Recurrence-free survival after curative resection of non-small cell lung cancer between inhalational gas anesthesia and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia: a multicenter, randomized, clinical trial (GAS TIVA trial): protocol description

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the primary treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but microscopic residual disease may be unavoidable. Preclinical studies have shown that volatile anesthetics might suppress host immunity and promote a pro-malignant environment that supports cancer cell proliferation, migration, and angiogenesis, whereas propofol may preserve cell-mediated immunity and inhibit tumor angiogenesis. However, clinical evidence that propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) can reduce tumor recurrence after curative resection remains inconsistent due to the retrospective observational nature of previous studies. Therefore, we will test the hypothesis that the recurrence-free survival (RFS) after curative resection of NSCLC is higher in patients who received TIVA than volatile anesthetics (GAS) in this multicenter randomized trial.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomized trial will enroll patients at 22 international sites, subject to study registration, institutional review board approval, and patient written informed consent. Eligible patients are adult patients undergoing lung resection surgery with curative intent for NSCLC. Exclusion criteria will be contraindications to study drugs, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status IV or higher, or preexisting distant metastasis or malignant tumor in other organs. At each study site, enrolled subjects will be randomly allocated into the TIVA and GAS groups with a 1:1 ratio. This pragmatic trial does not standardize any aspect of patient care. However, potential confounders will be balanced between the study arms. The primary outcome will be RFS. Secondary outcomes will be overall survival and complications within postoperative 7 days. Enrollment of 5384 patients will provide 80% power to detect a 3% treatment effect (hazard ratio of 0.83) at alpha 0.05 for RFS at 3 years.

DISCUSSION

Confirmation of the study hypothesis would demonstrate that a relatively minor and low-cost alteration in anesthetic management has the potential to reduce cancer recurrence risk in NSCLC, an ultimately fatal complication. Rejection of the hypothesis would end the ongoing debate about the relationship between cancer recurrence and anesthetic management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was prospectively registered at the Clinical trials ( https://clinicaltrials.gov , NCT06330038, principal investigator: Hyun Joo Ahn; date of first public release: March 25, 2024) before the recruitment of the first participant.

Are there beneficial effects to hybrid anesthesia*?

As the COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of propofol in the intensive care unit for the management of respiratory sequelae and supply had become a major issue. Indeed, most hospitals in Japan were forced to use propofol only for induction of anesthesia with inhalational maintenance. Large amounts of propofol remain in the syringe which exacerbates the problems by increased waste. I propose that use of low dose propofol in combination with a low concentration inhaled anesthetic as an alternative and call this hybrid anesthesia. Several advantages of hybrid anesthesia are evident in the literature. Volatile anesthesia has several disadvantages such as cancer progression, emergence agitation, marked reduction in motor evoked potentials (MEP), laryngospasm with desflurane and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Volatile anesthesia exerts some beneficial actions such as myocardial protection and fast emergence with desflurane. In contrast, total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) provides better survival in patients undergoing radical cancer surgery, reduction in emergence agitation, laryngospasm, PONV and better MEP trace Intraoperative awareness occurs more often during TIVA. When intravenous and volatile anesthesia are combined (hybrid anesthesia), the disadvantages of both methods may be offset by clear advantages. Thus, hybrid anesthesia may, therefore, be a viable anesthetic choice.

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.

Anesthesia and cancer recurrence: a narrative review

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. With the increasingly aging population, the number of emerging cancer cases is expected to increase markedly in the foreseeable future. Surgical resection with adjuvant therapy is the best available option for the potential cure of many solid tumors; thus, approximately 80% of patients with cancer undergo at least one surgical procedure during their disease. Agents used in general anesthesia can modulate cytokine release, transcription factors, and/or oncogenes. This can affect host immunity and the capability of cancer cells to survive and migrate, not only during surgery but for up to several weeks after surgery. However, it remains unknown whether exposure to anesthetic agents affects cancer recurrence or metastasis. This review explores the current literature to explain whether and how the choice of anesthetic and perioperative medication affect cancer surgery outcomes.

Impact of anesthesia on postoperative breast cancer prognosis: A narrative review

The incidence of breast cancer has exhibited an annually increasing trend, and the disease has become the most common malignant tumour worldwide. Currently, the primary treatment for breast cancer is surgical resection. However, metastatic recurrence is the main cause of cancer-related death in this patient population. Various factors are associated with breast cancer prognosis, and anaesthesia-induced changes in the tumour microenvironment have attracted increasing attention. To date, however, it remains unclear whether anaesthetic drugs have a positive or negative impact on cancer outcomes after surgery. The present article reviews the effects of different anaesthetics on the postoperative prognosis of breast cancer surgery to guide the choice of anaesthetic technique(s) and agents for such patients.

Regional anesthesia might reduce recurrence and metastasis rates in adult patients with cancers after surgery: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The influence of anesthesia techniques on cancer recurrence and metastasis following oncological surgery is a topic of growing interest. This meta-analysis investigates the potential effects of regional anesthesia (RA), either independently or combined with general anesthesia (GA), on these outcomes.

METHODS

We performed an extensive search across PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. The primary outcome was cancer recurrence, while the secondary outcomes were local recurrence and distant metastasis. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by utilizing random-effects models. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for quality assessment of observational studies, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (Rob 2.0) was used for randomized controlled trials, and all the outcomes were assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

This study included 32 studies comprising 24,724 cancer patients. RA, either alone or in combination with GA, was significantly associated with reduced cancer recurrence compared to GA alone (OR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.72 to 0.94; p < 0.01). This association remained significant for prostate cancer patients in subgroup analyses (OR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.98; p = 0.04) and in the context of epidural anesthesia combined with GA. However, there were no significant associations noted for local recurrence or distant metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides evidence that RA, used alone or adjunctively with GA, is associated with a lower risk of cancer recurrence, particularly in patients with prostate cancer. However, no significant effects were observed on local recurrence or distant metastasis. Further prospective studies should be conducted to clarify this important issue.

The tumor-nerve circuit in breast cancer

It is well established that innervation is one of the updated hallmarks of cancer and that psychological stress promotes the initiation and progression of cancer. The breast tumor environment includes not only fibroblasts, adipocytes, endothelial cells, and lymphocytes but also neurons, which is increasingly discovered important in breast cancer progression. Peripheral nerves, especially sympathetic, parasympathetic, and sensory nerves, have been reported to play important but different roles in breast cancer. However, their roles in the breast cancer progression and treatment are still controversial. In addition, the brain is one of the favorite sites of breast cancer metastasis. In this review, we first summarize the innervation of breast cancer and its mechanism in regulating cancer growth and metastasis. Next, we summarize the neural-related molecular markers in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. In addition, we review drugs and emerging technologies used to block the interactions between nerves and breast cancer. Finally, we discuss future research directions in this field. In conclusion, the further research in breast cancer and its interactions with innervated neurons or neurotransmitters is promising in the clinical management of breast cancer.

Impact of general anaesthesia on breast cancer survival: a 5-year follow up of a pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial, the CAN-study, comparing propofol and sevoflurane

Background

Anaesthesia may impact long-term cancer survival. In the Cancer and Anaesthesia study, we hypothesised that the hypnotic drug propofol will have an advantage of at least five percentage points in five-year survival over the inhalational anaesthetic sevoflurane for breast cancer surgery.

Methods

From 2118 eligible breast cancer patients scheduled for primary curable, invasive breast cancer surgery, 1764 were recruited after ethical approval and individual informed consent to this open label, single-blind, randomised trial at four county- and three university hospitals in Sweden and one Chinese university hospital. Of surveyed patients, 354 were excluded, mainly due to refusal to participate. Patients were randomised by computer at the monitoring organisation to general anaesthesia maintenance with either intravenous propofol or inhaled sevoflurane in a 1:1 ratio in permuted blocks. Data related to anaesthesia, surgery, oncology, and demographics were registered. The primary endpoint was five-year overall survival. Data are presented as Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Hazard Ratios based on Cox univariable regression analyses by both intention-to-treat and per-protocol. EudraCT, 2013-002380-25 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01975064.

Findings

Of 1764 patients, included from December 3, 2013, to September 29, 2017, 1670 remained for analysis. The numbers who survived at least five years were 773/841 (91.9% (95% CI 90.1-93.8)) in the propofol group and 764/829 (92.2% (90.3-94.0)) in the sevoflurane group, (HR 1.03 (0.73-1.44); P = 0.875); the corresponding results in the per-protocol-analysis were: 733/798 (91.9% (90.0-93.8)) and 653/710 (92.0% (90.0-94.0)) (HR = 1.01 (0.71-1.44); P = 0.955). Survival after a median follow-up of 76.7 months did not indicate any difference between the groups (HR 0.97, 0.72-1.29; P = 0.829, log rank test).

