BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage is a significant complication following bowel resection in cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer. Previous studies have highlighted the detrimental effects of anastomotic leakage on patients' postoperative course. However, there is still a lack of precise identification of the high-risk population and established strategies for preventing its occurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent bowel resection within the surgical phase III trial AGO-OVAR.OP3/LION investigating the impact of systematic pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy in cytoreductive surgery for primary ovarian cancer were included in this analysis. All patients in the AGO-OVAR.OP3/LION trial had undergone complete cytoreduction with no macroscopic residual disease. We analyzed the occurrence of anastomotic leakage regarding surgical procedure (non-lymphadenectomy vs. lymphadenectomy and non-stoma vs. stoma) using the Fisher test. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage and its prognostic impact on survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall rate of anastomotic leakage was 7.1%. Notably, the Non-lymphadenectomy subgroup had a lower anastomotic leakage rate of 3.0% compared to the lymphadenectomy subgroup (11.2%, P = 0.005). The use of protective stoma placement resulted in an anastomotic leakage rate of 5.5% regardless of lymphadenectomy compared to the Non-Stoma subgroup (7.5%, P = 0.78). Increased blood loss (odds ratio [OR] 1.04 per 100cc, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0001-1.09) and lymphadenectomy (OR 3.67, 95% CI 1.41-11.40) were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leakage. Although anastomotic leakage demonstrated a numerical detrimental impact on median progression-free survival (PFS) (18 months with anastomotic leakage vs. 19 months with Non-anastomotic leakage, hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% CI 0.5 to 1.4, P = 0.53) and median overall survival (OS) (31 months with anastomotic leakage vs. 58 months with Non-anastomotic leakage, HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2, P = 0.17), the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Anastomotic leakage rates were lower in the Non-lymphadenectomy arm, the current standard of care. Blood loss and lymphadenectomy, as surrogate markers for extensive surgery, were associated with increased risk for anastomotic leakage. These findings highlight the importance of strategies to reduce surgical complexity and perioperative risk to improve clinical outcomes.

Coordinating Center for Clinical Trials Philipps University Marburg Marburg Germany

Department of Gynecologic Oncology European Institute of Oncology University of Milan Italy

Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology Ev Kliniken Essen Mitte Essen Germany

Department of Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology Bonn University Hospital Bonn Germany

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics University Hospital Giessen and Marburg Marburg Germany

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics University of Duisburg Essen Essen Germany

Department of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine and Center for Gynecologic Oncology Jena University Hospital Jena Germany

Department of Gynecology Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin Berlin Germany

Department of Gynecology University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf Hamburg Germany

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf Germany

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology LMU University Hospital LMU Munich Munich Germany

Department of Obstetrics Gynaecology and Neonatology General University Hospital Prague 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University Czech Republic

Faculty of Medicine Institute for Medical Information Processing Biometry and Epidemiology IBE LMU Munich Munich Germany

Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS Università Cattolica del S Cuore Rome Rome Italy

Gynecologic Oncology Unit Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori Milan Italy

Oncologic Medical Center at the Jerusalem Hospital Hamburg Hamburg Germany

University Medical Center Mainz Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Mainz Germany

Zobrazit více v PubMed

McMullen M, Karakasis K, Rottapel R, et al. Advances in Ovarian Cancer, from Biology to Treatment. Nature Cancer; 2021;2:6–8.

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin 2023;73:17–48.

du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E, et al. Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials. Cancer 2009; 115:1234–44.

Harter P, Heitz F, Ataseven B, et al. Impact of a structured quality management program on survival of patients with advanced (AOC) and relapsed ovarian cancer (ROC) treated in a dedicated tertiary gynecologic-oncology (GO) center. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:e17048.

Colombo N, Sessa C, du Bois A, et al. ESMO–ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease † . Ann Oncol 2019;30.672–705.

Peiretti M, Bristow RE, Zapardiel I, et al. Rectosigmoid resection at the time of primary cytoreduction for advanced ovarian cancer. A multi-center analysis of surgical and oncological outcomes. Gynecol Oncol 2012;126:220–23.

