Clinical Utility and Characteristics of the LARS Score Compared to the CCIS

Purpose The low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score (LS) has been widely validated and has become an international tool for evaluating postoperative bowel dysfunction. However, many physicians still use the conventional incontinence scores in LARS treatment. Moreover, interpretation of LS and its relationship with conventional incontinence scores are not yet well understood. Here we compared the LS with the Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS) to clarify the clinical utility and characteristics of the LARS score. Methods We performed a multicentre observational study, recruiting 246 rectal cancer patients following sphincter-preserving surgery. Patients completed the LS, CCIS, and SF36 questionnaires. Results The response rate was 76.4%, and a total of 180 patients were analysed. The LS was strongly correlated with the CCIS ( P < 0.001, rs = 0.727). However, among 116 patients determined to not have incontinence (CCIS 0–5), 51 (44%) were diagnosed with LARS (29 with minor LARS and 22 with major LARS). Among 68 patients without LARS, only 3 were diagnosed as having incontinence (CCIS > 6). In comparison with background factors, aging and elapsed time were associated with only LS. High LS and CCIS both showed significant quality-of-life impairment as assessed by the SF-36. Conclusion This is the first study to determine the difference in the numeric values between the CCIS and LS. The LS can be a convenient tool for LARS screening, identifying a wide range of patients with LARS, including those with incontinence evaluated by CCIS. Assessment using the CCIS may often underestimate LARS.