Interpretation

No difference in overall survival was found between general anaesthesia with propofol or sevoflurane for breast cancer surgery.

Funding

Swedish Research Council; Uppsala-Örebro Regional Research Council; Västmanland Regional Research Fund; Västmanland Cancer Foundation; Stig and Ragna Gohrton Foundation; Birgit and Henry Knutsson Foundation.

The Effect of Different Anesthetic Techniques on Proliferation, Apoptosis, and Gene Expression in Colon Cancer Cells: A Pilot In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is highly common and causes high mortality rates. Treatment for colorectal cancer is multidisciplinary, but in most cases the main option remains surgery. Intriguingly, in recent years, a number of studies have shown that a patient's postoperative outcome may be influenced by certain anesthetic drugs. Our main objective was to compare the effect of propofol-total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with sevoflurane anesthesia and to investigate the potential role of intravenous lidocaine on colon cancer cell functions. We tested the effects of serum from colorectal cancer patients undergoing TIVA vs. sevoflurane anesthesia with or without lidocaine on HCT 116 cell lines; on proliferation, apoptosis, migration, and cell cycles; and on cancer-related gene expressions.

METHODS

60 patients who were scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery were randomized into four different groups (two groups with TIVA and two groups with sevoflurane anesthesia with or without intravenous lidocaine). Blood samples were collected at the start and at the end of surgery. HCT 116 cells were exposed to the patients' serum.

RESULTS

15 patients were included in each of the study groups. We did not find any significant difference on cell viability or apoptosis between the study groups. However, there was an increased apoptosis in propofol groups, but this result was not statistically significant. A significant increase in the expression profile of the TP53 gene in the propofol group was registered (p = 0.029), while in the other study groups, no significant differences were reported. BCL2 and CASP3 expressions increased in the sevoflurane-lidocaine group without statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, serum from patients receiving different anesthetic techniques did not significantly influence the apoptosis, migration, and cell cycle of HCT-116 colorectal carcinoma cells. Viability was also not significantly influenced by the anesthetic technique, except the sevoflurane-lidocaine group where it was increased. The gene expression of TP53 was significantly increased in the propofol group, which is consistent with the results of similar in vitro studies and may be one of the mechanisms by which anesthetic agents may influence the biology of cancer cells. Further studies that investigate the effects of propofol and lidocaine in different plasma concentrations on different colon cancer cell lines and assess the impacts of these findings on the clinical outcome are much needed.

Total versus inhaled intravenous anesthesia methods for prognosis of patients with lung, breast, or esophageal cancer: A cohort study

Objective

To explore the influences of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and inhaled-intravenous anesthesia on the prognosis of patients with lung, breast, or esophageal cancer.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, patients with lung, breast, or esophageal cancer who underwent surgical treatments at Beijing Shijitan Hospital between January 2010 and December 2019 were included. The patients were categorized into the TIVA group and inhaled-intravenous anesthesia group, according to the anesthesia methods used for the patients for surgery of the primary cancer. The primary outcome of this study included overall survival (OS) and recurrence/metastasis.

Results

Totally, 336 patients were included in this study, 119 in the TIVA group and 217 in the inhaled-intravenous anesthesia group. The OS of patients in the TIVA group was higher than in the inhaled-intravenous anesthesia group (P = 0.042). There were no significant differences in the recurrence/metastasis-free survival between the two groups (P = 0.296). Inhaled-intravenous anesthesia (HR = 1.88, 95%CI: 1.15-3.07, P = 0.012), stage III cancer (HR = 5.88, 95%CI: 2.57-13.43, P < 0.001), and stage IV cancer (HR = 22.60, 95%CI: 8.97-56.95, P < 0.001) were independently associated with recurrence/ metastasis. Comorbidities (HR = 1.75, 95%CI: 1.05-2.92, P = 0.033), the use of ephedrine, noradrenaline or phenylephrine during surgery (HR = 2.12, 95%CI: 1.11-4.06, P = 0.024), stage II cancer (HR = 3.24, 95%CI: 1.08-9.68, P = 0.035), stage III cancer (HR = 7.60, 95%CI: 2.64-21.86, P < 0.001), and stage IV cancer (HR = 26.61, 95%CI: 8.57-82.64, P < 0.001) were independently associated with OS.

Conclusion

In patients with breast, lung, or esophageal cancer, TIVA is preferable than inhaled-intravenous anesthesia group for longer OS,, but TIVA was not associated with the recurrence/metastasis-free survival of patients.

Effect of Opioids on Survival in Patients with Cancer

Opioids are commonly used for pain management in patients with cancer. They have a range of unwanted effects, including some that potentially influence cancer growth. This article reviews the data assessing the effects of opioids on survival in patients with cancer. Many studies assessing this show an association between opioids and decreased survival. This effect is present even at very low doses of opioids. These studies do not assess causality, so it is not known if it is a direct effect of opioids on survival. As the control groups are not matched to the opioid group it might be that opioids are being used to control pain and patients receiving opioids have more aggressive cancers and it is the underlying cancer which is causing the decreased survival. Furthermore, although some studies allude to different opioids having different effects on survival, often all opioids are pooled in analysis. Future work needs to try to ascertain causality and differentiate between different opioids, pain, and cancer-mediated effects on survival in specific cancer types. Until then, opioids should continue to be used in patients with cancer as part of measures to optimise comfort and quality of life.

Effects of propofol on macrophage activation and function in diseases

Macrophages work with monocytes and dendritic cells to form a monocyte immune system, which constitutes a powerful cornerstone of the immune system with their powerful antigen presentation and phagocytosis. Macrophages play an essential role in infection, inflammation, tumors and other pathological conditions, but these cells also have non-immune functions, such as regulating lipid metabolism and maintaining homeostasis. Propofol is a commonly used intravenous anesthetic in the clinic. Propofol has sedative, hypnotic, anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidation effects, and it participates in the body’s immunity. The regulation of propofol on immune cells, especially macrophages, has a profound effect on the occurrence and development of human diseases. We summarized the effects of propofol on macrophage migration, recruitment, differentiation, polarization, and pyroptosis, and the regulation of these propofol-regulated macrophage functions in inflammation, infection, tumor, and organ reperfusion injury. The influence of propofol on pathology and prognosis via macrophage regulation is also discussed. A better understanding of the effects of propofol on macrophage activation and function in human diseases will provide a new strategy for the application of clinical narcotic drugs and the treatment of diseases.

Impact of Local Anesthetics on Cancer Behavior and Outcome during the Perioperative Period: A Review

There is a growing interest regarding the impact of the perioperative period and the application of anesthetic drugs on the recurrence of cancer metastases. Among them, the use of amide-type local anesthetics seems promising since in vitro studies and animal models have shown their potential to inhibit the Intercellular Adhesion Molecule 1 (ICAM-1) expression and Src activity, which are clearly implicated in the process of inflammation and cancer metastases. This review emphasizes the potential of amide-type local anesthetics in this context.

Volatile versus propofol general anesthesia and long-term survival after breast cancer surgery: a national registry retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Several retrospective studies using administrative or single center data have failed to show any difference between general anesthesia using propofol versus inhaled volatiles on long-term survival after breast cancer surgery. Although randomized controlled trials are ongoing, validated data from national clinical registries may advance the reliability of existing knowledge.

METHODS

Data on breast cancer surgery performed under general anesthesia between 2013 and 2019 from The Swedish PeriOperative Register and The National Quality Register for Breast Cancer were record-linked. Overall survival was compared between patients receiving propofol or inhaled volatile for anesthesia maintenance.

RESULTS

Of 18,674 subjects, 13,873 patients (74.3%) received propofol and 4,801 (25.7%) received an inhaled volatile for general anesthesia maintenance. The two cohorts differed in most respects. Patients receiving inhaled volatile were older (67 years vs 65 years), sicker (888 [19.0%] ASA status 3-5 versus 1,742 [12.8%]), and the breast cancer to be more advanced. Median follow-up was 33 months (IQR, 19 to 48). In the full, unmatched cohort, there was a statistically significantly higher overall survival among patients receiving propofol (13,489/ 13,873 (97.2%)) versus inhaled volatile (4,039/4,801 (84.1%)) hazard ratio = 0.80 (95% CI 0.70-0.90, P < 0.001). Following 1:1 propensity score matching (4,658 matched pairs) there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival, (propofol 4,284/4,658 (92.0%) versus inhaled volatile 4,288/4,658 (92.1%) hazard ratio = 0.98 (95% CI 0.85-1.13, P = 0.756)).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing breast cancer surgery under general anesthesia, no association was observed between the choice of propofol or an inhaled volatile maintenance and overall survival.

