Volatile anaesthesia and peri-operative outcomes related to cancer: a feasibility and pilot study for a large randomised control trial

Long-term Survival after Volatile or Propofol General Anesthesia for Bladder Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective National Registry Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Prospective interventional trials and retrospective observational analyses provide conflicting evidence regarding the relationship between propofol versus inhaled volatile general anesthesia and long-term survival after cancer surgery. Specifically, bladder cancer surgery lacks prospective clinical trial evidence.

METHODS

Data on bladder cancer surgery performed under general anesthesia between 2014 and 2021 from the National Quality Registry for Urinary Tract and Bladder Cancer and the Swedish Perioperative Registry were record-linked. Overall survival was compared between patients receiving propofol or inhaled volatile for anesthesia maintenance. The minimum clinically important difference was defined as a 5-percentage point difference in 5-yr survival.

RESULTS

Of 7,571 subjects, 4,519 (59.7%) received an inhaled volatile anesthetic, and 3,052 (40.3%) received propofol for general anesthesia maintenance. The two groups were quite similar in most respects but differed in American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status and tumor stage. Propensity score matching was used to address treatment bias. Survival did not differ during follow-up (median, 45 months [interquartile range, 33 to 62 months]) in the full unmatched cohort nor after 1:1 propensity score matching (3,052 matched pairs). The Kaplan-Meier adjusted 5-yr survival rates in the matched cohort were 898 of 3,052, 67.5% (65.6 to 69.3%) for propofol and 852 of 3,052, 68.5% (66.7 to 70.4%) for inhaled volatile general anesthesia, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.15]; P = 0.332). A sensitivity analysis restricted to 1,766 propensity score-matched pairs of patients who received only one general anesthetic during the study period did not demonstrate a difference in survival; Kaplan-Meier adjusted 5-yr survival rates were 521 of 1,766, 67.1% (64.7 to 69.7%) and 482 of 1,766, 68.9% (66.5 to 71.4%) for propofol and inhaled volatile general anesthesia, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.23]; P = 0.139).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing bladder cancer surgery under general anesthesia, there was no statistically significant difference in long-term overall survival associated with the choice of propofol or an inhaled volatile maintenance.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents: a systematic review of preclinical evidence of interactions and cancer biology

Background

Local anaesthetics are widely used for their analgesic and anaesthetic properties in the perioperative setting, including surgical procedures to excise malignant tumours. Simultaneously, chemotherapeutic agents remain a cornerstone of cancer treatment, targeting rapidly dividing cancer cells to inhibit tumour growth. The potential interactions between these two drug classes have drawn increasing attention and there are oncological surgical contexts where their combined use could be considered. This review examines existing evidence regarding the interactions between local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents, including biological mechanisms and clinical implications.

Methods

A systematic search of electronic databases was performed as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Selection criteria were designed to capture in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies assessing interactions between local anaesthetics and a wide variety of chemotherapeutic agents. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The data were synthesised using a narrative approach because of the anticipated heterogeneity of included studies.

Results

Initial searches yielded 1225 relevant articles for screening, of which 43 met the inclusion criteria. The interactions between local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents were diverse and multifaceted. In vitro studies frequently demonstrated altered cytotoxicity profiles when these agents were combined, with variations depending on the specific drug combination and cancer cell type. Mechanistically, some interactions were attributed to modifications in efflux pump activity, tumour suppressor gene expression, or alterations in cellular signalling pathways associated with tumour promotion. A large majority of in vitro studies report potentially beneficial effects of local anaesthetics in terms of enhancing the antineoplastic activity of chemotherapeutic agents. In animal models, the combined administration of local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents showed largely beneficial effects on tumour growth, metastasis, and overall survival. Notably, no clinical study examining the possible interactions of local anaesthetics and chemotherapy on cancer outcomes has been reported.

