1
|
Kim J, Yoon S, Song IK, Lee K, Hwang W, Kim H, Lee DK, Lim HK, Kim SH, Lee JW, Hong B, Blank RS, Pedoto A, Popescu W, Theresa G, Martin AK, Patteril M, Pathanasethpong A, Thongsuk Y, Pisitpitayasaree T, Huang A, Yu H, Kapoor PM, Kim K, Chi SA, Ahn HJ. Recurrence-free survival after curative resection of non-small cell lung cancer between inhalational gas anesthesia and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia: a multicenter, randomized, clinical trial (GAS TIVA trial): protocol description. Perioper Med (Lond) 2024; 13:79. [PMID: 39039548 PMCID: PMC11264408 DOI: 10.1186/s13741-024-00436-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2024] [Accepted: 07/13/2024] [Indexed: 07/24/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgery is the primary treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but microscopic residual disease may be unavoidable. Preclinical studies have shown that volatile anesthetics might suppress host immunity and promote a pro-malignant environment that supports cancer cell proliferation, migration, and angiogenesis, whereas propofol may preserve cell-mediated immunity and inhibit tumor angiogenesis. However, clinical evidence that propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) can reduce tumor recurrence after curative resection remains inconsistent due to the retrospective observational nature of previous studies. Therefore, we will test the hypothesis that the recurrence-free survival (RFS) after curative resection of NSCLC is higher in patients who received TIVA than volatile anesthetics (GAS) in this multicenter randomized trial. METHODS This double-blind, randomized trial will enroll patients at 22 international sites, subject to study registration, institutional review board approval, and patient written informed consent. Eligible patients are adult patients undergoing lung resection surgery with curative intent for NSCLC. Exclusion criteria will be contraindications to study drugs, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status IV or higher, or preexisting distant metastasis or malignant tumor in other organs. At each study site, enrolled subjects will be randomly allocated into the TIVA and GAS groups with a 1:1 ratio. This pragmatic trial does not standardize any aspect of patient care. However, potential confounders will be balanced between the study arms. The primary outcome will be RFS. Secondary outcomes will be overall survival and complications within postoperative 7 days. Enrollment of 5384 patients will provide 80% power to detect a 3% treatment effect (hazard ratio of 0.83) at alpha 0.05 for RFS at 3 years. DISCUSSION Confirmation of the study hypothesis would demonstrate that a relatively minor and low-cost alteration in anesthetic management has the potential to reduce cancer recurrence risk in NSCLC, an ultimately fatal complication. Rejection of the hypothesis would end the ongoing debate about the relationship between cancer recurrence and anesthetic management. TRIAL REGISTRATION The study protocol was prospectively registered at the Clinical trials ( https://clinicaltrials.gov , NCT06330038, principal investigator: Hyun Joo Ahn; date of first public release: March 25, 2024) before the recruitment of the first participant.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeayoun Kim
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Susie Yoon
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - In-Kyung Song
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Laboratory for Cardiovascular Dynamics Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Kyuho Lee
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Wonjung Hwang
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Heezoo Kim
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Korea University Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Dong Kyu Lee
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Hyun Kyoung Lim
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inha University Hospital, Incheon, Republic of Korea
| | - Seong-Hyop Kim
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jong Wha Lee
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Ewha Womans University Medical Center, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Boohwi Hong
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
| | - Randal S Blank
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA
| | - Alessia Pedoto
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Wanda Popescu
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Glezinis Theresa
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, USA
| | | | - Mathew Patteril
- Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK
- Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK
| | | | - Yada Thongsuk
- Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Tanatporn Pisitpitayasaree
- Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Aijie Huang
- Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Yuhuangding Hospital Affiliated to Qingdao University, Shandong, China
| | - Hui Yu
- Department of Anesthesiology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Chinese Academy of Medical Science, Beijing, China
| | - Poonam Malhotra Kapoor
- Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
| | - Kyunga Kim
- Biomedical Statistics Center, Data Science Research Institute, Research Institute for Future Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Sang Ah Chi
- Biomedical Statistics Center, Data Science Research Institute, Research Institute for Future Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Hyun Joo Ahn
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zhang Y, Yu P, Bian L, Huang W, Li N, Ye F. Survival benefits of propofol-based versus inhalational anesthesia in non-metastatic breast cancer patients: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2024; 14:16354. [PMID: 39014134 PMCID: PMC11252424 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-67291-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2023] [Accepted: 07/09/2024] [Indexed: 07/18/2024] Open
Abstract
