Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Volatile Versus Intravenous Anesthesia for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective Propensity Matching Analysis

Ropivacaine Administration Suppressed A549 Lung Adenocarcinoma Cell Proliferation and Migration via ACE2 Upregulation and Inhibition of the Wnt1 Pathway

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have suggested that perioperative anesthesia could have direct impacts on cancer cell biology. The present study investigated the effects of ropivacaine administration on lung adenocarcinoma cells.

METHODS

Ropivacaine was administered to A549 cells at concentrations of 0.1, 1, and 6 mM for 2 h. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) small interfering RNA (siRNA) transfection was performed 6 h prior to ropivacaine administration. Cell proliferation and migration were assessed with cell counting kit 8 (CCK-8) and a wound healing assay at 0 and 24 h after anesthesia exposure. PCR arrays were performed, followed by PCR validation.

RESULTS

Ropivacaine administration inhibited A549 cell proliferation and migration in a concentration-dependent manner, with ACE2 upregulation and HIF1α (hypoxia-inducible factor 1α) downregulation. The anticancer effect of ropivacaine was canceled out via ACE2 siRNA transfection. PCR arrays showed specific gene change patterns in the ropivacaine and respective ACE2-knockdown groups. EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor), BAX (Bcl-2-associated X protein) and BCL2 (B-cell/CLL lymphoma 2) were suppressed with ropivacaine administration; these effects were reversed via ACE2 siRNA induction.

CONCLUSION

Ropivacaine administration inhibited A549 cell biology in conjunction with ACE2 upregulation via the inhibition of the Wnt1 (wingless/Integrated 1) pathway.

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.

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

Backgrounds

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Propofol Infusions and Their Role for Patients Undergoing Surgery for Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE

Propofol infusions may improve survival for patients undergoing surgery for various types of cancer. However, propofol has not been shown to improve survival for all cancer types. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate whether propofol infusions during surgery for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) improved survival.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients undergoing surgery for HNSCC with neck dissection at one institution between June 15, 2017, and April 28, 2021. The primary analysis was performed as a cohort study, with one cohort receiving a propofol infusion and the other cohort not receiving a propofol infusion. A second analysis was performed as a case-control study with matching by cancer staging, human papillomavirus (HPV)/p16 status, pathology margin status, surgical duration within 90 minutes, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) within a score of 1. Cases included patients who received a propofol infusion, and controls were patients who did not receive a propofol infusion.

RESULTS

For the primary analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in age (p=0.650), BMI (p=0.956), sex (p=0.069), and CCI (p=0.351), but there was a statistically significant difference in ASA status (p=0.003). The time exposed to sevoflurane (MAC >0.3) was significantly higher in the no-propofol group (p<0.001). The duration of surgery was significantly longer in the propofol patient group compared to the no-propofol group (p=0.013). The length of hospital stay was roughly two days longer for the propofol group (p=0.029). There was no difference in survival for patients who did not receive propofol versus those who did (p=0.247), even after adjusting for HPV/p16 tumor marker status (p=0.223). When patients were matched in a case-control approach, there were no differences in age (p=0.956), BMI (p=0.828), CCI (p=1.000), or ASA status (p=1.000). The death rate was not significant between the cases and controls (p=0.311).

CONCLUSIONS

This data suggests that propofol may not influence survival in patients with HNSCC. Larger studies are necessary to better characterize the effect of propofol infusions on patients with HNSCC.

Impact of Propofol-based Total Intravenous Anesthesia Versus Inhalation Anesthesia on Long-term Survival After Cancer Surgery in a Nationwide Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To compare the impact of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) versus inhalational anesthesia (IA) on the overall survival following cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND

The association between intraoperative anesthetics and patients' long-term outcomes following cancer surgery remains controversial.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used nationwide data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Adult patients who underwent cancer resection surgery (breast, gastric, lung, liver, kidney, colorectal, pancreatic, esophageal, and bladder cancer) under general anesthesia between January 2007 and December 2016 were included. Patients were divided into propofol-based TIVA or IA groups according to the type of anesthesia received. A total of 312,985 patients (37,063 in the propofol-based TIVA group and 275,922 patients in the IA group) were eligible for analysis. The primary outcome was the comparison of overall survival following surgery between the groups in each cancer type. We compared the all-cause mortality between the 2 groups, stratified by cancer type using time-dependent Cox regression after propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting. We further examined the comparison of overall survival in a meta-analysis using data from our study and previously published data comparing propofol-based TIVA with IA after cancer surgery.

RESULTS

The number of deaths in the propofol-based TIVA and IA groups was 5037 (13.6%) and 45,904 (16.6%), respectively; the median (interquartile range) follow-up duration was 1192 (637-2011) days. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed no significant association between the type of general anesthesia and overall survival after cancer surgery in the weighted cohort for each cancer type (all P >0.05) and for total population [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-1.04]. In a meta-analysis, single-center studies showed higher overall survival in the TIVA group than in the IA group (pooled adjusted HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.47-0.91, P =0.01), while multicenter studies showed insignificant pooled adjusted HRs (pooled adjusted HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.82-1.33, P =0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no association between the type of general anesthesia used during cancer surgery and postoperative overall, 1-, and 5-year survival.