Conclusions

Reported preclinical interactions between local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents are complex and encompass a spectrum of effects which are largely, although not uniformly, additive or synergistic. The clinical implications of these interactions remain unclear because of the lack of prospective trials. Nonetheless, the modulation of chemotherapy effects by local anaesthetics warrants further clinical investigation in the context of cancer surgery where they could be used together.

Clinical trial registration

Open Science Framework (OSF, project link: https://osf.io/r2u4z).

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.

The influence of anaesthesia on cancer growth

BACKGROUND

Oncological patients make up a large proportion of all surgical patients. Through its influence on the patient's inflammatory and immune system, the choice of anaesthetic technique has an indirect impact on the health of the individual patient and on public health. Both the specific and the non-specific immune system have a major influence on the recurrence of carcinomas. The pathophysiological basis for growth and metastasis after surgery is the physiological response to stress. Inflammation is the organism's universal response to stress. Anaesthetics and adjuvants influence perioperative inflammation in different ways and have an indirect effect on tumour growth and metastasis. In vitro studies have shown how individual anaesthetics influence the growth and spread of cancer, but clinical studies have not confirmed these results. Nevertheless, it is advisable to use an anaesthetic that has shown lesser effect on the growth of cancer cells in vitro.

CONCLUSIONS

In this review, we focus on the area of the effects of anaesthesia on tumour growth. The field is still relatively unexplored, there are only few clinical prospective studies and their results are controversial. Based on the review of new research findings we report on recommendations about anaesthetics and anaesthetic techniques that might be preferable for oncological surgical procedures.

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

Cancer is a growing global burden; there were an estimated 18 million new cancer diagnoses worldwide in 2020. Excisional surgery remains one of the main treatments for solid organ tumours in cancer patients and is potentially curative. Cancer- and surgery-induced inflammatory processes can facilitate residual tumour cell survival, growth, and subsequent recurrence. However, it has been hypothesised that anaesthetic and analgesic techniques during surgery might influence the risk of cancer recurrence. This narrative review aims to provide an updated summary of recent observational studies and new randomised controlled clinical trials on whether certain specific anaesthetic and analgesic techniques or perioperative interventions during tumour resection surgery of curative intent materially affect long-term oncologic outcomes.

Update on Perioperative Delirium

A strong association between frailty and in-hospital delirium in nonsurgical patients has been shown. Physical and cognitive frailties have been associated with decline and dysfunction in the frontal cognitive domains. Risk factors for frailty are similar to risk factors for postoperative delirium (POD). Frailty can be screened and diagnosed by various tools and instruments. Different anesthetic techniques have been studied to decrease the incidence of POD. However, no anesthetic technique has been conclusively proven to decrease the risk of POD. Patients with dementia develop delirium more often, and delirium is associated with accelerated cognitive decline.

Anaesthesia, analgesia, and cancer outcomes: time to think like oncologists?

Cao and colleagues present a follow-up analysis of a previous RCT among >1200 older adults (mean age 72 yr) undergoing cancer surgery, originally designed to evaluate the effect of propofol or sevoflurane general anaesthesia on delirium, here to evaluate the effect of anaesthetic technique on overall survival and recurrence-free survival. Neither anaesthetic technique conferred an advantage on oncological outcomes. We suggest that although it is entirely plausible that the observed results are truly robust neutral findings, the present study could be limited, like most published studies in the field, by its heterogeneity and understandable absence of underlying individual patient-specific tumour genomic data. We argue for a precision oncology approach to onco-anaesthesiology research that recognises that cancer is not one but rather many diseases and that tumour genomics (and multi-omics) is a fundamental determinant relating drugs to longer-term outcomes.

Long-term survival in older patients given propofol or sevoflurane anaesthesia for major cancer surgery: follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Experimental evidence indicates that i.v. anaesthesia might reduce cancer recurrence compared with volatile anaesthesia, but clinical information is observational only. We therefore tested the primary hypothesis that propofol-based anaesthesia improves survival over 3 or more years after potentially curative major cancer surgery.

