxicities suffered after treatment, [11,19,40,41]. Despite the complications, chemoradiotherapy is usually required for the treatment of individuals with CRC.

Even though there were no significant differences in some domains in the GEE analysis, clinically important difference was found in most. More than 30% of patients showed difference in the pain, anxiety, weight concern, flatulence, embarrassment and dyspareunia domains between times. Anxiety, fears and uncertainties about the future may be present in these patients and psychological monitoring is needed to minimize suffering and facilitate acceptance of the ostomy [6,13,16]. Ostomy implies body changes, and in some situations, bag exposure, leakage or rupture may occur, causing embarrassment [23,42]. In addition, CRC patients can lose weight before surgery and regain it up to the sixth month postoperatively which may contribute to weight concern [12,43].

In the present study, global health status showed no significant difference in GEE analysis. The improvement in QoL scores in the GEE may be due to the resilience and the development of the coping capacity of the patient [19]. Therefore, the worsening of global health status (considering the clinically important differences) may be even greater and often not be noticed by the health team. Some patients tend to rank their current state of health positively compared to the time of diagnosis and surgery. Despite the worsening of some QoL domains, ostomy is a necessary resource and acceptance should be encouraged [16]. Further, other domains such as cognitive function, fatigue, insomnia, abdominal pain, fecal incontinence, women's sexual interest and men's sexual interest also worsened between times. So, clinically important difference should be considered in the health professional’s practice, as each patient may experience a worsening of a specific scale or symptom. The health professional team should be aware of any such worsening and consider the patient's QoL; the team is vital in assisting in the process of acceptance, offering care, social, psychological and nutritional support. The multidisciplinary health team and family support are essential for the follow-up and could help with social reintegration and improvement of disease-specific points, which in turn could assist in the recovery of the patient’s QoL [44].

No studies were found showing financial difficulty in patients with temporary or permanent ostomies. The evaluated patients receiving free colostomy bags at the outpatient clinic available by Brazil's publicly funded health care system. This supply was suspended in some moments and this fact could have affected the financial perception in these patients. In addition, a study found showed worsening of some domains in patients undergoing palliative treatment when compared to those undergoing curative treatment, unlike the present study, this may be the fact that the study sample is not specific for colostomy [31].

There were some limitations associated with the study. The first interview was performed up to two months after the ostomy, and a preoperative evaluation would help to better evaluate the QoL. However, all patients submitted to colostomy surgery were invited to participate. Secondly, an interview was used rather than a self-completion questionnaire as many of the patients were elderly and had difficulty understanding the activity. However, all questions were asked exactly as in the questionnaire so as not to induce the answer and we ensured an appropriate response rate for all domains of quality of life. The loss to follow-up was also high but in addition to the size effect and the observation power estimates, we compared baseline characteristics and QoL domains between our sample and those who withdrew from the study, to ensure similarity among them. This showed us that our sample did not suffer a bias at this point. Although patients undergoing palliative treatment could show differences in QoL, since this sample is restricted, the exclusion of these patients could increase the sample losses. Thus, we evaluated curative and palliative intent surgery and difference was not found at the baseline. On the other hand, between temporary and permanent ostomy difference was found in the financial difficulty domain, however all other domains had no difference. Although some domains did not reach enough power, we had adequate sample size and power of observation for several domains. The study also had strengths: the sample consisted only of patients living with a colostomy for CRC, not a heterogeneous sample, which allowed a better evaluation of QoL for this specific clinical condition by time. Thus, the sample is clinically relevant when compared to other studies. In addition, we performed a GEE analysis which is a robust assessment tool in prospective studies adjusting all models by potential confounders.

Conclusion

Time after of ostomy surgery and type of treatment are associated with changes in QoL in CRC patients living with a colostomy. QoL became better in various domains at 3–5 months and this improvement remained 6–8 months after the colostomy surgery. On the other hand, chemoradiotherapy was associated with a belatedly worse QoL in domains such as nausea and vomiting, bloating and flatulence. Finally, several patients showed worsening clinical difference in several domains, even when this was found to not be statistically significant. Therefore, health teams could use these results to reassure patients that this procedure will improve their QoL in many functional and symptomatic aspects.

Differences in the general characteristics of patients who remained in the study and those lost to follow-up.

* Mann-Whitney test for quantitative and chi-square for qualitative variables.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-CR29 differences between patients who remained in the study and those lost to follow-up.

*Mann-Whitney Test.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-CR29 differences between patients undergoing curative and palliative surgery and patients with temporary and permanent ostomy.