Immune response in breast cancer surgery. A comparative and prospective study of different anesthetic techniques

INTRODUCTION

The main reason for high mortality in breast cancer is local recurrence and metastasis, despite surgery as the first therapeutic option. The anesthesia used in the operation room can determine the immune response.

METHODS

A prospective, comparative and non- randomised study in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery was conducted in our hospital after obtaining approval from the Hospital's Institutional Review Board. Patients were divided in two groups: Group A received general anesthesia with propofol and opioids. Group B, in addition to general anesthesia, three interfascial blocks (Pec I, Pec II and BRILMA) were performed in all patients. Three blood samples were taken 1) previous anesthetic induction; 2) two hours after the end of the surgery and 3) 24-48 h after surgery. Leukocytes, CD3, CD4, CD8 and Natural Killer cells were determined at each time.

RESULTS

103 patients were included. 59 (group A) received general anesthesia and 54 (group B) general anesthesia and interfascial blocks. Regarding baseline characteristics, age was significantly higher in the group that received general anesthesia and mastectomy was more frequent in the group that received interfascial blocks. We observed after surgery an increase in leukocytes level that returns close to baseline levels. On the other hand, a reduction in the immune response was observed that also returns to the previous level 48 h after surgery. Group A and B get similar results and also subgroups of hormonal receptors (HER+, PR and/or ER+).

CONCLUSIONS

Interfascial blocks in chest wall added to general anesthesia in breast cancer surgery has not shown a significant difference in the inflammatory response or immunological depression compared to general anesthesia as the only anesthetic technique. It seems to trend less immunological depression in the interfascial block group.

Can Infusion of Lidocaine During Breast Cancer Surgery Promote Higher In-vitro Apoptosis in Comparison with Fentanyl?

Background: Although several numbers of the common anesthetic drugs are frequently used in breast cancer (BC) surgery, their possible effects on the behavior of cancer cells are still unknown. Objectives: The main objective of the present study was to examine the effect of administered lidocaine versus fentanyl during BC surgery on the apoptosis index of BC cells in-vitro. Methods: Patients with BC with the same grade of cancer and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score I–III, who underwent surgery were randomly divided into 2 groups of lidocaine and fentanyl infusion based on the analgesic drugs they received. Blood samples were drawn before and after the surgery and then cells from the BC cell line (MCF-7) were exposed to them at 24, 48, and 72 hours post-culture. Flow cytometry was performed to measure the mean percentage of apoptosis index; To investigate the cells’ viability, 3-(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay was also applied. Results: Sixty patients were enrolled. Quantitative cell death analysis revealed that the proportion of apoptotic cells in both lidocaine and fentanyl groups significantly increased when the cells were treated with post-operation sera compared to pre-operation sera exposure at various time intervals. In both groups, intra-group cell death analysis showed that there was not any statistically significant difference among the cultured cells exposed to pre-operation sera at various interval times (P < 0.001) with respect to apoptosis and cell viability. Conclusions: The study findings proposed that lidocaine infusion can reach the apoptosis index of BC cells in-vitro, as much as that fentanyl did; and both drugs had significant effects.

Anesthesia With Propofol Sedation Reduces Locoregional Recurrence in Patients With Breast Cancer Receiving Total Mastectomy Compared With Non-Propofol Anesthesia

Purpose

We examined locoregional recurrence (LRR) in patients with breast invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) receiving total mastectomy (TM) under propofol-based paravertebral block-regional anesthesia (PB-RA) versus sevoflurane-based inhalational general anesthesia (INHA-GA) without propofol. All-cause death and distant metastasis were secondary endpoints.

Patients and Methods

Patients with breast IDC receiving TM were recruited through propensity score matching and categorized into INHA-GA with sevoflurane and PB-RA with propofol groups. Cox regression analysis was performed to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, the adjusted HR (aHR; 95% CI) of LRR for the PB-RA with propofol group was 0.52 (0.28–0.96) compared with the INHA-GA with sevoflurane group. The aHRs of LRR for differentiation grade II, grade III, the American Joint Committee on Cancer clinical stage II, stage III, pathological tumor (pT) stage 2, pT stage 3–4, pathological nodal (pN) stage 1, and pN stage 2–3 were 1.16 (1.04–2.08), 1.28 (1.07–2.12), 3.71 (1.82–7.59), 4.67 (1.65–13.18), 1.09 (1.02–1.21), 1.17 (1.03–2.16), 1.10 (1.03–1.33), and 1.22 (1.06–2.41), respectively, compared with differentiation grade I, clinical stage I, pT1, and pN0. The aHR of LRR for adjuvant RT was 0.88 (0.64–0.94) compared with that for no adjuvant RT.

Conclusion

PB-RA with propofol might be beneficial for reducing LRR in women with breast IDC receiving TM compared with INHA-GA without propofol.

The influence of TIVA or inhalation anesthesia with or without intravenous lidocaine on postoperative outcome in colorectal cancer surgery: a study protocol for a prospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

Anesthetic agents are mandatory in colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgery. Studies published so far have shown that anesthetic drugs and intervention may have different impacts on patient's outcome. Among these drugs, propofol and, more recently, local anesthetics have been mostly targeted.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study will be a prospective randomized control trial aiming to include 400 patients scheduled for curative colorectal surgery. Patients will be randomized to have general anesthesia with propofol or with sevoflurane. Each study group will be further divided into 2 subgroups of patients, of which one will receive intravenous lidocaine perioperatively. The primary outcome is to compare the incidence of cancer recurrence and survival after propofol versus sevoflurane anesthesia added or not intravenous lidocaine. Secondary outcomes will include the severity of postoperative pain, resumption of bowel function, morphine consumption, length of hospital stay, postoperative chronic pain, and rate of postoperative complications.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first randomized control trial registered on ClinicalTrials.gov designed to compare the effects of two different anesthetic techniques added perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on long-term outcomes exclusively in colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgery. The study will bring more accurate data on the effect of propofol-TIVA and perioperative iv lidocaine on the incidence of recurrences after intended curative colorectal surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trial Registration NCT02786329 . Registered on 1 June 2016.

Anesthesia and Oncology: Friend or Foe?

Cancer is a leading cause of death, and surgery is an important treatment modality. Laboratory research and retrospective studies have raised the suspicion that the choice of anesthetics for cancer surgery might affect the course of cancerous disease. The aim of this review is to provide a critical overview of the current state of knowledge. Inhalational anesthesia with volatiles or total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol are the two most commonly used anesthetic techniques. Most data comparing volatile anesthetics with TIVA is from either in vitro or retrospective studies. Although conflicting, data shows a trend towards favoring propofol. Opioids are commonly used in anesthesia. Data on potential effects of opioids on growth and recurrence of cancer are scarce and conflicting. Preclinical studies have shown that opioids stimulate cancer growth through the µ-opioid receptor. Opioids also act as immunosuppressants and, therefore, have the potential to facilitate metastatic spread. However, the finding of an adverse effect of opioids on tumor growth and cancer recurrence by some retrospective studies has not been confirmed by prospective studies. Regional anesthesia has not been found to have a beneficial effect on the outcome of surgically treated cancer patients, but prospective studies are scarce. Local anesthetics might have a beneficial effect, as observed in animal and in vitro studies. However, prospective clinical studies strongly question such an effect. Blood products, which may be needed during extensive cancer surgery suppress the immune system, and data strongly suggest a negative impact on cancer recurrence. The potential effects of other commonly used anesthetic agents on the outcome of cancer patients have not been sufficiently studied for drawing valid conclusions. In conclusion, laboratory data and most retrospective studies suggest a potential advantage of TIVA over inhalational anesthesia on the outcome of surgical cancer patients, but prospective, randomized studies are missing. Given the state of weak scientific evidence, TIVA may be used as the preferred type of anesthesia unless there is an individual contraindication against it. Studies on the effects of other drugs frequently used in anesthesia are limited in number and quality, and have found conflicting results.

