Comparison of volatile/inhalational and IV anesthesia in long-term survival of patients with breast cancer: a retrospective study

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.

Anesthesia-related postoperative oncological surgical outcomes: a comparison of total intravenous anesthesia and volatile anesthesia. A meta-analysis

Introduction

In patients undergoing cancer surgery, it is ambiguous whether propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) elicits a significantly higher overall survival rate than volatile anesthetics (VA). Consequently, evaluating the impact of TIVA and VA on long-term oncological outcomes is crucial.

Aim

This study compared TIVA versus VA for cancer surgery patients and investigated the potential correlation between anesthetics and their long-term surgical outcomes.

Material and methods

A comprehensive search of Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library identified English-language peer-reviewed journal papers. The statistical measurements of hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI were calculated. We assessed heterogeneity using Cochrane Q and I2 statistics and the appropriate p-value. The analysis used RevMan 5.3.

Results

The meta-analysis included 10 studies with 14036 cancer patients, 6264 of whom received TIVA and 7777 VA. In this study, we examined the long-term oncological outcomes of cancer surgery patients with TIVA and VA. Our data show that the TIVA group had a considerably higher overall survival rate (HR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.30-0.80) and recurrence-free survival rate (HR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.32-0.97). Each outcome was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The present study concludes that TIVA is a more effective anesthetic agent than VA in obtaining better long-term oncological outcomes in cancer patients after surgery as it provides a higher overall survival rate, a higher recurrence-free survival rate and fewer post-operative pathological findings in patients who have undergone surgery for cancer as compared to VA.

Type of anesthesia for cancer resection surgery: No differential impact on cancer recurrence in mouse models of breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery is essential for curative treatment of solid tumors. Evidence from recent retrospective clinical analyses suggests that use of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia during cancer resection surgery is associated with improved overall survival compared to inhaled volatile anesthesia. Evaluating these findings in prospective clinical studies is required to inform definitive clinical guidelines but will take many years and requires biomarkers to monitor treatment effect. Therefore, we examined the effect of different anesthetic agents on cancer recurrence in mouse models of breast cancer with the overarching goal of evaluating plausible mechanisms that could be used as biomarkers of treatment response.

METHODS

To test the hypothesis that volatile anesthesia accelerates breast cancer recurrence after surgical resection of the primary tumor, we used three mouse models of breast cancer. We compared volatile sevoflurane anesthesia with intravenous propofol anesthesia and used serial non-invasive bioluminescent imaging to track primary tumor recurrence and metastatic recurrence. To determine short-term perioperative effects, we evaluated the effect of anesthesia on vascular integrity and immune cell changes after surgery in animal models.

RESULTS

Survival analyses found that the kinetics of cancer recurrence and impact on survival were similar regardless of the anesthetic agent used during cancer surgery. Vascular permeability, immune cell infiltration and cytokine profiles showed no statistical difference after resection with inhaled sevoflurane or intravenous propofol anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

These preclinical studies found no evidence that choice of anesthetic agent used during cancer resection surgery affected either short-term perioperative events or long-term cancer outcomes in mouse models of breast cancer. These findings raise the possibility that mouse models do not recapitulate perioperative events in cancer patients. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that future evaluation of effects of anesthesia on cancer outcomes should focus on cancer types other than breast cancer.