Assessing pediatric anesthesia outcomes and prognostic factors: a comparative study of ketamine vs. ketamine + propofol

Objective: To investigate the anesthesia outcomes of ketamine and propofol in pediatric anesthesia and analyze associated prognostic factors. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 160 children who underwent anesthesia and operation in Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from 2020 to 2022. The anesthesia outcomes was analyzed by comparing the blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP) at before (T1), during (T2) and after (T3) operations, recovery time after anesthesia, post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, adverse reactions, as well as the Steward and FLACC scores between the control and research groups. Univariate analysis and logistic regression analysis were used to identify the prognostic factors in pediatric anesthesia. Results: The changes in SpO2, HR, and MAP were different between the two groups at different time points (P < 0.05). There were significant differences in anesthesia recovery time, PACU stay, Steward and FLACC scores, and incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups (P < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis revealed that operation time ≥ 49.5 minutes (P = 0.001, OR = 3.828, 95% CI: 1.715-8.544) and single use of ketamine for anesthesia (P = 0.048, OR = 2.257, 95% CI: 1.006-5.063) were independent risk factors for postoperative delirium. Conclusion: Combining propofol with ketamine for pediatric anesthesia yields superior clinical outcome compared to using ketamine alone. This combined approach can effectively maintain stable circulation during operation, lead to shorter anesthesia recovery time, ensure high recovery quality, reduce postoperative pain, adverse reaction rate, and risk of post-anesthesia delirium in children, thereby improving the prognosis.

Total intravenous anesthesia versus inhalation anesthesia: how do outcomes compare?

RECENT FINDINGS

Surgical procedures that involve general anesthesia are performed with either volatile anesthetics or propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia. Both techniques are safe and provide appropriate conditions for surgery. Despite being a well established anesthetic, the use of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) remains low. Possible explanations include the perceived increase risk of awareness, lack of target controlled infusion devices, increased turnover time for device set up and individual preference.

SUMMARY

There are some scenarios where patients could potentially benefit from propofol-based TIVA rather than a volatile anesthetic (e.g. postoperative nausea and vomiting) and some other clinical scenarios where the use of propofol-based anesthesia remains controversial since the strength of the evidence remains low.

PURPOSE

In this review we will summarize the clinical evidence comparing the effect of propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthetic on postoperative outcomes such as postoperative nausea and vomiting, postoperative pain, quality of recovery, postoperative cognitive dysfunction and cancer 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.

Association of Volatile Versus Intravenous Anesthesia With Prognosis After Nephrectomy for Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND/AIM

A recent preclinical study reported that renal cell carcinoma was more susceptible to sevoflurane-mediated metastatic potentiation, compared to non-small cell lung cancer, suggesting that the effect of anesthetic agents on the metastatic potential varies according to cancer type. Based on this report, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare recurrence-free survival after nephrectomy, between renal cell carcinoma patients receiving volatile anesthesia and those receiving intravenous anesthesia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We reviewed the electronic medical records of patients who underwent partial or radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma at the Seoul National University Hospital. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether volatile or intravenous anesthesia was used for nephrectomy. A total of 651 patients (582 in the volatile and 69 in the intravenous group) were enrolled in the study. Recurrence-free survival after nephrectomy was compared using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting.

RESULTS

Cox regression analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting revealed that volatile anesthesia had no impact on recurrence-free survival [hazard ratio (HR)=0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.07-2.85; p=0.398] or overall survival (HR=1.41; 95% CI=0.31-6.44; p=0.661).

CONCLUSION

We found no significant association between volatile anesthesia and poor outcomes after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Volatile anesthetic-promoted metastatic potentiation of renal cell carcinoma, shown in a preclinical study, does not seem to be translated in the clinical setting.

Influence of Perioperative Anesthesia on Cancer Recurrence: from Basic Science to Clinical Practice

PURPOSEOF REVIEW

In this review, we will summarize the effects of these perioperative anesthetics and anesthetic interventions on the immune system and tumorigenesis as well as address the related clinical evidence on cancer-related mortality and recurrence.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cancer remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. For many solid tumors, surgery is one of the major therapies. Unfortunately, surgery promotes angiogenesis, shedding of circulating cancer cells, and suppresses immunity. Hence, the perioperative period has a close relationship with cancer metastases or recurrence. In the perioperative period, patients require multiple anesthetic management including anesthetics, anesthetic techniques, and body temperature control. Preclinical and retrospective studies have found that these anesthetic agents and interventions have complex effects on cancer outcomes. Therefore, well-planned, prospective, randomized controlled trials are required to explore the effects of different anesthetics and techniques on long-term outcomes after cancer surgery. Due to the conflicting effects of anesthetic management on cancer recurrence, further preclinical and clinical trials are required and beneficial to the development of systemic cancer therapies.

Does the Choice of Anaesthesia Affect Cancer? A Molecular Crosstalk between Theory and Practice

In recent years, there has been an increasing scientific interest in the interaction between anaesthesia and cancer development. Retrospective studies show that the choice of anaesthetics may influence cancer outcome and cancer recurrence; however, these studies show contradictory results. Recently, some large randomized clinical trials have been completed, yet they show no significant effect of anaesthetics on cancer outcomes. In this scoping review, we compiled a body of in vivo and in vitro studies with the goal of evaluating the biological effects of anaesthetics on cancer cells in comparison to clinical effects as described in recent studies. It was found that sevoflurane, propofol, opioids and lidocaine are likely to display direct biological effects on cancer cells; however, significant effects are only found in studies with exposure to high concentrations of anaesthetics and/or during longer exposure times. When compared to clinical data, these differences in exposure and dose-effect relation, as well as tissue selectivity, population selection and unclear anaesthetic dosing protocols might explain the lack of outcome.