Potential Influence of Anesthetic Interventions on Breast Cancer Early Recurrence According to Estrogen Receptor Expression: A Sub-Study of a Randomized Trial

Background

Effects of anesthetic interventions on cancer prognosis remain controversial. There is evidence that estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer patients have an early recurrence peak. We aimed to assess the potential benefit of regional anesthesia-analgesia versus general anesthesia regarding early recurrence in breast cancer according to ER expression.

Methods

Based on a multicenter randomized controlled trial (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00418457), we included all the patients from Peking Union Medical College Hospital research center in this study. The primary outcome was breast cancer recurrence after surgery. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare recurrence between groups.

Results

In total, 1,253 breast cancer patients were included in this sub-study, among whom the median follow-up time was 53 months. In this sub-study, 320 patients were ER-negative, and 933 were ER-positive. As for ER-negative patients, the recurrence risk in the PPA (paravertebral blocks and propofol general anesthesia) group showed no statistical difference compared with the GA (sevoflurane and opioids general anesthesia) group (19.1% versus 23.4%; adjusted HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.50–1.30; P = 0.377). In the first 18 months after breast cancer surgery, which is considered as the classical early peak of recurrence, after adjustment for menstruation and the pathological stage of tumor, the decrease of early recurrence observed in the PPA group was not significant compared with the GA group (adjusted HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.34–1.14; P = 0.127).

Conclusions

In our study, the effects of early recurrence after breast cancer surgery in both ER-negative and ER-positive patients were similar between regional anesthesia-analgesia and general anesthesia. Large samples of ER-negative patients will be needed to clarify the effects of anesthetic interventions.

Direct Cytotoxic and Indirect, Immune-Mediated Effects of Local Anesthetics Against Cancer

Local anesthetics are frequently employed during surgery in order to control peri- and postoperative pain. Retrospective studies have revealed an unexpected correlation between increased long-term survival and the use of local anesthetics during oncological surgery. This effect of local anesthetics might rely on direct cytotoxic effects on malignant cells or on indirect, immune-mediated effects. It is tempting to speculate, yet needs to be formally proven, that the combination of local anesthetics with oncological surgery and conventional anticancer therapy would offer an opportunity to control residual cancer cells. This review summarizes findings from fundamental research together with clinical data on the use of local anesthetics as anticancer standalone drugs or their combination with conventional treatments. We suggest that a better comprehension of the anticancer effects of local anesthetics at the preclinical and clinical levels may broadly improve the surgical treatment of cancer.

Expression Profiles of Immune Cells after Propofol or Sevoflurane Anesthesia for Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Prospective Double-blind Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

The antitumor effects of natural killer cells, helper T cells, and cytotoxic T cells after cancer surgery were reported previously. This study hypothesized that propofol-based anesthesia would have fewer harmful effects on immune cells than volatile anesthetics-based anesthesia during colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

In total, 153 patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery were randomized and included in the analysis. The primary outcome was the fraction of circulating natural killer cells over time in the propofol and sevoflurane groups. The fractions of circulating natural killer, type 1, type 17 helper T cells, and cytotoxic T cells were investigated. The fractions of CD39 and CD73 expressions on circulating regulatory T cells were investigated, along with the proportions of circulating neutrophils, lymphocytes, and monocytes.

RESULTS

The fraction of circulating natural killer cells was not significantly different between the propofol and sevoflurane groups until 24 h postoperatively (20.4 ± 13.4% vs. 20.8 ± 11.3%, 17.9 ± 12.7% vs. 20.7 ± 11.9%, and 18.6 ± 11.6% vs. 21.3 ± 10.8% before anesthesia and after 1 and 24 h after anesthesia, respectively; difference [95% CI], -0.3 [-4.3 to 3.6], -2.8 [-6.8 to 1.1], and -2.6 [-6.2 to 1.0]; P = 0.863, P = 0.136, and P = 0.151 before anesthesia and after 1 and 24 h, respectively). The fractions of circulating type 1 and type 17 helper T cells, cytotoxic T cells, and CD39+ and CD73+ circulating regulatory T cells were not significantly different between the two groups. The neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in both groups remained within the normal range and was not different between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol-based anesthesia was not superior to sevoflurane-based anesthesia in terms of alleviating suppression of immune cells including natural killer cells and T lymphocytes during colorectal cancer surgery.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Effects of Propofol Versus Sevoflurane on Postoperative Breast Cancer Prognosis: A Narrative Review

Perioperative interventions produce substantial biologic perturbations which are associated with the risk of recurrence after cancer surgery. The changes of tumor microenvironment caused by anesthetic drugs received increasing attention. Till now, it’s still unclear whether or not anesthetic drugs may exert positive or negative impact on cancer outcomes after surgery. Breast cancer is the most common tumor and the leading cause of cancer deaths in women. Propofol and sevoflurane are respectively the most commonly used intravenous and inhaled anesthetics. Debates regarding which of the two most commonly used anesthetics may relatively contribute to the recurrence and metastasis vulnerability of breast cancer postoperatively remain. This review aimed to provide a comprehensive view about the effect of propofol versus sevoflurane on the prognosis of breast cancer obtained from pre-clinical studies and clinical studies. Laboratory and animal studies have demonstrated that sevoflurane may enhance the recurrence and metastasis of breast cancer, while propofol is more likely to reduce the activity of breast cancer cells by attenuating the suppression of the immune system, promoting tumor cells apoptosis, and through other direct anti-tumor effects. However, retrospective clinical studies have shown contradictory results about the effects of propofol and sevoflurane on long-term survival in breast cancer patients. Furthermore, recent prospective studies did not identify significant differences between propofol and sevoflurane in breast cancer metastasis and recurrence. Therefore, more preclinical studies and randomized controlled studies are needed to guide the choice of anesthetics for breast cancer patients.

Opioids and Breast Cancer Recurrence: A Systematic Review

Breast cancer has the greatest epidemiological impact in women. Opioids represent the most prescribed analgesics, both in surgical time and in immediate postoperative period, as well as in chronic pain management as palliative care. We made a systematic review analyzing the literature's evidence about the safety of opioids in breast cancer treatment, focusing our attention on the link between opioid administration and increased relapses. The research has been conducted using the PubMed database. Preclinical studies, retrospective and prospective clinical studies, review articles and original articles were analyzed. In the literature, there are several preclinical in vitro and in vivo studies, suggesting a possible linkage between opioids administration and progression of cancer disease. Nevertheless, these results are not confirmed by clinical studies. The most recent evidence reassures the safety of opioids during surgical time as analgesic associated with anesthetics drugs, during postoperative period for optimal cancer-related pain management and in chronic use. Currently, there is controversial evidence suggesting a possible impact of opioids on breast cancer progression, but to date, it remains an unresolved issue. Although there is no conclusive evidence, we hope to arouse interest in the scientific community to always ensure the best standards of care for these patients.

Impact of anesthetics on oncogenic signaling network: a review on propofol and isoflurane

Propofol as an intravenous anesthetic and isoflurane as an inhalational/volatile anesthetic continue to be an important part of surgical anesthetic interventions worldwide. The impact of these anesthetics on tumor progression, immune modulation, and survival rates of cancer patients has been widely investigated. Although most of the preclinical studies have provided a beneficial effect of propofol over isoflurane or other volatile anesthetics, several investigations have shown contradictory results, which warrant more preclinical and clinical studies. Propofol mostly exhibits antitumor properties, whereas isoflurane being a cost-effective anesthetic is frequently used. However, isoflurane has been also reported with protumorigenic activity. This review provides an overall perspective on the network of signaling pathways that may modulate several steps of tumor progression from inflammation, immunomodulation, epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) to invasion, metastasis, angiogenesis, and cancer stemness and extracellular vesicles along with chemotherapeutic applications and clinical status of these anesthetics. A clear understanding of the mechanistic viewpoints of these anesthetics may pave the way for more prospective clinical trials with the ultimate goal of obtaining a safe and optimal anesthetic intervention that would prevent cancer recurrence and may influence better postoperative survival.