Bristow RE, Del Carmen MG, Kaufman HS, et al. Radical oophorectomy with primary stapled colorectal anastomosis for resection of locally advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. J Am Coll Surg 2003;197:565–74.

Fagotti A, Ferrandina G, Vizzielli G, et al. Phase III randomised clinical trial comparing primary surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with high tumour load (SCORPION trial): final analysis of peri-operative outcome. Eur J Cancer 2016;59:22–33.

Grimm C, Harter P, Alesina PF, et al. The impact of type and number of bowel resections on anastomotic leakage risk in advanced ovarian cancer surgery. Gynecol Oncol 2017;146:498–503.

Lago V, Fotopoulou C, Chiantera V, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after colorectal resection in ovarian cancer surgery: a multi-centre study. Gynecol Oncol 2019;153:549–54.

Costantini B, Vargiu V, Santullo F, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage in advanced ovarian cancer surgery: a large single-center experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2022;29:4791–802.

Peiretti M, Zanagnolo V, Aletti GD, et al. Role of maximal primary cytoreductive surgery in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian and tubal cancer: surgical and oncological outcomes. Single institution experience. Gynecol Oncol 2010;119:259–64.

Fotopoulou C, Zang R, Gultekin M, et al. Value of tertiary cytoreductive surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer: an international multicenter evaluation. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:1348–54.

Kalogera E, Dowdy SC, Mariani A, et al. Multiple large bowel resections: potential risk factor for anastomotic leak. Gynecol Oncol 2013;130:213–18.

Chi DS, Zivanovic O, Levinson KL, et al. The incidence of major complications after the performance of extensive upper abdominal surgical procedures during primary cytoreduction of advanced ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinomas. Gynecol Oncol 2010;119:38–42.

Braicu EI, Sehouli J, Richter R, et al. Role of histological type on surgical outcome and survival following radical primary tumour debulking of epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancers. Br J Cancer 2011;105:1818–24.

Tseng JH, Suidan RS, Zivanovic O, et al. Diverting ileostomy during primary debulking surgery for ovarian cancer: associated factors and postoperative outcomes. Gynecol Oncol 2016;142:217–24.

Clayton RD, Obermair A, Hammond IG, et al. The western Australian experience of the use of en bloc resection of ovarian cancer with concomitant rectosigmoid colectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2002;84:53-7.

Obermair A, Hagenauer S, Tamandl D, et al. Safety and efficacy of low anterior en bloc resection as part of cytoreductive surgery for patients with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2001;83:53–57.

Mourton SM, Temple LK, Abu-Rustum NR, et al. Morbidity of rectosigmoid resection and primary anastomosis in patients undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncol 2005;99:608–14.

Koscielny A, Ko A, Egger EK, et al. Prevention of anastomotic leakage in ovarian cancer debulking surgery and its impact on overall survival. Anticancer Res 2019;39:5209–18.

Richardson DL, Mariani A, Cliby WA. Risk factors for anastomotic leak after recto-sigmoid resection for ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2006;103:667–72.

Bartl T, Schwameis R, Stift A, et al. Predictive and prognostic implication of bowel resections during primary cytoreductive surgery in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecological Cancer 2018;28:1664–71.

Fornasiero M, Geropoulos G, Kechagias KS, et al. Anastomotic leak in ovarian cancer cytoreduction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers 2022;14:5464.

Kim JH, Han WH, Lee DE, et al. Anastomotic leakage after resection of the rectosigmoid colon in primary ovarian cancer. J Ovarian Res 2023;16:85.

Chude GG, Rayate NV, Patris V, et al. Defunctioning loop ileostomy with low anterior resection for distal rectal cancer: should we make an ileostomy as a routine procedure? A prospective randomized study. Hepatogastroenterology 2008;55:1562–67.

Hanna MH, Vinci A, Pigazzi A. Diverting ileostomy in colorectal surgery: when is it necessary? Langenbecks Arch Surg 2015;400:145–52.