The Effect of Propofol versus Inhalation Anesthetics on Survival after Oncological Surgery

Every year, 19.3 million patients worldwide are diagnosed with cancer. Surgical resection represents a major therapeutical option and the vast majority of these patients receive anesthesia. However, despite surgical resection, almost one third of these patients develop local recurrence or distant metastases. Perioperative factors, such as surgical stress and anesthesia technique, have been suggested to play a role to a greater or lesser extent in the development of recurrences, but oncology encompasses a complicated tumor biology of which much is still unknown. The effect of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or volatile anesthesia (VA) on survival after oncological surgery has become a popular topic in recent years. Multiple studies conclude in favor of propofol. Despite the a priori probability that relevant differences in postoperative outcomes are due to the anesthesia technique employed, TIVA or VA, is extremely small. The existing literature includes mainly hypothesis-forming retrospective studies and small randomized trials with many methodological limitations. To date, it is unlikely that use of TIVA or VA affect cancer-free survival days to a clinically relevant extent. This review addresses all relevant studies in the field and provides a substantiated different view on this deeply controversial research topic.

Personalized Medicine for Classical Anesthesia Drugs and Cancer Progression

In this review, we aim to discuss the use and effect of five different drugs used in the induction of anesthesia in cancer patients. Propofol, fentanyl, rocuronium, sugammadex, and dexamethasone are commonly used to induce anesthesia and prevent pain during surgery. Currently, the mechanisms of these drugs to induce the state of anesthesia are not yet fully understood, despite their use being considered safe. An association between anesthetic agents and cancer progression has been determined; therefore, it is essential to recognize the effects of all agents during cancer treatment and to evaluate whether the treatment provided to the patients could be more precise. We also highlight the use of in silico tools to review drug interaction effects and safety, as well as the efficacy of the treatment used according to different subgroups of patients.

Effect of anesthesia on the outcome of high-grade glioma patients undergoing supratentorial resection: study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

High-grade glioma (HGG) is the most malignant brain tumor with poor outcomes. Whether anesthetic methods have an impact on the outcome of these patients is still unknown. Retrospective study has found no difference between intravenous and inhalation anesthesia on the overall survival (OS) of the HGG patients, however, intravenous anesthesia with propofol might be beneficial in a subgroup of patients with a Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Scale less than 80. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the results.

METHODS

This is a single-centered, randomized controlled, parallel-group trial. Three hundred forty-four patients with primary HGG for tumor resection will be randomly assigned to receive either intravenous anesthesia with propofol or inhalation anesthesia with sevoflurane. The primary outcome is the OS of the patients within 18 months. Secondary outcomes include progression-free survival (PFS), the numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain intensity and sleep quality, the postoperative encephaloedema volume, complications, and the length of hospital stay of the patients.

DISCUSSION

This is a randomized controlled trial to compare the effect of intravenous and inhalation anesthesia maintenance on the outcome of supratentorial HGG patients. The results will contribute to optimizing the anesthesia methods in these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02756312. Registered on 29 April 2016 and last updated on 9 Sep 2020.

Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia is associated with better survival than desflurane anesthesia in limb-salvage surgery for osteosarcoma: A retrospective analysis

Previous studies have demonstrated that anesthetic techniques can affect the outcomes of cancer surgery. We investigated the association between anesthetic techniques and patient outcomes after elective limb-salvage surgery for osteosarcoma (OS). This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent elective limb-salvage surgery for OS between January 2007 and December 2018. Patients were grouped according to the administration of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or desflurane (DES) anesthesia. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed, and survival curves were constructed from the date of surgery to death. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were applied to compare the hazard ratios (HRs) for death after propensity matching. Subgroup analyses were done for postoperative recurrence, metastasis, and tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging. A total of 30 patients (17 deaths, 56.7%) who received DES anesthesia and 26 (4 deaths, 15.4%) who received TIVA were eligible for analysis. After propensity matching, 22 patients were included in each group. In the matched analysis, patients who received TIVA had better survival with a HR of 0.30 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.81; P = .018). Subgroup analyses also showed significantly better survival in the presence of postoperative metastasis (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.06-0.87; P = .030) and with TNM stage II to III (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.73; P = .011) in the matched TIVA group. In addition, patients administered with TIVA had lower risks of postoperative recurrence and metastasis than those administered with DES anesthesia in the matched analyses. Propofol-based TIVA was associated with better survival in patients who underwent elective limb-salvage surgery for OS than DES anesthesia. Prospective studies are needed to assess the effects of TIVA on oncological outcomes in patients with OS.

General Anesthetics in Cancer Surgery: Can Anesthesiologists Help the Patient with More than a Safe Sleep

Most patients suffering from neoplastic diseases will at some point during their illness be approached surgically. Surgery itself may be unfortunately responsible for tumor proliferation and metastatic spread. With the perioperative period increasingly becoming a focus of research in anesthesia, anesthesiologists have looked at the chance to influence cancer progression based on their choice of anesthesia regimen and strategy. Many anesthetic agents have been investigated for their potential impact on the course of cancer disease. There is an abundance of retrospective studies and very few prospective ones that tackled this issue. The aim of this article is to review the current state of the evidence on general anesthesia involving volatile and intravenous agents as substrates, focusing on halogenated inhalational agents and propofol, to guide clinical decision making in assessments of the best practice for perioperative management of cancer surgery.

Effect of Propofol or Etomidate as General Anaesthesia Induction on Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study with 10 Years' Follow-Up

Objective

The aim is to study the effect of intraoperative application of propofol and etomidate on the long-term prognosis of patients with gastric cancer at the same tumor stage.

Methods

A total of 1018 patients who underwent radical gastric cancer surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from January 2010 to December 2010 were selected and divided into the propofol and etomidate groups according to the different anesthetic induction drugs.

