Aim: Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used in routine cancer care to evaluate treatment and monitor symptoms, function and other aspects of quality of life (QoL). There is no suitable PROM for rectal cancer patients following a watch‐and‐wait (W&W) programme. Insight into patient experiences with this programme is an essential step in the development of a PROM. The aim of this qualitative study was to provide insights into the most important functional outcomes and QoL features experienced by patients during our W&W programme.Method: Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who are enrolled in the W&W programme in the Netherlands were interviewed by telephone using a semistructured interview guide. All interviews were digitally audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded. A thematic approach was used to analyse the data and identify themes and subthemes of importance to patients.Results: Eighteen patients were interviewed (78% male, mean age 68 years, range 52–83 years). Physical complaints after treatment were present, most notably gastrointestinal problems, neuropathy and fatigue. Furthermore, patients were anxious about a possible recurrence, had a fear of surgery or a stoma, or were experiencing a general feeling of apprehension in daily life. Many patients had different coping mechanisms, such as acceptance, and there were few limitations in daily life.Conclusion: We identified important functional outcomes, such as gastrointestinal complaints, fatigue and neuropathy, in patients who were enrolled in this W&W programme. Furthermore, an emotional burden and unmet needs were reported by these patients. These findings can be used to improve clinical practice and inform the development of a PROM.

Aim: In the last decade, the Netherlands has implemented various diagnostic and treatment strategies to enhance rectal cancer outcomes. This study, using data from the Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer (PLCRC) cohort, investigates whether these multidisciplinary advancements have translated into improved health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and functional outcomes for the general Dutch rectal cancer population.Methods: Patients with Stage I–III rectal cancer enrolled in the PLCRC cohort were included. HRQoL and functional outcomes were assessed 1 and 2 years after diagnosis using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ‐C30), EORTC QLQ Colorectal Cancer 29 and the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome score. HRQoL and functional outcomes were compared based on year of diagnosis (2014–2019).Results: A total of 1294 patients were included. Two years after diagnosis, patients diagnosed in 2019 (n = 392) had a clinically relevant higher score on physical (8.2, 95% CI 4.1–12.3), role (13.5, 95% CI 7.3–19.7) and social functioning (5.8, 95% CI 0.3–11.2) compared to those diagnosed in 2014 (n = 65). Additionally, patients diagnosed in 2019 experienced less fatigue 2 years after diagnosis compared to those diagnosed in 2014 (−8.6, 95% CI −14.1 to −3.0). The Low Anterior Resection Syndrome score showed no differences.Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that over the past decade rectal cancer patients in the Netherlands have witnessed improvements in HRQoL across various domains. Most probably, the improvement is due to a combination of implementation of population screening, a more restrictive neoadjuvant radiotherapy policy and advances in minimally invasive surgery and organ preserving treatment options.

The Assessment of Burden of ColoRectal Cancer (ABCRC)-tool is an integrated tool, developed in conjunction with colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, that measures the experienced burden of disease and lifestyle parameters and visualizes the results. To provide tailored follow-up care for watch-and-wait (WW) patients, in line with their specific needs and preferences, a WW module for the ABCRC-tool was developed. In this paper we describe the development and validation process of the WW module. This study followed a multistep approach. First, a three-round Delphi survey was conducted with both patients and healthcare professionals (HP). Participants were asked to score common RC outcomes that emerged from qualitative interviews with patients and a targeted literature review. Based on included items, appropriate questions were formulated. Reliability was tested by assessing test-retest reliability, defined by Intra Class Correlation. Construct validity was evaluated by hypothesis testing. A total of 128 participants (75 patients and 53 HP) from four countries (UK, Brazil, Portugal and Netherlands) participated in the Delphi survey which included 41 items. After the consensus meeting seven outcomes and appropriate questions (including anxiety, fear of recurrence, fear of surgery, fear of stoma, fecal incontinence, urgency and happiness) were included in the WW module. Validity and reliability testing was completed by 50 Dutch WW patients. The ABCRC-WW module demonstrated sound construct validity and reliability. This study demonstrates good psychometric properties of the ABCRC-WW tool. This tool has the potential to facilitate patient-clinician communication, enhance patients' understanding of their condition, and enable individualized care through direct feedback.

Introduction: A watch-and-wait strategy for patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy is a valuable alternative to rectal resection. In this pilot study, we explored the use of an electronic nose to predict response to neoadjuvant therapy by analyzing breath-derived volatile organic compounds. Materials and Methods: A pilot study was performed between 2020 and 2022 on patients diagnosed with intermediate- or high-risk rectal cancer who were scheduled for neoadjuvant therapy. Breath samples were collected before and after (chemo) radiotherapy. A machine-learning model was developed to predict clinical response using curatively treated rectal cancer patients as controls. Results: For developing the machine-learning model, a total of 99 patients were included: 45 patients with rectal cancer and 54 controls. In the training set, the model successfully discriminated between patients with and without rectal cancer, with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.80 and 0.65, respectively, and an accuracy of 0.72. In the test set, the model predicted partial or (near) complete response with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.64 and 0.47, respectively, and an accuracy of 0.58. The AUC of the ROC curve was 0.63. Conclusions: The prediction model developed in this pilot study lacks the ability to accurately differentiate between partial and (near) complete responders with an electronic nose. Machine-learning studies demand a substantial number of patients and operate in a rapidly evolving field. Therefore, the prevalence of disease and duration of a study are crucial considerations for future research.