*Mann-Whitney Test.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

14 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-17764

Time after ostomy surgery and type of treatment are associated with quality of life changes in colostomized colorectal cancer patients

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pena,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

This is an interesting study that addresses a key patient centered issue. In the revision it will be important to use patient centered language (e.g., "colostomized patient" should be rephrased to "patient living with a colostomy" etc.). Reviewer #1 has raised an important concern that, I too, would like you to expand upon: the follow-up for this longitudinal study was very low, therefore issues to consider include: 1) Why were patients lost to follow-up; did some have ostomy reversal or for some other reason? 2) Were there any factors measured at baseline that were predictive of loss to follow up? And 3) How does your statistical model handle this issue of missing data? It is plausible to think that patients with poor quality of life might withdraw from the study, which would impact your findings if only patients with good quality of life remained in the analytic sample. A robust evaluation and acknowledgement of this issue will strengthen this paper. We look forward to receiving the revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 28 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Justin C. Brown

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include a caption for figure 2

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am very honored that the authors and your journal have asked me to review this article. This article is a good study. They used three methods to analyze the recovery of quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer with ostomy, providing guidance for the clinical health treatment team. Can the "using a specific instrument" on line 282 be specific, such as the method or tool used?

Reviewer #2: Overall: nice prospective study with some interesting findings. The English language needs substantial revision with regards to grammar and phrasings. Furthermore, both introduction and discussion sections could benefit from some trimming. References should be scrutinized again; several of the references just mentioned once could be referenced numerous times. Some references I cannot examine owing to language barrier (e.g. 17, 18, 19, 35, 45) and one I cannot find in neither google scholar, pubmed nor embase (#23, Salles et al). I believe the high number of references could be reduced by for example using most recent literature, that of better quality and with those with populations resembling that of the present study.

There is a substantial drop out /loss to follow-up from T0 to T1 and T2. Reason for this should be explained better along with potential significant differences between patients answering T1 and T2 and those who are lost to follow-up. Especially since it is difficult to work out whether this study concerns curative treatment only. If any patients undergo palliative treatment or have recurrence this (curative vs. palliative treatment and recurrence) should be presented in table 1 as it potentially affects HRQoL.

Introduction: Could be trimmed in order to improve presentation of the study objective. First 2/3 seeks to justify the study but a more clear presentation of the problem and study objective would improve the section.

Numerous studies exist on HRQoL in ostomized CRC patients using cancer specific intruments (the EORTC QLQ-C30 and –CR29: Verweij et al 2017, Brauman&Müller et al 2016, Kasparek et al 2011, Mols et al 2014, Zajac 2008, Mahjoubi et al 2012 among others) so this sentence should be rephrased

Methods:

Inclusion/esclusion criteria:It is unclear to me if this is study includes patients undergoing curative therapy alone or if some patients undergo palliative treatment. This is very important when evaluating HRQoL.

It is also unclear to me if some patients have chemotherapy during some (but not all) of time points.

The phrase “Negative clinically changes” can be confusing at times. ‘Improvement’ and ‘worsening’ for example is easier understood.

CR-29 is not exclusively for stoma patients. It is for colorectal cancer patients. This should be changed.

I am not familiar with all of the applied statistical methods, and cannot assess whether appropriate methods are used. There are some repetitions in this sections, and it could be shortened considerably. The last part of the section is especially hard to understand.

Results:

Table 1: As mentioned I would like to see: curative vs. palliative treatment and recurrence in this table. As well as temporary/permanent colostomy distributions.

Tables 2A and 2B: QoL data are skewed but by convention EORTC data are most often presented as means and SD but not necessarily median and IQR. Adhering to this could improve overview of these tables. Or else the reason for presenting both means AND medians should be explained. Significance test should of course consider the skewness of data (non parametric tests)

As mentioned comparison of disease characteristic of patients who answer T1 and T2 and those who are lost to follow-up should be presented. There are a substantial risk of bias here that must be addressed. If you know reasons who patients dropped out these should be presented.

Discussion: This section could also be trimmed considerable focusing on the research questions covered by this study. Some sentences are completely abundant.

It is highly debatable if it makes any sense discussing differences that are non significant even if clinically relevant (since they were significant). And drawing conclusions based on this should be done with more caution.

The discussion of limitations and strengths should be more exhaustive. Using interviews rather than self-completion should be explained. The high number of loss to follow up should be addressed and if all patients are not treated with curative intent this should be stated. This should also the timing of oncological treatment and how this may have affected outcomes. You cannot write the study has a higher response rate with a drop-out rate of 26/41=63%. It seems you are referring to missing items which will be small in interview-studies.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Guojun Tong

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

28 Aug 2020

Please, find attached the the response for reviewers togehter with the tracked and clean manuscripts.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

2 Sep 2020

Time after ostomy surgery and type of treatment are associated with quality of life changes in colorectal cancer patients with colostomy

PONE-D-20-17764R1

Dear Dr. Pena,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Justin C. Brown

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

23 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-17764R1

Time after ostomy surgery and type of treatment are associated with quality of life changes in colorectal cancer patients with colostomy

Dear Dr. Pena:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Justin C. Brown

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE