Tumour excisional surgery, anaesthetic-analgesic techniques, and oncologic outcomes: a narrative review

Effect of different anaesthetic techniques on the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer after resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The effect of total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) and inhalation anaesthesia (IA) on the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer after resection is controversial. This study aimed to explore the effects of different anaesthesia methods on the postoperative prognosis of colorectal cancer.

Methods

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant literature from each database's inception until 18 November 2023. The literature topic was to compare the effects of TIVA and IA on the prognosis of patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection.

Results

Six studies were selected for meta-analysis. The studies involved 111043 patients, with a trial size of 1001-88184 people. A statistically significant difference was observed in the overall survival (OS) between colorectal cancer patients administered TIVA and IA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.99), but none in recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90-1.08). In the subgroup analysis of OS, no statistically significant difference was observed between colorectal cancer patients administered TIVA and IA in Asia (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.57-1.05), and not in Europe (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.06). Regarding tumour location, no significant association was found between TIVA and IA in the colon, rectum and colorectum ((HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.38-1.28), (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.08) and (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.06), respectively).

Conclusion

OS differed significantly between patients administered TIVA and IA when undergoing colorectal cancer resection, but no difference was observed in RFS. The prognostic effects of TIVA and IA differed.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023453185, identifier CRD42023453185.

Neutrophils and Anesthetic Drugs: Implications in Onco-Anesthesia

Apart from being a significant line of defense in the host defense system, neutrophils have many immunological functions. Although there are not many publications that accurately present the functions of neutrophils in relation to oncological pathology, their activity and implications have been studied a lot recently. This review aims to extensively describe neutrophils functions'; their clinical implications, especially in tumor pathology; the value of clinical markers related to neutrophils; and the implications of neutrophils in onco-anesthesia. This review also aims to describe current evidence on the influence of anesthetic drugs on neutrophils' functions and their potential influence on perioperative outcomes.

Effects of anesthesia on long-term survival in cancer surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Backgrounds

The association between anesthesia and long-term oncological outcome after cancer surgery remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the effect of propofol-based anesthesia and inhalation anesthesia on long-term survival in cancer surgery.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until November 15, 2023. The outcomes included overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). The hazard ratio (HR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated with a random-effects model.

Results

We included forty-two retrospective cohort studies and two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 686,923 patients. Propofol-based anesthesia was associated with improved OS (HR = 0.82, 95 % CI:0.76-0.88, P < 0.00001) and RFS (HR = 0.80, 95 % CI:0.73-0.88, P < 0.00001) than inhalation anesthesia after cancer surgery. However, these positive results were only observed in single-center studies (OS: HR = 0.76, 95 % CI:0.68-0.84, P < 0.00001; RFS: HR = 0.76, 95 % CI:0.66-0.87, P < 0.0001), but not in multicenter studies (OS: HR = 0.98, 95 % CI:0.94-1.03, P = 0.51; RFS: HR = 0.95, 95 % CI:0.87-1.04, P = 0.26). The subgroup analysis revealed that propofol-based anesthesia provided OS and RFS advantages in hepatobiliary cancer (OS: HR = 0.58, 95 % CI:0.40-0.86, P = 0.005; RFS: HR = 0.62, 95 % CI:0.44-0.86, P = 0.005), gynecological cancer (OS: HR = 0.52, 95 % CI:0.33-0.81, P = 0.004; RFS: HR = 0.51, 95 % CI:0.36-0.72, P = 0.0001), and osteosarcoma (OS: HR = 0.30, 95 % CI:0.11-0.81, P = 0.02; RFS: HR = 0.32, 95 % CI:0.14-0.75, P = 0.008) surgeries.

Conclusion

Propofol-based anesthesia may be associated with improved OS and RFS than inhalation anesthesia in some cancer surgeries. Considering the inherent weaknesses of retrospective designs and the strong publication bias, our findings should be interpreted with caution. Well-designed multicenter RCTs are still urgent to further confirm these findings.

On the horns of a dilemma: choosing total intravenous anaesthesia or volatile anaesthesia for cancer surgery, an enduring controversy

Two methods for administering general anaesthesia are widely used: propofol-based total intravenous anaesthesia (propofol-TIVA) and inhalation volatile agent-based anaesthesia. Both modalities, which have been standards of care for several decades, boast a robust safety profile. Nevertheless, the potential differential effects of these anaesthetic techniques on immediate, intermediate, and extended postoperative outcomes remain a subject of inquiry. We discuss a recently published longitudinal analysis stemming from a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing sevoflurane-based inhalation anaesthesia with propofol-TIVA in older patients with cancer, which showed a reduced incidence of emergence and postoperative delirium, comparable postoperative complication rates within 30 days after surgery, and comparable long-term survival rates. We undertake an assessment of the trial's methodological strengths and limitations, contextualise its results within the broader scientific evidence, and explore avenues for resolving the extant controversies in anaesthetic choice for cancer surgery. We aim to pave the way for the incorporation of precision medicine paradigms into the evolving landscape of perioperative care for patients with cancer.