Paravertebral block in regional anesthesia with propofol sedation reduces locoregional recurrence in patients with breast cancer receiving breast conservative surgery compared with volatile inhalational without propofol in general anesthesia

PURPOSE

We examined locoregional recurrence (LRR) in patients with breast invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) receiving breast conservative surgery (BCS) under propofol-based paravertebral block-regional anesthesia (PB-RA) versus sevoflurane-based inhalational general anesthesia (INHA-GA) without propofol. All-cause death and distant metastasis were secondary endpoints.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with breast IDC receiving BCS were recruited through propensity score matching and categorized into INHA-GA with sevoflurane and PB-RA with propofol groups. Cox regression analysis was performed to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, the adjusted HR (aHR; 95% CI) of LRR for the PB-RA with propofol group was 0.67 (0.46-0.99) compared with the INHA-GA with sevoflurane group. The aHRs of LRR for differentiation grade II, grade III, the American Joint Committee on Cancer clinical stage II, stage III, pathological tumor (pT) stage 2, pT stage 3-4, pathological nodal (pN) stage 2-3, and Her-2 positivity were 1.87 (1.03-3.42), 2.31 (1.20-4.44), 1.67 (1.09-2.56), 2.43 (1.18-4.97), 1.17 (1.03-1.19), 1.28 (1.13-2.24), 1.20 (1.05-2.22), and 1.59 (1.01-2.51), respectively, compared with those for differentiation grade I, clinical stage I, pT1, pN0, and HER-2 negativity. The aHR of LRR for adjuvant radiotherapy was 0.60 (0.38-0.97) compared with that for no adjuvant radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

PB-RA with propofol might be beneficial for reducing LRR in women with breast IDC receiving BCS compared with INHA-GA without propofol.

Effects of the Hypnotic Alkylphenol Derivative Propofol on Breast Cancer Progression. A Focus on Preclinical and Clinical Studies

Propofol is a hypnotic alkylphenol derivative with many biological activities. It is predominantly used in anesthesia and is the most used parenteral anesthetic agent in the United States. Accumulating preclinical studies have shown that this compound may inhibit cancer recurrence and metastasis. Nevertheless, other investigations provided evidence that this compound may promote breast cancer cell progression by modulating different molecular pathways. Clinical data on this topic are scarce and derive from retrospective analyses. For this reason, we reviewed and evaluated the available data to reveal insight into this controversial issue. More preclinical and clinical investigations are necessary to determine the potential role of propofol in the proliferation of breast cancer cells.

Is It Definitely Clear That Long-Term Survival after Breast Cancer Surgery Is Not Affected by Anaesthetics?

Retrospective studies indicate that cancer survival may be affected by the anaesthetic technique. Propofol seems to be a better choice than volatile anaesthetics, such as sevoflurane. The first two retrospective studies suggested better long-term survival with propofol, but not for breast cancer. Subsequent retrospective studies from Asia indicated the same. When data from seven Swedish hospitals were analysed, including 6305 breast cancer patients, different analyses gave different results, from a non-significant difference in survival to a remarkably large difference in favour of propofol, an illustration of the innate weakness in the retrospective design. The largest randomised clinical trial, registered on clinicaltrial.gov, with survival as an outcome is the Cancer and Anesthesia study. Patients are here randomised to propofol or sevoflurane. The inclusion of patients with breast cancer was completed in autumn 2017. Delayed by the pandemic, one-year survival data for the cohort were presented in November 2020. Due to the extremely good short-term survival for breast cancer, one-year survival is of less interest for this disease. As the inclusions took almost five years, there was also a trend to observe. Unsurprisingly, no difference was found in one-year survival between the two groups, and the trend indicated no difference either.

Long-term survival differences between sevoflurane and propofol use in general anesthesia for gynecologic cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of anesthetic management with propofol or sevoflurane on the prognosis of patients undergoing gynecologic cancer surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent gynecologic cancer (cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancer) surgery between 2006 and 2018 at the National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital. Patients were grouped according to anesthesia type for maintenance of anesthesia: propofol or sevoflurane. After propensity score matching, Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed for overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and recurrence-free survival. Univariate and multivariate cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

A total of 193 patients with propofol and 94 with sevoflurane anesthesia were eligible for analysis. After propensity score matching, 94 patients remained in each group. The sevoflurane group showed significantly lower survival rates than the propofol group with respect to 10-year overall survival (89.3% vs. 71.6%; p = 0.007), 10-year cancer-specific survival (91.0% vs 80.2%; p = 0.039), and 10-year recurrence-free survival (85.6% vs. 67.7%; p = 0.008). Sevoflurane anesthesia was identified as an independent risk factor for recurrence-free survival. Furthermore, distant recurrence was significantly more frequent in the sevoflurane group than in the propofol group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing gynecologic cancer surgery, sevoflurane anesthesia was associated with worse overall, cancer-specific, and recurrence-free survival than propofol anesthesia.

Anesthetic technique and cancer surgery outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Surgery remains integral to treating solid cancers. However, the surgical stress response, characterized by physiologic perturbation of the adrenergic, inflammatory, and immune systems, may promote procancerous pathways. Anesthetic technique per se may attenuate/enhance these pathways and thereby could be implicated in long-term cancer outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

To date, clinical studies have predominantly been retrospective and underpowered and, thus limit meaningful conclusions. More recently, prospective studies of regional anesthesia for breast and colorectal cancer surgery have failed to demonstrate long-term cancer outcome benefit. However, based on the consistent observation of protumorigenic effects of surgical stress and that of volatile anesthesia in preclinical studies, supported by in vivo models of tumor progression and metastasis, we await robust prospective clinical studies exploring the role of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (cf. inhalational volatiles). Additionally, anti-adrenergic/anti-inflammatory adjuncts, such as lidocaine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the anti-adrenergic propranolol warrant ongoing research.

SUMMARY

The biologic perturbation of the perioperative period, compounded by the effects of anesthetic agents, renders patients with cancer particularly vulnerable to enhanced viability of minimal residual disease, with long-term outcome consequences. However, low level and often conflicting clinical evidence equipoise currently exists with regards to optimal oncoanesthesia techniques. Large, prospective, randomized control trials are urgently needed to inform evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.

Serum NETosis expression and recurrence risk after regional or volatile anaesthesia during breast cancer surgery: A pilot, prospective, randomised single-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Some experimental and retrospective clinical studies signal an association between certain anaesthetic techniques and tumour metastasis following breast cancer surgery. Neutrophil Extracellular Trapping (NETosis) is an immunological process, whereby neutrophils engulf tumour antigen then degranulate, leaving a serologic marker. NETosis expression among breast cancer patients is associated with an increased risk of metastasis. We investigated the effect of two distinct anaesthetic techniques on the expression of NETosis in women who underwent potentially curative breast cancer surgery.

METHODS

In a parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, a subset of women (n = 40) undergoing breast cancer resection surgery, who were partaking in a larger trial (NCT00418457), were randomly assigned to receive volatile general anaesthesia (GA) or propofol GA combined with paravertebral regional anaesthesia (PPA) for their surgery. Serum was taken and stored before and 24 hours post-operatively. NETosis was measured by ELISA using Neutrophil Myeloperoxidase (MPO) and citrullinated histone H3 (H3Cit) biomarkers, which were the co-primary end points.

RESULTS

Patient and breast cancer characteristics did not differ significantly between groups. Recurrence occurred in 7.5% patients. GA patients received more opioids and reported higher post-operative pain than PPA. There was no difference in post-operative MPO in GA vs PPA (10.5 ± 6.6 vs 11.5 ± 4.7 ng mL^-1 , P = .60). Regarding CitH3, there was no difference post-operatively in GA vs PPA (3.6 ± 2.3 vs 4.0 ± 5.9, P = .80). NET expression did not differ before or after anaesthesia and surgery in either group, for either biomarker.

CONCLUSION

Anaesthetic technique did not affect NETosis expression in breast cancer patients, indicating that it is not a viable marker of the effect of anaesthetic technique on breast cancer recurrence.