METHODS

This was a long-term follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial in 14 tertiary hospitals in China. We enrolled 1228 patients aged 65-90 yr who were scheduled for major cancer surgery. They were randomised to either propofol-based i.v. anaesthesia or to sevoflurane-based inhalational anaesthesia. The primary endpoint was overall survival after surgery. Secondary endpoints included recurrence-free and event-free survival.

RESULTS

Amongst subjects randomised, 1195 (mean age 72 yr; 773 [65%] male) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. At the end of follow-up (median 43 months), there were 188 deaths amongst 598 patients (31%) assigned to propofol-based anaesthesia compared with 175 deaths amongst 597 patients (29%) assigned to sevoflurane-based anaesthesia; adjusted hazard ratio 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83-1.26; P=0.834. Recurrence-free survival was 223/598 (37%) in patients given propofol anaesthesia vs 206/597 (35%) given sevoflurane anaesthesia; adjusted hazard ratio 1.07; 95% CI: 0.89-1.30; P=0.465. Event-free survival was 294/598 (49%) in patients given propofol anaesthesia vs 274/597 (46%) given sevoflurane anaesthesia; adjusted hazard ratio 1.09; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; P=0.298.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term survival after major cancer surgery was similar with i.v. and volatile anaesthesia. Propofol-based iv. anaesthesia should not be used for cancer surgery with the expectation that it will improve overall or cancer-specific survival.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

ChiCTR-IPR-15006209; NCT02660411.

Research in Perioperative Care of the Cancer Patient: Opportunities and Challenges

The theory that the perioperative period is critical for oncological outcomes has been a matter of extensive preclinical and clinical research. Basic science research strongly supports the notion that surgical stress, anesthetics, and analgesics influence the mechanisms of cancer progression. Hence, it is hypothesized that perioperative interventions that impact mechanisms or predictors of tumor progression can also affect patients' survival. As a result of that hypothesis, clinical researchers have conducted many retrospective studies. However, much fewer randomized controlled trials have been performed to investigate whether surgery itself (minimally invasive versus open procedures), anesthetics (volatile anesthetics versus propofol-based anesthesia), analgesics (opioids versus opioid-free anesthesia), and blood transfusions (transfusions versus no transfusions) modify the survival of patients with cancer. Unfortunately, randomized controlled trials have failed to translate the preclinical results into clinical outcomes. In this review, I will highlight the challenges of translating basic science to clinical outcomes. We will also point out opportunities for future research.

Perioperative Inflammatory Response and Cancer Recurrence in Lung Cancer Surgery: A Narrative Review

While surgical resection is the gold standard treatment for solid tumors, cancer recurrence after surgery is common. Immunosurveillance of remnant tumor cells is an important protective mechanism. Therefore, maintenance of anti-tumor cell activity and proper levels of inflammatory mediators is crucial. An increasing body of evidence suggests that surgery itself and perioperative interventions could affect these pathophysiological responses. Various factors, such as the extent of tissue injury, perioperative medications such as anesthetics and analgesics, and perioperative management including transfusions and methods of mechanical ventilation, modulate the inflammatory response in lung cancer surgery. This narrative review summarizes the pathophysiological mechanisms involved in cancer recurrence after surgery and perioperative management related to cancer recurrence after lung cancer surgery.

Current Status and Prospects of Anesthesia and Breast Cancer: Does Anesthetic Technique Affect Recurrence and Survival Rates in Breast Cancer Surgery?

The relationship between the anesthetic technique and cancer recurrence has not yet been clarified in cancer surgery. Surgical stress and inhalation anesthesia suppress cell-mediated immunity (CMI), whereas intravenous (IV) anesthesia with propofol and regional anesthesia (RA) are known to be protective for CMI. Surgical stress, general anesthesia (GA) with inhalation anesthesia and opioids contribute to perioperative immunosuppression and may increase cancer recurrence and decrease survival. Surgical stress and GA activate the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and release neuroendocrine mediators such as cortisol, catecholamines, and prostaglandin E₂, which may reduce host defense immunity and promote distant metastasis. On the other hand, IV anesthesia with propofol and RA with paravertebral block or epidural anesthesia can weaken surgical stress and GA-induced immunosuppression and protect the host defense immunity. IV anesthesia with propofol and RA or in combination with GA may reduce cancer recurrence and improve patient survival compared to GA alone. We review the current status of the relationship between anesthesia and breast cancer recurrence using retrospective and prospective studies conducted with animal models and clinical samples, and discuss the future prospects for reducing breast cancer recurrence and improving survival rates in breast cancer surgery.

