4.3 Article

Impact of anastomotic leak on recurrence and survival after colorectal cancer surgery: a BioGrid Australia analysis

Journal

ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 88, Issue 1-2, Pages E6-E10

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ans.13648

Keywords

anastomosis; anastomotic leak; leak; recurrence; survival

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundThere is conflicting evidence regarding the oncological impact of anastomotic leak following colorectal cancer surgery. This study aims to test the hypothesis that anastomotic leak is independently associated with local recurrence and overall and cancer-specific survival. MethodsAnalysis of prospectively collected data from multiple centres in Victoria between 1988 and 2015 including all patients who underwent colon or rectal resection for cancer with anastomosis was presented. Overall and cancer-specific survival rates and rates of local recurrence were compared using Cox regression analysis. ResultsA total of 4892 patients were included, of which 2856 had completed 5-year follow-up. The overall anastomotic leak rate was 4.0%. Cox regression analysis accounting for differences in age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and tumour stage demonstrated that anastomotic leak was associated with significantly worse 5-year overall survival ((2) = 6.459, P = 0.011) for colon cancer, but only if early deaths were included. There was no difference in 5-year colon cancer-specific survival ((2) = 0.582, P = 0.446) or local recurrence ((2) = 0.735, P = 0.391). For rectal cancer, there was no difference in 5-year overall survival ((2) = 0.266, P = 0.606), cancer-specific survival ((2) = 0.008, P = 0.928) or local recurrence ((2) = 2.192, P = 0.139). ConclusionAnastomotic leak may reduce 5-year overall survival in colon cancer patients but does not appear to influence the 5-year overall survival in rectal cancer patients. There was no effect on local recurrence or cancer-specific survival.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available