Paravertebral anaesthesia with or without sedation versus general anaesthesia for women undergoing breast cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers among women. Surgical removal of the cancer is the mainstay of treatment; however, tumour handling during surgery can cause microscopic dissemination of tumour cells and disease recurrence. The body's hormonal response to surgery (stress response) and general anaesthesia may suppress immunity, promoting tumour dissemination. Paravertebral anaesthesia numbs the site of surgery, provides good analgesia, and blunts the stress response, minimising the need for general anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of paravertebral anaesthesia with or without sedation compared to general anaesthesia in women undergoing breast cancer surgery, with important outcomes of quality of recovery, postoperative pain at rest, and mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

On 6 April 2020, we searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group (CBCG); CENTRAL (latest issue), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (via OvidSP); Embase (via OvidSP); the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal; and ClinicalTrials.gov for all prospectively registered and ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adult women undergoing breast cancer surgery in which paravertebral anaesthesia with or without sedation was compared to general anaesthesia. We did not include studies in which paravertebral anaesthesia was given as an adjunct to general anaesthesia and then this was compared to use of general anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted details of trial methods and outcome data from eligible trials. When data could be pooled, analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, and the random-effects model was used if there was heterogeneity. When data could not be pooled, the synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) approach was applied. The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (614 participants) were included in the review. All were RCTs of parallel design, wherein female patients aged > 18 years underwent breast cancer surgery under paravertebral anaesthesia or general anaesthesia. None of the studies assessed quality of recovery in the first three postoperative days using a validated questionnaire; most assessed factors affecting quality of recovery such as postoperative analgesic use, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), hospital stay, ambulation, and patient satisfaction. Paravertebral anaesthesia may reduce the 24-hour postoperative analgesic requirement (odds ratio (OR) 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.34; 5 studies, 305 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to general anaesthesia. Heterogeneity (I² = 70%) was attributed to the fixed dose of opioids and non-steroidal analgesics administered postoperatively in one study (70 participants), masking a difference in analgesic requirements between groups. Paravertebral anaesthesia probably reduces the incidence of PONV (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.30; 6 studies, 324 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), probably results in a shorter hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -79.39 minutes, 95% CI -107.38 to -51.40; 3 studies, 174 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably reduces time to ambulation compared to general anaesthesia (SWiM analysis): percentages indicate vote counting based on direction of effect (100%, 95% CI 51.01% to 100%; P = 0.125; 4 studies, 375 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Paravertebral anaesthesia probably results in higher patient satisfaction (MD 5.52 points, 95% CI 1.30 to 9.75; 3 studies, 129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) on a 0 to 100 scale 24 hours postoperatively compared to general anaesthesia. Postoperative pain at rest and on movement was assessed at 2, 6, and 24 postoperative hours on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS). Four studies (224 participants) found that paravertebral anaesthesia as compared to general anaesthesia probably reduced pain at 2 postoperative hours (MD -2.95, 95% CI -3.37 to -2.54; moderate-certainty evidence). Five studies (324 participants) found that paravertebral anaesthesia may reduce pain at rest at 6 hours postoperatively (MD -1.54, 95% CI -3.20 to 0.11; low-certainty evidence). Five studies (278 participants) found that paravertebral anaesthesia may reduce pain at rest at 24 hours postoperatively (MD -1.19, 95% CI -2.27 to -0.10; low-certainty evidence). Differences in the methods of two studies (119 participants) and addition of clonidine to the local anaesthetic in two studies (109 participants), respectively, contributed to the heterogeneity (I² = 96%) observed for these two outcomes. Two studies (130 participants) found that paravertebral anaesthesia may reduce pain on movement at 6 hours (MD-2.57, 95% CI -3.97 to -1.17) and at 24 hours (MD -2.12, 95% CI -4.80 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence). Heterogeneity (I² = 96%) was observed for both outcomes and could be due to methodological differences between studies. None of the studies reported mortality related to the anaesthetic technique. Eight studies (574 participants) evaluated adverse outcomes with paravertebral anaesthesia: epidural spread (0.7%), minor bleeding (1.4%), pleural puncture not associated with pneumothorax (0.3%), and Horner's syndrome (7.1%). These complications were self-limiting and resolved without treatment. No data are available on disease-free survival, chronic pain, and quality of life. Blinding of personnel or participants was not possible in any study, as a regional anaesthetic technique was compared to general anaesthesia. Risk of bias was judged to be serious, as seven studies had concerns of selection bias and three of detection bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence shows that paravertebral anaesthesia probably reduces PONV, hospital stay, postoperative pain (at 2 hours), and time to ambulation and results in greater patient satisfaction on the first postoperative day compared to general anaesthesia. Paravertebral anaesthesia may also reduce postoperative analgesic use and postoperative pain at 6 and 24 hours at rest and on movement based on low-certainty evidence. However, RCTs using validated questionnaires are needed to confirm these results. Adverse events observed with paravertebral anaesthesia are rare.

The role of regional anaesthesia in the emerging subspecialty of onco-anaesthesia: a state-of-the-art review

Cancer accounts for millions of deaths globally each year, predominantly due to recurrence and metastatic disease. The majority of patients with primary solid organ cancers require surgery, however, some degree of tumour dissemination related to surgery is inevitable. The surgical stress response and associated immunosuppression, pain, inflammation, tissue hypoxia and angiogenesis have all been implicated in promoting tumour survival, proliferation and recurrence. Regional anaesthesia was hypothesised to reduce the surgical stress response and immunosuppression, minimise the need for volatile anaesthesia and reduce pain and opioid requirements, thus mitigating pro-tumour pathways associated with the peri-operative period and improving long-term oncological outcomes. While some retrospective studies suggested an association between regional anaesthesia and reduced cancer recurrence, the first large randomised controlled trial on the effect of anaesthetic technique on cancer outcome found no significant difference between paravertebral regional anaesthesia and volatile anaesthesia with opioid analgesia in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Randomised controlled trials on the long-term oncological outcomes of regional anaesthesia in other tumour types are ongoing. The focus on how peri-operative interventions, especially regional anaesthesia, during cancer resection surgery, may enhance short-term recovery and perhaps influence long-term outcome has spawned the global emergence of the subspecialty of onco-anaesthesia. This review aims to discuss the most recent evidence on the use of regional anaesthesia in cancer surgery and the significance of its role in onco-anaesthesia.

Influence of anaesthetics on the production of cancer cell motogens, stromal cell-derived factor-1 and hepatocyte growth factor by fibroblasts

Anaesthetics have been implicated to influence cancer cells and progression. Similarly, crosstalk between cancer cells and stromal components within the microenvironment is also an important factor driving progression. Stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) are key chemokines/cytokines produced by fibroblasts which have been established as influential factors in cancer progression. The present study explored the capacity of anaesthetics to influence the expression of these key molecules in fibroblasts. The anaesthetics rocuronium bromide (RB), vecuronium bromide (VB), suxamethonium chloride CRS (SCC), dexmedetomidine hydrochloride (DH) and lidocaine were used to treat MRC-5 fibroblasts over a range of concentrations. Following treatment, transcript expression of SDF-1 and HGF was quantified using quantitative PCR. Treatment of MRC-5 cells with RB brought about a reduction of SDF-1 expression which was found to be significant in the 45 µg/ml treatment group. Treatment with the other anaesthetics brought about some alterations in SDF-1 expression but these were not found to be statistically significant. Treatment with the tested anaesthetics did not have any significant effect on HGF transcript expression within MRC-5 cells, although again some alterations were observed. The results indicated that anaesthetics may have an impact on the fibroblast component of the tumour microenvironment, potentially influencing SDF-1 and HGF expression which in turn could influence tumour progression.

Effects of Anesthetic Technique on Postoperative Pulmonary Metastasis in Patients Undergoing Laryngectomy

Background

Whether laryngeal cancer is directly implanted into the lungs during orotracheal intubation is still unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to find whether orotracheal intubation is an independent risk factor for postoperative pulmonary metastasis in patients undergoing laryngectomy.

Patients and Methods

Medical records from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2016, were reviewed. According to similar propensity scores, patients who received orotracheal intubation (tracheal intubation group, n = 515) were matched 1:1 with those who received tracheotomy (tracheotomy group, n = 326) in the induction of general anesthesia. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary metastasis. Secondary outcomes included local recurrence, lymphatic metastasis, tracheostomal recurrence and overall survival.

Results

Between the two groups, there was no significant difference in postoperative pulmonary metastasis (P = 0.688), local recurrence (P = 0.215), lymphatic metastasis (P = 0.480), tracheostomal recurrence (P = 0.246) or all-cause death (P = 0.299). The primary site of cancer was an independent risk factor for pulmonary metastasis [HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.13–0.68; P = 0.013] and local recurrence (HR 2.69, 95% CI 1.39–5.21; P = 0.003). Type of surgery (HR 3.13, 95% CI 2.03–4.84; P < 0.001) and N classification of TNM (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10–0.75; P = 0.012) were risk factors for local recurrence. Postoperative chemotherapy was an independent risk factor for lung metastasis (HR 7.58, 95% CI 3.11–18.47; P < 0.001) and lymphatic metastasis (HR 5.18, 95% CI 2.57–11.91; P < 0.001), and 5-year overall survival was associated with age (P = 0.028), clinical stage (P < 0.001) and postoperative chemotherapy (P = 0.003) but not with anesthetic technique (P = 0.473).

Conclusion

This retrospective study suggests that orotracheal intubation in laryngectomy is not a risk factor for postoperative pulmonary metastasis, local recurrence, lymphatic metastasis or overall survival.

Anaesthesia and cancer: can anaesthetic drugs modify gene expression?