Results

Among 244 patients in TNM stage IIIA, survival times were 36.10 and 41.79 for etomidate and propofol, respectively, which were statistically different (p < 0.05). Among the 82 patients in TNM stage IIIC, survival times were 26.57 and 35.20 for etomidate and propofol, respectively, which were statistically different (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing radical gastric cancer surgery, the application of propofol during induction of anaesthesia is more beneficial in improving the postoperative survival time compared to the application of etomidate at a specific TNM stage.

Postoperative Long-Term Outcomes and Independent Risk Factors of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients With Propofol versus Sevoflurane Anesthesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Existing studies have shown that the relationship between anesthetic agents and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) prognosis remains controversial. Therefore, this retrospective cohort study was designed to investigate the effects of propofol or sevoflurane anesthesia on the long-term oncologic outcomes of NSCLC patients.

Methods: We identified 1,778 eligible patients (propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) group, n = 686; sevoflurane-based inhalation anesthesia (INHA) group, n = 1,092) out of 2,388 patients undergoing elective NSCLC surgery from June 2013 to June 2016 in the Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital. The primary endpoints were five-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival. The secondary endpoints were independent risk factors of cancer recurrence or all-cause mortality. The data were analyzed with propensity score matching, Kaplan–Meier survival, and Cox multivariate analyses as appropriate.

Results: After propensity score matching, there were 672 patients in each group. The median follow-up period was 69 months (interquartile range: 68–70 months) for all patients. Five-year overall survival was 75.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 72.4–79.1) in the TIVA group and 71.8% (68.4–75.4) in the INHA group (p = 0.160) (hazard ratio (HR), 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70–1.06; p = 0.158), and five-year recurrence-free survival was 68.5% (65.0–72.2) and 62.7% (59.1–66.5 (p = 0.108) (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.75–1.08; p = 0.253), respectively. Subgroup analyses showed there were no significant difference in the overall survival or recurrence-free survival between the two groups in each TNM stage of NSCLC. The independent risk factors included age ≥60 years, male, blood transfusion, segmental/wedge resection and pneumonectomy, thoracotomy, postoperative complications, lung adenocarcinoma, TNM stages, high CEA and CYFRA211 levels, and postoperative radiotherapy.

Conclusions: Our data indicated no difference between the propofol-based TIVA and sevoflurane-based INHA in terms of five-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival after NSCLC surgery.

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.

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.

Long-term oncological outcomes after oral cancer surgery using propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia versus sevoflurane-based inhalation anesthesia: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Previous studies have shown that the anesthetic technique may influence long-term outcomes after cancer surgery. However, the association between the anesthetic technique and long-term oncological outcomes after oral cancer surgery remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted this study to address this gap.

Methods

We reviewed the electronic medical records of patients who underwent elective oral cancer surgery between January 2014 and December 2015. The patients were grouped based on the anesthesia maintenance: either propofol or sevoflurane. Propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio was performed to deal with the potential confounding effects of baseline characteristics. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to compare hazard ratios (HRs) and identify the risk factors for death and recurrence. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan–Meier method, and survival curves were constructed from the date of surgery to death.

Results

In total, 1347 patients were eligible for analysis, with 343 and 1004 patients in the propofol and sevoflurane groups, respectively. After propensity score matching, 302 patients remained in each group. Kaplan–Meier survival curves demonstrated the 5-year overall and recurrence-free survival rates of 59.3% and 56.0% and 62.7% and 56.5% in the propofol and sevoflurane groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in overall survival or recurrence-free survival between the groups. The multivariate Cox analysis verified this conclusion with HRs of 1.10 and 1.11 for overall survival and recurrence-free survival, respectively, in the sevoflurane group. Older age, advanced tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class III were associated with poor overall survival. Patients with advanced TNM stage and poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma had a higher recurrence risk than their counterparts.

Conclusion

The overall and recurrence-free survival rates were similar between propofol-based intravenous anesthesia and sevoflurane volatile anesthesia in patients who underwent oral cancer surgery.

Recommendations of the Society of Thoracic Surgery and the Section of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery of the Spanish Society of Anesthesia, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy, for patients undergoing lung surgery included in an intensified recovery program

In recent years, multidisciplinary programs have been implemented that include different actions during the pre, intra and postoperative period, aimed at reducing perioperative stress and therefore improving the results of patients undergoing surgical interventions. Initially, these programs were developed for colorectal surgery and from there they have been extended to other surgeries. Thoracic surgery, considered highly complex, like other surgeries with a high postoperative morbidity and mortality rate, may be one of the specialties that most benefit from the implementation of these programs. This review presents the recommendations made by different specialties involved in the perioperative care of patients who require resection of a lung tumor. Meta-analyzes, systematic reviews, randomized and non-randomized controlled studies, and retrospective studies conducted in patients undergoing this type of intervention have been taken into account in preparing the recommendations presented in this guide. The GRADE scale has been used to classify the recommendations, assessing on the one hand the level of evidence published on each specific aspect and, on the other hand, the strength of the recommendation with which the authors propose its application. The recommendations considered most important for this type of surgery are those that refer to pre-habilitation, minimization of surgical aggression, excellence in the management of perioperative pain and postoperative care aimed at providing rapid postoperative rehabilitation.

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.

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 Anesthesia and Anesthetic Techniques on Metastasis of Lung Cancers: A Narrative Review

Purpose

Tumor recurrence and metastasis are essential for the mortality and morbidity of cancer. Surgical resection of solid tumors is the conventional treatment approach for malignant tumors. However, even after undergoing radical surgery, certain patients develop local or distant metastasis, which may contribute to treatment failure. Anesthesia and anesthetic techniques are widely used in the perioperative period. Emerging evidence indicates that anesthetics influence tumor recurrence and metastasis. Therefore, the current review summarizes the effects of anesthesia and anesthetic techniques on tumor recurrence and lung metastasis.