Ulrich AB, Seiler C, Rahbari N, et al. Diverting stoma after low anterior resection: more arguments in favor. Dis Colon Rectum 2009;52:412–18.

Matthiessen P, Hallböök O, Rutegård J, et al. Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer: a randomized multicenter trial. Ann Surg 2007;246:207–14.

Harter P, Sehouli J, Lorusso D, et al. A randomized trial of lymphadenectomy in patients with advanced ovarian neoplasms. N Engl J Med 2019;380:822–32.

Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, et al. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001;357:1191–94.

Team RC 2022. R: A Language and environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria; 2020.

RStudio T. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Boston, MA:RStudio, Inc; 2020:42.

Mirnezami A, Mirnezami R, Chandrakumaran K, et al. Increased local recurrence and reduced survival from colorectal cancer following anastomotic leak: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2011;253:890–99.

Hu X, Cheng Y. A clinical parameters-based model predicts anastomotic leakage after a laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a large study with data from China. Medicine (United States) 2015;94:e1003.

Simillis C, Charalambides M, Mavrou A, et al. Operative blood loss adversely affects short and long-term outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 2023;27:189–208.

Fukada M, Matsuhashi N, Takahashi T, et al. Risk and early predictive factors of anastomotic leakage in laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. World J Surg Oncol 2019;17:178.

Leichtle SW, Mouawad NJ, Welch KB, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 2012;55:569–75.

Lucarini A, Guida AM, Orville M, et al. Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography could reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Colorectal Dis 2024;26:408–16.

van Rooijen SJ, Huisman D, Stuijvenberg M, et al. Intraoperative modifiable risk factors of colorectal anastomotic leakage: why surgeons and anesthesiologists should act together. Int J Surg 2016;36:183–200.

Fotopoulou C, Planchamp F, Aytulu T, et al. European society of gynaecological oncology guidelines for the peri-operative management of advanced ovarian cancer patients undergoing debulking surgery. Int J Gynecologic Cancer 2021;31:1199.

Nelson G, Altman AD, Nick A, et al. Guidelines for pre- and intra-operative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations – part I. Gynecol Oncol 2016;140:313–22.

Nelson G, Bakkum-Gamez J, Kalogera E, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in gynecologic/oncology: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) society recommendations – 2019 update. Int J Gynecologic Cancer 2019;29:651.

Nelson G, Fotopoulou C, Taylor J, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society guidelines for gynecologic oncology: addressing implementation challenges – 2023 update. Gynecol Oncol 2023;173:58–67.

Buchs NC, Gervaz P, Secic M, et al. Incidence, consequences, and risk factors for anastomotic dehiscence after colorectal surgery: a prospective monocentric study. Int J Colorectal Dis 2008;23:265–70.

Foster ME, Brennan SS, Morgan A, et al. Colonic ischaemia and anastomotic healing. Eur Surg Res 2008;17:133–39.

Vignali A, Gianotti L, Braga M, et al. Altered microperfusion at the rectal stump is predictive for rectal anastomotic leak. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43:76–82.

Reeves N, Vogel I, Ghoroghi A, et al. Peritoneal cytokines as a predictor of colorectal anastomotic leaks on postoperative day 1: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 2022; 26:117–25.

Armstrong DK, Alvarez RD, Backes FJ, et al. NCCN guidelines® insights: ovarian cancer, version 3.2022: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J National Compr Cancer Network 2022;20:972–80.

Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): S3-leitlinie ovarialkarzinom, version 5.1, Mai 2022, AWMF-Registernummer: 032/035OL.

Santana BN, Torralba EG, Soriano JV, et al. Protective ostomies in ovarian cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gynecol Oncol 2022;33:e21.

Vonk-Klaassen SM, de Vocht HM, den Ouden MEM, et al. Ostomy-related problems and their impact on quality of life of colorectal cancer ostomates: a systematic review. Qual Life Res 2016;25:125–33.