Cancer remains a primary cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and its incidence continues to increase. The most common cause of death in cancer patients is tumour recurrence. Surgery is the gold standard in the treatment of most tumours. However, cancer surgery can lead to the release of tumour cells into the systemic circulation. Surgical stress and several perioperative factors have been suggested to boost tumour growth, thereby increasing the risk of metastatic recurrence. Preclinical and clinical studies suggest that anaesthetics and adjuvants administered during the perioperative period may impact cancer recurrence and survival. This document summarises the current evidence regarding the effects of anaesthetic drugs and analgesic techniques on the immune system, systemic inflammatory response and tumour cells, as well as their impact on cancer recurrence.

Anesthesia Options and the Recurrence of Cancer: What We Know so Far?

Surgery is a critical period in the survival of patients with cancer. While resective surgery of primary tumors has shown to prolong the life of these patients, it can also promote mechanisms associated with metastatic progression. During surgery, patients require general and sometimes local anesthetics that also modulate mechanisms that can favor or reduce metastasis. In this narrative review, we summarized the evidence about the impact of local, regional and general anesthesia on metastatic mechanisms and the survival of patients. The available evidence suggests that cancer recurrence is not significantly impacted by neither regional anesthesia nor volatile or total intravenous anesthesia.

Diagnosis of Flier's syndrome in a patient with nondiabetic hypoglycemia: a case report and critical appraisal of the literature

PURPOSE

Autoimmune hypoglycemia includes rare syndromes characterized by the presence of either anti-insulin antibodies (IAA) (Hirata's disease) or anti-insulin receptor (anti-ISR) antibodies (Flier's syndrome). Diagnosis is usually based on identification of the specific antibodies, in presence of the Whipple triad. However, most of these cases are classified as idiopathic diseases due to the difficulty to define the pathogenic culprit.

METHODS

Basic research methodologies, including Western Blot and ELISA tests, have been used in this study.

RESULTS

We describe a 21-year-old young woman (PT), non-obese and non-diabetic, with a positive history of autoimmune diseases, admitted to the hospital for recurrent episodes of severe symptomatic hypoglycemia. Counterregulatory response to hypoglycemia was normal as well as the fasting test, so excluding both hormone deficiencies and insulinoma. Since an autoimmune hypoglycemic syndrome was suspected, the hyperactivation of the insulin pathway was experimentally evaluated. At this purpose, human hepatocarcinoma (HepG2) cells were incubated with serum obtained from the patient (PT) and from control individuals. Interestingly, a significant increase of phosphorylation of insulin receptor, Akt, and ERK1/2 was observed in the HepG2 cells incubated with PT serum compared with the controls. ELISA tests revealed significantly increased levels of anti-ISR antibodies in PT serum, while IAA were similar both in PT and in control sera, supporting diagnosis of Flier's syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes the importance to identify new strategies for the differential diagnosis of hypoglycemia, not always possible with the routinely used diagnostic tests.

Volatile versus Total Intravenous Anesthesia for Cancer Prognosis in Patients Having Digestive Cancer Surgery

Background

Previous experimental and clinical studies have shown that anesthetic agents have varying effects on cancer prognosis; however, the results were inconsistent among these studies. The authors compared overall and recurrence-free survival in patients given volatile or intravenous anesthesia for digestive tract cancer surgery.

Methods

The authors selected patients who had elective esophagectomy, gastrectomy, hepatectomy, cholecystectomy, pancreatectomy, colectomy, and rectal cancer surgery from July 2010 to March 2018 using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. Patients were divided into a volatile anesthesia group (desflurane, sevoflurane, or isoflurane with/without nitrous oxide) and a propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia group. The authors hypothesized that total intravenous anesthesia is associated with greater overall and recurrence-free survival than volatile anesthesia. Subgroup analyses were performed for each type of surgery.

Results

The authors identified 196,303 eligible patients (166,966 patients in the volatile anesthesia group and 29,337 patients in the propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia group). The numbers (proportions) of death in the volatile anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia groups were 17,319 (10.4%) and 3,339 (11.4%), respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.07; P = 0.28) or recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.03; P = 0.59), whereas instrumental variable analyses showed a slight difference in recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.98; P = 0.01). Subgroup analyses showed no significant difference in overall or recurrence-free survival between the groups in any type of surgery.

Conclusions

Overall and recurrence-free survival were similar between volatile and intravenous anesthesia in patients having digestive tract surgery. Selection of the anesthetic approach for these patients should be based on other factors.

Editor’s Perspective

What We Already Know about This Topic

What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Effects of propofol on the development of cancer in humans

Cancer is one of most the significant threats to human health worldwide, and the primary method of treating solid tumours is surgery. Propofol, one of the most widely used intravenous anaesthetics in surgery, was found to be involved in many cancer‐related pathophysiology processes, mainly including anti‐tumour and minor cancer‐promoting effects in various types of cancer. An increasing number of studies have identified that propofol plays a role in cancer by regulating the expression of multiple signalling pathways, downstream molecules, microRNAs and long non‐coding RNAs. Emerging evidence has indicated that propofol can enhance the anti‐tumour effect of chemotherapeutic drugs or some small molecular compounds. Additionally, in vivo animal models have shown that propofol inhibits tumour growth and metastasis. Furthermore, most clinical trials indicate that propofol is associated with better survival outcomes in cancer patients after surgery. Propofol use is encouraged in cancers that appear to have a better prognosis after its use during surgery. We hope that future large and prospective multicenter studies will provide more precise answers to guide the choice of anaesthetics during cancer surgery.

Neutrophil extracellular trapping and angiogenesis biomarkers after intravenous or inhalation anaesthesia with or without intravenous lidocaine for breast cancer surgery: a prospective, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Experimental and, retrospective, clinical data indicate that anaesthetic technique might influence the risk of metastasis after cancer surgery. Neutrophil extracellular trapping (NETosis) is an immunological mechanism strongly linked with increased metastatic risk. Similarly, vascular endothelial growth factor A is linked to angiogenesis implicated in recurrence. Therefore, we investigated the effect of four anaesthetic techniques on NETosis and angiogenic factors expression in women undergoing breast cancer resection.

METHODS

Women (n=120) undergoing primary breast tumour resection were randomly assigned to receive one of four anaesthetics: sevoflurane (S), sevoflurane plus i.v. lidocaine (SL), propofol (P), and propofol plus i.v. lidocaine (PL). Venous blood was collected before induction and 20-28 h after operation. Neutrophil myeloperoxidase and citrullinated histone H3, biomarkers of NETosis, and biomarkers of angiogenesis were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

RESULTS

Patient characteristic data and perioperative management did not differ between study groups. The anaesthetic technique including lidocaine decreased expression of citrullinated histone H3 compared with no lidocaine (109 [23] vs 125 [22] ng ml^-1, P=0.01 for SL and S and 98 [14] vs 130 [32] mg ml^-1, P=0.007, for PL and P, respectively). Similarly, myeloperoxidase was decreased by lidocaine (8.5 [3.4] vs 10.8 [1.8] ng ml^-1, P=0.03 for SL and S and 8.6 [3.1] vs 11.6 [2.5] ng ml^-1, P=0.01 for PL and P, respectively). Lidocaine also decreased expression of matrix metalloproteinase 3 (MMP3) but not MMP9, whichever anaesthetic was used. Vascular endothelial growth factor A concentrations were not significantly influenced by the anaesthetic technique.

CONCLUSIONS

I.V. perioperative lidocaine decreased postoperative expression of NETosis and MMP3, regardless of general anaesthetic technique. This supports the hypothesis that i.v. lidocaine during cancer surgery of curative intent might reduce recurrence.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02839668.

The Role of Inhaled Anesthetics in Tumorigenesis and Tumor Immunity

Inhaled anesthetics are widely used for induction and maintenance of anesthesia during surgery, including isoflurane, sevoflurane, desflurane, haloflurane, nitrous oxide (N₂O), enflurane and xenon. Nowadays, it is controversial whether inhaled anesthetics may influence the tumor progression, which urges us to describe the roles of different inhaled anesthetics in human cancers. In the review, the relationships among the diverse inhaled anesthetics and patient outcomes, immune response and cancer cell biology were discussed. Moreover, the mechanisms of various inhaled anesthetics in the promotion or inhibition of carcinogenesis were also reviewed. In summary, we concluded that several inhaled anesthetics have different immune functions, clinical outcomes and cancer cell biology, which could contribute to opening new avenues for selecting suitable inhaled anesthetics in cancer surgery.