Effect of Volatile Anesthetics on Myocardial Infarction After Coronary Artery Surgery: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of volatile anesthetics on the rates of postoperative myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiac death after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).

DESIGN

A post hoc analysis of a randomized trial.

SETTING

Cardiac surgical operating rooms.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing elective, isolated CABG.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive a volatile anesthetic (desflurane, isoflurane, or sevoflurane) or total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). The primary outcome was hemodynamically relevant MI (MI requiring high-dose inotropic support or prolonged intensive care unit stay) occurring within 48 hours from surgery. The secondary outcome was 1-year death due to cardiac causes.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 5,400 patients were enrolled between April 2014 and September 2017 (2,709 patients randomized to the volatile anesthetics group and 2,691 to TIVA). The mean age was 62 ± 8.4 years, and the median baseline ejection fraction was 57% (50-67), without differences between the 2 groups. Patients in the volatile group had a lower incidence of MI with hemodynamic complications both in the per-protocol (14 of 2,530 [0.6%] v 27 of 2,501 [1.1%] in the TIVA group; p = 0.038) and as-treated analyses (16 of 2,708 [0.6%] v 29 of 2,617 [1.1%] in the TIVA group; p = 0.039), but not in the intention-to-treat analysis (17 of 2,663 [0.6%] v 28 of 2,667 [1.0%] in the TIVA group; p = 0.10). Overall, deaths due to cardiac causes were lower in the volatile group (23 of 2,685 [0.9%] v 40 of 2,668 [1.5%] than in the TIVA group; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

An anesthetic regimen, including volatile agents, may be associated with a lower rate of postoperative MI with hemodynamic complication in patients undergoing CABG. Furthermore, it may reduce long-term cardiac mortality.

Can Acute Postoperative Pain Management After Tumour Resection Surgery Modulate Risk of Later Recurrence or Metastasis?

Background

Cancer is a leading cause of mortality worldwide, but death is rarely from the primary tumour: Rather it is multi-organ dysfunction from metastatic disease that is responsible for up to 90% of cancer-related deaths. Surgical resection of the primary tumour is indicated in 70% of cases. The perioperative stress response, tissue hypoxia at the site of surgery, and acute pain contribute to immunosuppression and neo-angiogenesis, potentially promoting tumour survival, proliferation, and metastasis. Poorly controlled acute postoperative pain decreases Natural Killer (NK) immune cell activity, which could potentially facilitate circulating tumour cells from evading immune detection. This consequently promotes tumour growth and distal metastasis.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive literature search for links between acute pain and cancer outcomes using multiple online databases. Relevant articles from January 1st, 2010 to September 1st, 2021 were analysed and appraised on whether postoperative pain control can modulate the risk of recurrence, metastasis, and overall cancer survival.

Results

Although experimental and retrospective clinical data suggest a plausible role for regional anaesthesia in cancer outcome modulation, this has not been supported by the single, largest prospective trial to date concerning breast cancer. While there are mixed results on anaesthesiology drug-related interventions, the most plausible data relates to total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol, and to systemic administration of lidocaine.

Conclusion

The hypothesis that anaesthetic and analgesic technique during cancer surgery could influence risk of subsequent recurrence or metastasis has been prevalent for >15 years. The first, large-scale definitive trial among women with breast cancer found robust equivalent findings between volatile anaesthesia with opioid analgesia and regional anaesthesia. Therefore, while regional anaesthesia during tumour resection does not seem to have any effect on cancer outcomes, it remains plausible that other anaesthetic techniques (e.g. total intravenous anaesthesia and systemic lidocaine infusion) might influence oncologic outcome in other major tumour resection surgery (e.g. colorectal and lung). Therefore, another large trial is needed to definitively answer these specific research questions. Until such evidence is available, perioperative analgesia for cancer surgery of curative intent should be based on patient co-morbidity and non-cancer endpoints, such as optimising analgesia and minimising postoperative complications.

