Ghost ileostomy in advanced ovarian cancer

OVA-LEAK: Prognostic score for colo-rectal anastomotic leakage in patients undergoing ovarian cancer surgery

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present study was to define and validate an anastomotic leak prognostic score based on previously described and reported anastomotic leak risk factors (OVA-LEAK: https://n9.cl/ova-leakscore) and to establish if the use of OVA-LEAK score is better than clinical criteria (surgeon's choice) selecting anastomosis to be protected with a diverting ileostomy.

MATERIAL & METHODS

This is a retrospective, multicentre cohort study that included patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery for primary advanced or relapsed ovarian cancer with colorectal resection and anastomosis between January 2011 and June 2021. Data from patients already included in the previous predictive model were not considered in the present analysis. To validate the performance of our logistic regression model, we used the OVA-LEAK formula (Annex I: https://n9.cl/ova-leakscore) for estimating leakage probabilities in a new independent cohort. Then, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed and area under the curve (AUC) was used to measure the performance of the model. Additionally, the Brier score was also estimated. 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each of the estimated performance measures were also calculated.

RESULTS

848 out of 1159 recruited patients were finally included in the multivariable logistic regression model validation. The AUC of the new cohort was 0.63 for predicting anastomotic leak. Considering a cut-off point of 22.1% to be 'positive' (to get a leak) this would provide a sensitivity of 0.45, specificity of 0.80, positive predictive value of 0.09 and negative predictive value of 0.97 for anastomotic leak. If we consider this cut-off point to select patients at risk of leak for bowel diversion, up to 22.5% of the sampled patients would undergo a diverting ileostomy and 47% (18/40) of the anastomotic leaks would be 'protected' with the stoma. Nevertheless, if we consider only the 'clinical criteria' for performing or not a diverting ileostomy, only 12.5% (5/40) of the leaks would be 'protected' with a stoma, with a rate of diverting ileostomy of up to 24.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with subjective clinical criteria, the use of a predictive model for anastomotic leak improves the selection of patients who would benefit from a diverting ileostomy without increasing the rate of stoma use.

Comparative study of three different managements after colorectal anastomosis in ovarian cancer: conservative management, diverting ileostomy, and ghost ileostomy

Objective

Anastomotic leak remains the main concern after colorectal anastomosis in ovarian cancer. Our objective was to compare the use of three different management approaches after colorectal resection and anastomosis in patients with ovarian cancer.

Methods

Between January 2010 and June 2018, a total of 133 patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage II–IV ovarian cancer who underwent colorectal resection and anastomosis were included. According to the approach followed after colorectal anastomosis and during the post-operative period, patients were stratified into three groups: conservative management and observation, diverting ileostomy, or ghost ileostomy technique. Univariate analyses were performed for quantitative variables by applying Student’s t test or Mann-Whitney U test and for qualitative variables by using the χ2 test (or Fisher’s test according to the sample size).

Results

A total of 145 patients underwent colorectal resection during cytoreduction for FIGO stage II–IV ovarian cancer. Twelve patients were excluded because a colostomy was required. Thus, 133 patients were included in the final analysis. Modified posterior pelvic exenteration was performed in 121 (91%) patients and recto-sigmoid resection in 12 (9%) patients with relapse. The approach after anastomosis was wait-and-see in 72 patients (54.1%), diverting ileostomy in 19 patients (14.4%), and ghost ileostomy in 42 patients (31.5%). There were no differences in diagnosis, age, body mass index, ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group), histology, tumor grade, FIGO stage, or type of surgery between the groups. No differences were found regarding the anastomosis leak related factors or the rate of anastomotic leak between the three groups (5.6% vs 5.3% vs 4.8%; p=0.98). Two patients died because of the anastomotic leak in the wait-and-see group, and none died in the diverting ileostomy or ghost ileostomy group. In the diverting ileostomy group, a higher number of patients had complications compared with the ghost ileostomy group (78.9% vs 7.1%; p<0.01). Four patients (21.1%) developed dehydration due to high output stoma (>1500 mL) causing electrolyte imbalance in the diverting ileostomy group, and one patient (2.4%) in the ghost ileostomy group (p=0.03). The stoma reversal rate was 73.7% for the diverting ileostomy group and 100% for the ghost ileostomy group.

Conclusions

There were no differences found in the rate of anastomotic leak among the three groups of patients. The use of ghost ileostomy avoids the drawbacks of diverting ileostomy and seems to have advantages over routine diverting ileostomy and wait-and-see approaches for ovarian cancer patients undergoing colorectal anastomosis. Rates of stoma reversal are lower after diverting ileostomy when compared with ghost ileostomy.