Methods

Relevant literature was retrieved from the following databases: Medline/PubMed, CNKI and Wanfang. A total of 109 articles were selected and analyzed in this research.

Results

(1) A variety of intravenous anesthetics may affect metastasis or tumor growth, though the evidence is contradictory and inconsistent, and the clinical data are still inconclusive. (2) Volatile anesthetics have proinflammatory effects and may have direct and indirect effects on the survival of cancer cells. (3) Although the relevant clinical data are limited, there is strong evidence in vitro that local anesthetics have a protective effect on cancer recurrence. (4) No mode of anesthesia has been determined to be beneficial to patients with cancer, but clinical studies are currently recommended for anesthesia modality and composite use.

Conclusion

Available data suggest that anesthesia and anesthetic techniques might play an important role in tumor progression and lung metastasis, the understanding of which will help in designing more effective management of the tumor and attaining fewer side effects.

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.

Anesthetic care influences long-term outcomes: What is the evidence?

Despite advances in cancer therapy surgery remains one of the most important treatments for solid tumors; however, even with the development of better and less invasive surgical techniques, surgery is characterized by the increased risk of tumor metastasis, accelerated growth of pre-existing micrometastasis and cancer recurrence. Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and regional anesthesia have been proposed to improve long-term outcomes after cancer surgery by different mechanisms, including attenuation of the neuroendocrine response, immunosuppression, decreased opioid requirements (opioids promote angiogenesis and tumor growth) and avoidance of volatile inhalational agents. Much of the data that support these ideas originate from laboratory studies, while there is no clear consensus from the retrospective cohort studies to date. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are in progress and may provide a better understanding regarding the role of the anesthesiologist in cancer surgery. The purpose of this review is to summarize the experimental and human data regarding the effect of anesthesia agents and anesthesia techniques on cancer outcomes.

Anesthetic Management for Pulmonary Resection: Current Concepts and Improving Safety of Anesthesia

Increasingly complex procedures are routinely performed using minimally invasive approaches, allowing cancers to be resected with short hospital stays, minimal postsurgical discomfort, and improved odds of cancer-free survival. Along with these changes, the focus of anesthetic management for lung resection surgery has expanded from the provision of ideal surgical conditions and safe intraoperative patient care to include preoperative patient training and optimization and postoperative pain management techniques that can impact pulmonary outcomes as well as patient lengths of stay.

The Role of General Anesthetic Drug Selection in Cancer Outcome

Cancer remains to be the leading cause of death globally. Surgery is a mainstay treatment for solid tumors. Thus, it is critical to optimize perioperative care. Anesthesia is a requisite component for surgical tumor resection, and general anesthesia is given in the vast majority of tumor resection cases. Because anesthetics are growingly recognized as immunomodulators, it is critical to optimize anesthetic regimens for cancer surgery if the selection can affect outcomes. Here, we reviewed the role of volatile and intravenous anesthesia used for cancer surgery in cancer recurrence.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of breast conserving surgery with propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia or volatile inhalational general anesthesia without propofol: a propensity score-matched, population-based cohort study

To estimate oncologic outcomes (overall survival [OS], locoregional recurrence [LRR], and distant metastasis [DM]) in patients with breast intraductal carcinoma (IDC) receiving breast conserving surgery (BCS) under propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or volatile inhalational (INHA) general anesthesia (GA) without propofol. Patients with breast IDC receiving BCS were recruited through propensity score matching and categorized by anesthesia techniques into propofol-based TIVA-GA and non-propofol-based INHA-GA groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis was performed to calculate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR; 95% CI) of all-cause mortality for TIVA-GA with propofol compared with INHA-GA without propofol was 0.94 (0.83-1.31). The aHR (95% CI) of LRR for TIVA-GA with propofol group compared with INHA-GA without propofol was 0.77 (0.58-0.87). The aHR (95% CI) of DM for TIVA-GA with propofol compared with INHA-GA without propofol was 0.91 (0.82-1.24). Propofol-based TIVA-GA might be beneficial for reducing LRR in women with breast IDC receiving BCS compared with non-propofol-based INHA-GA.

Propofol-Based Total Intravenous Anesthesia is Associated with Better Survival than Desflurane Anesthesia in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Previous studies have shown that anesthetic techniques can affect outcomes of cancer surgery. We investigated the association between anesthetic techniques and patient outcomes after elective epithelial ovarian cancer surgery.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who received elective open surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer between January 2009 and December 2014. Patients were grouped according to the administration of propofol or desflurane anesthesia. Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed, and survival curves were constructed from the date of surgery to death. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for death after propensity matching. Subgroup analyses were performed for age, body mass index, preoperative carbohydrate antigen-125 level, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging, and operation and anesthesia time.

Results: In total, 165 patients (76 deaths, 46.1%) who received desflurane anesthesia and 119 (30 deaths, 25.2%) who received propofol anesthesia were eligible for analysis. After propensity matching, 104 patients were included in each group. In the matched analysis, patients who received propofol anesthesia had better survival with a hazard ratio of 0.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.33–0.81; p = 0.005). Subgroup analyses also showed significantly better survival with old age, high body mass index, elevated carbohydrate antigen-125 level, advanced International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, and prolonged operation and anesthesia time in the matched propofol group. In addition, patients administered with propofol anesthesia had less postoperative recurrence and metastasis than those administered with desflurane anesthesia in the matched analysis.