Anesthesia Techniques and Long-Term Oncological Outcomes

Despite advances in cancer treatments, surgery remains one of the most important therapies for solid tumors. Unfortunately, surgery promotes angiogenesis, shedding of cancer cells into the circulation and suppresses anti-tumor immunity. Together this increases the risk of tumor metastasis, accelerated growth of pre-existing micro-metastasis and cancer recurrence. It was theorized that regional anesthesia could influence long-term outcomes after cancer surgery, however new clinical evidence demonstrates that the anesthesia technique has little influence in oncologic outcomes. Several randomized controlled trials are in progress and may provide a better understanding on how volatile and intravenous hypnotics impact cancer progression. The purpose of this review is to summarize the effect of the anesthesia techniques on the immune system and tumor microenvironment (TME) as well as to summarize the clinical evidence of anesthesia techniques on cancer outcomes.

Propofol suppresses cell proliferation in gastric cancer cells through NRF2-mediated polyol pathway

Propofol, a widely used short‐acting intravenous sedative agent, has gradually gained attention due to the tumour‐suppressing role and non‐anaesthetic effect. Dysfunction of metabolic reprogramming has been recognised as a well‐documented factor for tumour progression. The aim of this study is to explore the effect of propofol on the polyol pathway in gastric cancer cells. In this study, we found that propofol treatment led to a significant downregulation of cell proliferation in BGC823 and GES‐1 cells, which was attributed to the decreased AR‐mediated polyol pathway. Both aldo‐keto reductase family 1, member B1 (AKR1B1) and AKR1B10 were significantly reduced in BGC823 and GES‐1 cells in response to propofol stimulation, leading to decreased AR activity and sorbitol level. Addition of sorbitol could reverse the inhibitory effect of propofol on cell proliferation. Mechanically, propofol treatment drastically inhibited phosphorylation and nuclear translocation of nuclear factor (erythroid‐derived 2)‐like 2 (NRF2), subsequently decreased the binding of NRF2 to AR promoter. Overexpression of NRF2 resulted in the recovery of AR expression in gastric cancer cell with propofol treatment. Taken together, these finding showed that propofol suppressed cell proliferation in BGC823 and GES‐1 cell through NRF2‐mediated polyol pathway, which would aid the selection of sedation for patients with gastric cancer.

Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia is associated with better survival than desflurane anesthesia in glioblastoma surgery

Background

Previous research has shown that anesthetic techniques can influence patient outcomes following cancer surgery. However, the effects of anesthesia in patients undergoing glioblastoma surgery are still not known. We studied the relationship between the type of anesthesia and patient outcomes following elective glioblastoma surgery.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent elective glioblastoma surgery between January 2008 and December 2018. Patients were grouped according to the anesthesia they received, desflurane or propofol. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted, and survival curves were presented from the date of surgery to death. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for death after propensity matching.

Results

A total of 50 patients (45 deaths, 90.0%) under desflurane anesthesia and 53 patients (38 deaths, 72.0%) under propofol anesthesia were included. Thirty-eight patients remained in each group after propensity matching. Propofol anesthesia was associated with improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.30–0.85; P = 0.011) in a matched analysis. Furthermore, patients under propofol anesthesia exhibited less postoperative recurrence than those under desflurane anesthesia (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.37–0.98; P = 0.040) in a matched analysis.

Conclusions

In this limited sample size, we observed that propofol anesthesia was associated with improved survival and less postoperative recurrence in glioblastoma surgery than desflurane anesthesia. Further investigations are needed to examine the influence of propofol anesthesia on patient outcomes following glioblastoma surgery.