The immunosuppressive effects of volatile versus intravenous anesthesia combined with epidural analgesia on kidney cancer: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the use of inhalational anesthesia leads to higher suppression of the cell-mediated immunity compared to total intravenous anesthesia in patients undergoing kidney cancer surgery under combined low thoracic epidural analgesia and general anesthesia.

Methods

Patients were randomly allocated to either propofol-based (intravenous anesthetic) or sevoflurane-based (volatile anesthetic) anesthesia group with 10 patients in each group, along with epidural analgesia in both groups. Amounts of natural killer (NK) cells, total T lymphocytes, and T lymphocyte subpopulations in the blood samples collected from the patients before surgery, at the end of the surgery and postoperative days 1, 3 and 7 were determined by flow cytometric analysis. The NK cell count served as the primary endpoint of the study, whereas the total T lymphocyte count and cell counts for T lymphocyte subpopulations were used as the secondary endpoint.

Results

Our study showed that there were no significant differences in the amount of NK cells, total T lymphocytes, regulatory T cells, and T-helper cells, cytotoxic T lymphocytes, and their subpopulations between the propofol- and sevoflurane-based anesthesia groups when the anesthesia was administered in combination with epidural analgesia.

Conclusions

The results of this pilot study did not support the hypothesis that the use of inhalational anesthesia leads to higher suppression of the cell-mediated immunity than that of total intravenous anesthesia in patients undergoing kidney cancer surgery under combined low thoracic epidural analgesia and general anesthesia.

Impact of perioperative pain management on cancer recurrence: an ASRA/ESRA special article

Cancer causes considerable suffering and 80% of advanced cancer patients experience moderate to severe pain. Surgical tumor excision remains a cornerstone of primary cancer treatment, but is also recognized as one of the greatest risk factors for metastatic spread. The perioperative period, characterized by the surgical stress response, pharmacologic-induced angiogenesis, and immunomodulation results in a physiologic environment that supports tumor spread and distant reimplantation.In the perioperative period, anesthesiologists may have a brief and uniquewindow of opportunity to modulate the unwanted consequences of the stressresponse on the immune system and minimize residual disease. This reviewdiscusses the current research on analgesic therapies and their impact ondisease progression, followed by an evidence-based evaluation of perioperativepain interventions and medications.

Recurrence of breast cancer after regional or general anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Three perioperative factors impair host defence against recurrence during cancer surgery: the surgical stress response, use of volatile anaesthetic, and opioids for analgesia. All factors are ameliorated by regional anaesthesia-analgesia. We tested the primary hypothesis that breast cancer recurrence after potentially curative surgery is lower with regional anaesthesia-analgesia using paravertebral blocks and the anaesthetic propofol than with general anaesthesia with the volatile anaesthetic sevoflurane and opioid analgesia. A second hypothesis was that regional anaesthesia-analgesia reduces persistent incisional pain.

METHODS

We did a randomised controlled trial at 13 hospitals in Argentina, Austria, China, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, and the USA. Women (age <85 years) having potentially curative primary breast cancer resections were randomised by computer to either regional anaesthesia-analgesia (paravertebral blocks and propofol) or general anaesthesia (sevoflurane) and opioid analgesia. The primary outcome was local or metastatic breast cancer recurrence. The secondary outcome was incisional pain at 6 months and 12 months. Primary analyses were done under intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00418457. The study was stopped after a preplanned futility boundary was crossed.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 30, 2007, and Jan 18, 2018, 2132 women were enrolled to the study, of whom 24 were excluded before surgery. 1043 were assigned to regional anaesthesia-analgesia and 1065 were allocated to general anaesthesia. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between study groups. Median follow-up was 36 (IQR 24-49) months. Among women assigned regional anaesthesia-analgesia, 102 (10%) recurrences were reported, compared with 111 (10%) recurrences among those allocated general anaesthesia (hazard ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·74-1·28; p=0·84). Incisional pain was reported by 442 (52%) of 856 patients assigned to regional anaesthesia-analgesia and 456 (52%) of 872 patients allocated to general anaesthesia at 6 months, and by 239 (28%) of 854 patients and 232 (27%) of 852 patients, respectively, at 12 months (overall interim-adjusted odds ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·85-1·17; p=0·99). Neuropathic breast pain did not differ by anaesthetic technique and was reported by 87 (10%) of 859 patients assigned to regional anaesthesia-analgesia and 89 (10%) of 870 patients allocated to general anaesthesia at 6 months, and by 57 (7%) of 857 patients and 57 (7%) of 854 patients, respectively, at 12 months.

INTERPRETATION

In our study population, regional anaesthesia-analgesia (paravertebral block and propofol) did not reduce breast cancer recurrence after potentially curative surgery compared with volatile anaesthesia (sevoflurane) and opioids. The frequency and severity of persistent incisional breast pain was unaffected by anaesthetic technique. Clinicians can use regional or general anaesthesia with respect to breast cancer recurrence and persistent incisional pain.

FUNDING

Sisk Healthcare Foundation (Ireland), Eccles Breast Cancer Research Fund, British Journal of Anaesthesia International, College of Anaesthetists of Ireland, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Science Fund for Junior Faculty 2016, Central Bank of Austria, and National Healthcare Group.

Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia did not improve survival compared to desflurane anesthesia in breast cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and several perioperative factors may account for tumor recurrence and metastasis. The anesthetic agents employed during cancer surgery might play a crucial role in cancer cell survival and patient outcomes. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to investigate the relationship between the type of anesthesia and overall survival in patients who underwent breast cancer surgery performed by one experienced surgeon.

METHODS

All patients who underwent breast cancer surgery by an experienced surgeon between January 2006 and December 2010 were included in this study. Patients were separated into two groups according to the use of desflurane or propofol anesthesia during surgery. Locoregional recurrence and overall survival rates were assessed for the two groups (desflurane or propofol anesthesia). Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models and propensity score matching analyses were used to compare the hazard ratios for death and adjust for potential confounders (age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, TNM stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Charlson Comorbidity Index, anesthesiologists, and functional status).

RESULTS

Of the 976 breast cancer patients, 632 patients underwent breast cancer surgery with desflurane anesthesia, while 344 received propofol anesthesia. After propensity scoring, 592 patients remained in the desflurane group and 296 patients in the propofol group. The mortality rate was similar in the desflurane (38 deaths, 4%) and propofol (22 deaths, 4%; p = 0.812) groups in 5-year follow-up. The crude hazard ratio (HR) for all patients was 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.92, p = 0.646). No significant difference in the locoregional recurrence or overall 5-year survival rates were found after breast surgery using desflurane or propofol anesthesia (p = 0.454). Propensity score-matched analyses demonstrated similar outcomes in both groups. Patients who received propofol anesthesia had a higher mortality rate than those who received desflurane anesthesia in the matched groups (7% vs 6%, respectively) without significant difference (p = 0.561). In the propensity score-matched analyses, univariable analysis showed an insignificant finding (HR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.72-2.11, p = 0.449). After adjustment for the time since the earliest included patient, the HR remained insignificant (HR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.70-2.16, p = 0.475).

CONCLUSION

In our non-randomized retrospective analysis, neither propofol nor desflurane anesthesia for breast cancer surgery by an experienced surgeon can affect patient prognosis and survival. The influence of propofol anesthesia on breast cancer outcome requires further investigation.

Influence of perioperative anaesthetic and analgesic interventions on oncological outcomes: a narrative review

Surgery is an important treatment modality for the majority of solid organ cancers. Unfortunately, cancer recurrence following surgery of curative intent is common, and typically results in refractory disease and patient death. Surgery and other perioperative interventions induce a biological state conducive to the survival and growth of residual cancer cells released from the primary tumour intraoperatively, which may influence the risk of a subsequent metastatic disease. Evidence is accumulating that anaesthetic and analgesic interventions could affect many of these pathophysiological processes, influencing risk of cancer recurrence in either a beneficial or detrimental way. Much of this evidence is from experimental in vitro and in vivo models, with clinical evidence largely limited to retrospective observational studies or post hoc analysis of RCTs originally designed to evaluate non-cancer outcomes. This narrative review summarises the current state of evidence regarding the potential effect of perioperative anaesthetic and analgesic interventions on cancer biology and clinical outcomes. Proving a causal link will require data from prospective RCTs with oncological outcomes as primary endpoints, a number of which will report in the coming years. Until then, there is insufficient evidence to recommend any particular anaesthetic or analgesic technique for patients undergoing tumour resection surgery on the basis that it might alter the risk of recurrence or metastasis.