Conclusion: Propofol anesthesia was associated with better survival in patients who underwent elective epithelial ovarian cancer open surgery. Prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the effects of propofol anesthesia on oncological outcomes in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer.

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.

Association Between Anesthesia Delivered During Tumor Resection and Cancer Survival: a Systematic Review of a Mixed Picture with Constant Themes

BACKGROUND

Surgery is required for cure of most solid tumors, and general anesthesia is required for most cancer surgery. The vast majority of cancer surgery is facilitated by general anesthesia using volatile inhalational agents such as isoflurane and sevoflurane. Only recently have the immunologic and oncologic effect of inhalational agents, and their alternative, propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), come under investigation.

METHODS

Between January 2019 and June 2020, English language articles on PubMed were searched for the keywords "Propofol" "TIVA" or "IV anesthesia" and either "cancer surgery" or "surgical oncology." Duplicates were removes, manuscripts classified as either in vitro, animal, translational, or clinical studies, and their results summarized within these categories.

RESULTS

In-vitro and translational data suggest that inhalational anesthetics are potent immunosuppressive and tumorigenic agents that promote metastasis, while propofol is anti-inflammatory, anti-tumorigenic, and prevents metastasis development. Clinically there is a recurring association, based largely on retrospective, single institution series, that TIVA is associated with significant improvements in disease-free interval and overall survival in a number of, but not all, solid tumors. The longer the surgery is, the more intense the surgical trauma is, the more aggressive the malignancy is, and the higher likelihood of an association is.

DISCUSSION

Prospective randomized trials, coupled with basic science and translational studies, are needed to further define this association.

Recommendations of the Society of Thoracic Surgery and the Section of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery of the Spanish Society of Anesthesia, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy, for patients undergoing lung surgery included in an intensified recovery program

In recent years, multidisciplinary programs have been implemented that include different actions during the pre, intra and postoperative period, aimed at reducing perioperative stress and therefore improving the results of patients undergoing surgical interventions. Initially, these programs were developed for colorectal surgery and from there they have been extended to other surgeries. Thoracic surgery, considered highly complex, like other surgeries with a high postoperative morbidity and mortality rate, may be one of the specialties that most benefit from the implementation of these programs. This review presents the recommendations made by different specialties involved in the perioperative care of patients who require resection of a lung tumor. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized and non-randomized controlled studies, and retrospective studies conducted in patients undergoing this type of intervention have been taken into account in preparing the recommendations presented in this guide. The GRADE scale has been used to classify the recommendations, assessing on the one hand the level of evidence published on each specific aspect and, on the other hand, the strength of the recommendation with which the authors propose its application. The recommendations considered most important for this type of surgery are those that refer to pre-habilitation, minimization of surgical aggression, excellence in the management of perioperative pain and postoperative care aimed at providing rapid postoperative rehabilitation.

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.

The Intersection of Regional Anesthesia and Cancer Progression: A Theoretical Framework

The surgical stress and inflammatory response and volatile anesthetic agents have been shown to promote tumor metastasis in animal and in-vitro studies. Regional neuraxial anesthesia protects against these effects by decreasing the surgical stress and inflammatory response and associated changes in immune function in animals. However, evidence of a similar effect in humans remains equivocal due to the high variability and retrospective nature of clinical studies and difficulty in directly comparing regional versus general anesthesia in humans. We propose a theoretical framework to address the question of regional anesthesia as protective against metastasis.

This theoretical construct views the immune system, circulating tumor cells, micrometastases, and inflammatory mediators as distinct populations in a highly connected system. In ecological theory, highly connected populations demonstrate more resilience to local perturbations but are prone to system-wide shifts compared with their poorly connected counterparts. Neuraxial anesthesia transforms the otherwise system-wide perturbations of the surgical stress and inflammatory response and volatile anesthesia into a comparatively local perturbation to which the system is more resilient. We propose this framework for experimental and mathematical models to help determine the impact of anesthetic choice on recurrence and metastasis and create therapeutic strategies to improve cancer outcomes after surgery.

The Effects of Anesthetics and Perioperative Medications on Immune Function: A Narrative Review

Preclinical and clinical studies have sought to better understand the effect of anesthetic agents, both volatile and intravenous, and perioperative adjuvant medications on immune function. The immune system has evolved to incorporate both innate and adaptive components, which are delicately interwoven and essential for host defense from pathogens and malignancy. This review summarizes the complex and nuanced relationship that exists between each anesthetic agent or perioperative adjuvant medication studied and innate and adaptive immune function with resultant clinical implications. The most commonly used anesthetic agents were chosen for review including volatile agents (sevoflurane, isoflurane, desflurane, and halothane), intravenous agents (propofol, ketamine, etomidate, and dexmedetomidine), and perioperative adjuvant medications (benzodiazepines, opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], and local anesthetic agents). Patients who undergo surgery experience varying combinations of the aforementioned anesthetic agents and adjuncts, depending on the type of surgery and their comorbidities. Each has unique effects on immunity, which may be more or less ideal depending on the clinical situation. Further study is needed to better understand the clinical effects of these relationships so that patient-specific strategies can be developed to improve surgical outcomes.

Anesthetics or anesthetic techniques and cancer surgical outcomes: a possible link

As of 2018 cancer is responsible for almost 9.6 million deaths annually and, with an aging population, the incidence of cancer is expected to continue to rise. Surgery is an important treatment modality for patients with solid organ cancers. It has been postulated that, due to potentially overlapping processes underlying the development of malignancy and the therapeutic pathways of various anesthetic agents, the choice of anesthetic type and method of administration may affect post-operative outcomes in patients with cancer. This is a literature review of the most recent evidence extracted from various databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane, as well as journals and book reference lists. The review highlights the pathophysiological processes underpinning cancer development and the molecular actions of anesthetic agents, pre-clinical and retrospective studies investigating cancer and anesthetics, as well as ongoing clinical trials. Overall, there are conflicting results regarding the impact of regional vs. general anesthesia on cancer recurrence, whilst the majority of data suggest a benefit of the use of intravenous propofol over inhalational volatile anesthetics. The biological changes associated with the surgical inflammatory response offer a unique opportunity to intervene to counteract any potentially cancer-promoting effects.

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.

Association Between Anesthetic Dose and Technique and Oncologic Outcomes After Surgical Resection of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Because of the biologic effects of volatile anesthetics on the immune system and cancer cells, it has been hypothesized that their use during non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) surgery may negatively affect cancer outcomes compared with total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol. The present study evaluated the relationship between anesthetic technique and dose and oncologic outcome in NSCLC surgery.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Surgical records collated from a single, tertiary care hospital and combined with the Scottish Cancer Registry and continuously recorded electronic anesthetic data.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing elective lung resection for NSCLC between January 2010 and December 2014.

INTERVENTIONS

The cohort was divided into patients receiving TIVA only and patients exposed to volatile anesthetics.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Final analysis included 746 patients (342 received TIVA and 404 volatile anesthetic). Kaplan-Meier survival curves with log-rank testing were drawn for cancer-specific and overall survival. No significant differences were demonstrated for either cancer-specific (p = 0.802) or overall survival (p = 0.736). Factors influencing survival were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards modeling. Anesthetic type was not a significant predictor for cancer-specific or overall survival in univariate or multivariate Cox analysis. Volatile anesthetic exposure was quantified using area under the end-tidal expired anesthetic agent versus time curves. This was not significantly associated with cancer-specific survival on univariate (p = 0.357) or multivariate (p = 0.673) modeling.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant relationship was demonstrated between anesthetic technique and NSCLC survival. Whether a causal relationship exists between anesthetic technique during NSCLC surgery and oncologic outcome warrants definitive investigation in a prospective, randomized trial.

Inhaled Anesthetics: Environmental Role, Occupational Risk, and Clinical Use

Inhaled anesthetics have been in clinical use for over 150 years and are still commonly used in daily practice. The initial view of inhaled anesthetics as indispensable for general anesthesia has evolved during the years and, currently, its general use has even been questioned. Beyond the traditional risks inherent to any drug in use, inhaled anesthetics are exceptionally strong greenhouse gases (GHG) and may pose considerable occupational risks. This emphasizes the importance of evaluating and considering its use in clinical practices. Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence of worsening climate changes, control measures are very slowly implemented. Therefore, it is the responsibility of all society sectors, including the health sector to maximally decrease GHG emissions where possible. Within the field of anesthesia, the potential to reduce GHG emissions can be briefly summarized as follows: Stop or avoid the use of nitrous oxide (N2O) and desflurane, consider the use of total intravenous or local-regional anesthesia, invest in the development of new technologies to minimize volatile anesthetics consumption, scavenging systems, and destruction of waste gas. The improved and sustained awareness of the medical community regarding the climate impact of inhaled anesthetics is mandatory to bring change in the current practice.

Anesthetics may modulate cancer surgical outcome: a possible role of miRNAs regulation

Background

microRNAs (miRNAs) are single-stranded and noncoding RNA molecules that control post-transcriptional gene regulation. miRNAs can be tumor suppressors or oncogenes through various mechanism including cancer cell biology, cell-to-cell communication, and anti-cancer immunity.

Main Body

Anesthetics can affect cell biology through miRNA-mediated regulation of messenger RNA (mRNA). Indeed, sevoflurane was reported to upregulate miR-203 and suppresses breast cancer cell proliferation. Propofol reduces matrix metalloproteinase expression through its impact on miRNAs, leading to anti-cancer microenvironmental changes. Propofol also modifies miRNA expression profile in circulating extracellular vesicles with their subsequent anti-cancer effects via modulating cell-to-cell communication.

Conclusion

Inhalational and intravenous anesthetics can alter cancer cell biology through various cellular signaling pathways induced by miRNAs’ modification. However, this area of research is insufficient and further study is needed to figure out optimal anesthesia regimens for cancer patients.

Anesthesia and Long-term Oncological Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether propofol elicits a survival benefit over volatile anesthetics during cancer surgery remains inconclusive. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the effects of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with any volatile anesthesia on long-term oncological outcomes. The secondary aim is to compare propofol-based TIVA with specific volatile agents on long-term oncological outcomes.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception through March 3, 2020. Randomized control trials and observational studies that compared the effects of propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthesia on long-term oncological outcomes, which also reported hazard ratios (HR) as effect estimates, were considered eligible for inclusion. Using the inverse variance method with a random-effects model, HR and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Trial sequential analysis was incorporated to test if the results were subject to a type I or type II error.

RESULTS

Nineteen retrospective observational studies were included. Patients who received propofol-based TIVA during cancer surgery were associated with significantly better overall survival than those who received volatile anesthesia (HR = 0.79, 95% CI, 0.66-0.94, P = .008, I2 = 82%). In contrast, no statistically significant difference was observed in recurrence-free survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and volatile anesthesia during cancer surgery (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.61-1.07, P = .137, I2 = 85%). In the subgroup analysis by different volatile anesthetics, patients who received propofol-based TIVA were associated with better overall survival than those who received desflurane (HR = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.36-0.80, P = .003, I2 = 80%). In contrast, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between patients who received propofol-based TIVA and those who received sevoflurane (HR = 0.92, 95% CI, 0.74-1.14, P = .439, I2 = 70%). In the trial sequential analysis of overall survival, the cumulative Z curve reached the required heterogeneity-adjusted information size and crossed the traditional significance boundary. In contrast, in the trial sequential analysis of recurrence-free survival, the cumulative Z curve did not cross the traditional significance boundary. However, the required heterogeneity-adjusted information size has not yet been reached.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol-based TIVA is generally associated with better overall survival than volatile anesthesia during cancer surgery. Further large-scaled, high-quality randomized control trials are warranted to confirm our findings.

Surgical Site Infections and Perioperative Optimization of Host Immunity by Selection of Anesthetics

Surgical site infections are significant health care issues, and efforts to mitigate their occurrence have been ongoing worldwide, mainly focusing to reduce the spillage of microbes to the otherwise sterile tissues. Optimization of host immunity has been also recognized including temperature regulation (normothermia), adequate oxygenation, and glucose management. A number of papers have described the role of anesthetics in host immunity. The role of anesthetics in postoperative outcomes including surgical site infections has been also studied. We will review the current literature and propose the importance of anesthetic selection to potentially mitigate surgical site infections.

Prognostic significance of propofol-based intravenous anesthesia in early-stage lung cancer surgery

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess whether the anesthetic type is associated with the prognosis of pathological stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Clinicopathological data from 431 consecutive patients who underwent lobectomy for NSCLC between 2010 and 2016 were collected. Patients were classified into groups according to the type of anesthesia: propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or inhalation anesthesia (INHA). We investigated the prognostic differences between these two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients in the TIVA group and 158 patients in the INHA group were eligible for the analysis. Recurrence was observed in 4 (5.6%) patients in the TIVA group and 19 (12.0%) patients in the INHA group (P = 0.159), and all-cause death occurred in 4 (5.6%) patients in the TIVA group and 24 (15.2%) patients in the INHA group (P = 0.049). The 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival rates of the TIVA/INHA groups were 91.7%/77.4% and 94.4%/83.5%, respectively. TIVA was associated with a significantly better prognosis. A multivariable analysis of factors associated with RFS revealed that the type of anesthesia as a significant prognostic factor (P = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

Propofol-based TIVA was associated with a better prognosis in comparison to INHA in patients with surgically resected pathological stage I NSCLC.

Inhalation or total intravenous anaesthesia and recurrence after colorectal cancer surgery: a propensity score matched Danish registry-based study

BACKGROUND

During colorectal cancer surgery, the immune-modulating effects of inhalation anaesthesia may create a favourable environment for metastasis formation, leading to increased risk of recurrence. Our aim was to assess the association between inhalation vs intravenous anaesthesia and cancer recurrence in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery in 2004-18 were identified in the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group Database and Danish Anaesthesia Database. After exclusion of patients with residual tumour registered in postoperative pathology reports, local endoscopic resections, and stent insertions, we classified patients according to exposure to inhalation anaesthesia. The primary outcome was recurrence (time to recurrence), whereas secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality (time to death) and disease-free survival (time to either recurrence or death). Events of recurrence and death were identified using The Danish Civil Registration System, Danish National Pathology Registry, and Danish National Patient Registry. The sub-distribution hazards approach was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for recurrence, and Cox regression was used for all-cause mortality and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

We identified 5238 patients exposed to inhalation anaesthesia and 6322 to intravenous anaesthesia. Propensity score matching yielded 4347 individuals in each group with balanced baseline covariates. We found a weak association between recurrence and exposure to inhalation anaesthesia (HR=1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.23). The HR estimates for all-cause mortality and disease-free survival were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.93-1.07) and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.98-1.11) respectively.

CONCLUSION

Exposure to inhalation anaesthesia was associated with increased risk of recurrence after colorectal cancer surgery.

Role of Sevoflurane on Natural Killer Group 2, Member D-Mediated Immune Response in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: An In Vitro Study

Background

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of sevoflurane on cancer immunosurveillance and metastasis in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Material/Methods

NCI-H23 cells, a human NSCLC cell line, were incubated with or without sevoflurane at the concentrations of 0, 12.5, 25, 50, 100, and 200 μM for 6 h. Cell viability, the expression of natural killer group 2, member D ligands (NKG2D ligands: UL16-binding proteins 1–3 [ULBP1–3] and major histocompatibility complex class I chain-related molecules A/B [MICA/B]), the expression of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), NK cell-mediated cytotoxicity, and cancer cell migration were measured.

Results

At 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 μM, sevoflurane increased the expression of NKG2D ligands (ULBP2–3 and MICA, ULBP1–3, ULBP1–3, and ULBP1, respectively). Sevoflurane decreased the expression of NKG2D ligands at 200 μM (MICA/B). NK cell-mediated lysis of NCI-H23 cells at 200 μM sevoflurane was significantly reduced compared with the control (P=0.025; target cell: effect cell=1: 10). Sevoflurane increased the expression of MMP-1, -2, and -9 and increased cell migration in NCI-H23 cells at 50, 100, and 200 μM (P=0.001, 0.035, and 0.039, respectively, compared with the control after 18 h of wound formation).

Conclusions

Sevoflurane could suppress NKG2D-mediated NK cell cytotoxicity and increased expression of MMPs and migration in NCI-H23 cells. Further research is needed to determine the effects of sevoflurane on cancer immunosurveillance and metastasis in NSCLC.