Whether the anesthesia technique, inhalational general anesthesia (IGA) or propofol-based anesthesia (PBA), influences the long-term survival of non-metastatic breast cancer (eBC) remain unclear and controversial. We carried out a literature search on 16thJuly, 2022 for studies comparing IGA and PBA in eBC undergoing standard surgery, according to PRISMA 2020. The major endpoint in our study was overall survival (OS). Seventeen studies including four randomized clinical trials and thirteen retrospective cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. Ten studies provided data for crude OS in unweighted eBC patients (imbalance in baseline characteristics). The summarized estimate HRs of the PBA group versus the IGA group (ten studies, N = 127,774, IGA group: 92,592, PBA group: 35,182.) was 0.83 (95%CI: 0.78-0.89). Compared with IGA, PBA was associated with both better 1-year OS (two studies, N = 104,083, IGA group: 84,074, PBA group: 20,009. Pooled HR = 0.80, 0.73-0.89) and 5-year OS (six studies, N = 121,580, IGA group: 89,472, PBA group: 32,108. HR = 0.80, 0.74-0.87). Ten studies applied PSM method to balance the baseline characteristics. In these weighted patients, PBA still showed a better OS (ten studies, N = 105,459, IGA group: 79,095, PBA group: 26,364. HR = 0.93, 0.87-1.00), a better 1-year OS (two studies, N = 83,007, IGA group: 67,609, PBA group: 15,398. HR = 0.88, 0.78-0.98) and a trend towards a better 5-year OS (nine studies, N = 121,580, IGA group: 76,797, PBA group: 24,066. HR = 0.95, 0.88-1.03). Loco-regional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) was also better in PBA group (HR = 0.73, 0.61-0.86). The present study is the first comprehensive meta-analysis to demonstrate that propofol-based anesthesia could significantly improve OS and LRRFS in non-metastatic breast cancer patients, compared with inhalational anesthesia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yingjun Zhang
- Department of Anesthesiology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cance, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Ping Yu
- Department of Anesthesiology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cance, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Lei Bian
- Department of Breast Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Wanwei Huang
- Department of Breast Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Na Li
- Department of Breast Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Feng Ye
- Department of Breast Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Enlund M, Hållberg H, Berglund A, Sherif A, Enlund A, Bergkvist L. Long-term Survival after Volatile or Propofol General Anesthesia for Bladder Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective National Registry Cohort Study. Anesthesiology 2024; 140:1126-1133. [PMID: 38466217 DOI: 10.1097/aln.0000000000004969] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/12/2024]
Abstract
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
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mats Enlund
- Center for Clinical Research Uppsala University, Västmanland Hospital, Västerås, Sweden; Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Västmanland Hospital, Västerås, Sweden; ESAIC Onco Anaesthesiology Research Group, EuroPeriscope, Brussels, Belgium
| | | | | | - Amir Sherif
- Umeå University, Umeå University Hospital, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Anna Enlund
- Center for Clinical Research Uppsala University, Västmanland Hospital, Västerås, Sweden
| | - Leif Bergkvist
- Center for Clinical Research Uppsala University, Västmanland Hospital, Västerås, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ahn HJ. Anesthesia and cancer recurrence: a narrative review. Anesth Pain Med (Seoul) 2024; 19:94-108. [PMID: 38725164 PMCID: PMC11089301 DOI: 10.17085/apm.24041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2024] [Revised: 04/24/2024] [Accepted: 04/24/2024] [Indexed: 05/15/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hyun Joo Ahn
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Enlund M, Berglund A, Enlund A, Lundberg J, Wärnberg F, Wang DX, Ekman A, Ahlstrand R, Flisberg P, Hedlund L, Östlund I, Bergkvist L. Impact of general anaesthesia on breast cancer survival: a 5-year follow up of a pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial, the CAN-study, comparing propofol and sevoflurane. EClinicalMedicine 2023; 60:102037. [PMID: 37333664 PMCID: PMC10276257 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Revised: 05/19/2023] [Accepted: 05/19/2023] [Indexed: 06/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Anaesthesia may impact long-term cancer survival. In the Cancer and Anaesthesia study, we hypothesised that the hypnotic drug propofol will have an advantage of at least five percentage points in five-year survival over the inhalational anaesthetic sevoflurane for breast cancer surgery. Methods From 2118 eligible breast cancer patients scheduled for primary curable, invasive breast cancer surgery, 1764 were recruited after ethical approval and individual informed consent to this open label, single-blind, randomised trial at four county- and three university hospitals in Sweden and one Chinese university hospital. Of surveyed patients, 354 were excluded, mainly due to refusal to participate. Patients were randomised by computer at the monitoring organisation to general anaesthesia maintenance with either intravenous propofol or inhaled sevoflurane in a 1:1 ratio in permuted blocks. Data related to anaesthesia, surgery, oncology, and demographics were registered. The primary endpoint was five-year overall survival. Data are presented as Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Hazard Ratios based on Cox univariable regression analyses by both intention-to-treat and per-protocol. EudraCT, 2013-002380-25 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01975064. Findings Of 1764 patients, included from December 3, 2013, to September 29, 2017, 1670 remained for analysis. The numbers who survived at least five years were 773/841 (91.9% (95% CI 90.1-93.8)) in the propofol group and 764/829 (92.2% (90.3-94.0)) in the sevoflurane group, (HR 1.03 (0.73-1.44); P = 0.875); the corresponding results in the per-protocol-analysis were: 733/798 (91.9% (90.0-93.8)) and 653/710 (92.0% (90.0-94.0)) (HR = 1.01 (0.71-1.44); P = 0.955). Survival after a median follow-up of 76.7 months did not indicate any difference between the groups (HR 0.97, 0.72-1.29; P = 0.829, log rank test). Interpretation No difference in overall survival was found between general anaesthesia with propofol or sevoflurane for breast cancer surgery. Funding Swedish Research Council; Uppsala-Örebro Regional Research Council; Västmanland Regional Research Fund; Västmanland Cancer Foundation; Stig and Ragna Gohrton Foundation; Birgit and Henry Knutsson Foundation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mats Enlund
- Centre for Clinical Research, Västmanland Hospital Västerås, University of Uppsala, Sweden
| | | | - Anna Enlund
- Centre for Clinical Research, Västmanland Hospital Västerås, University of Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Johan Lundberg
- Department of Perioperative and Intensive Care, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
| | - Fredrik Wärnberg
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
- Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Dong-Xin Wang
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Andreas Ekman
- Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Kalmar Hospital, Kalmar, Sweden
| | - Rebecca Ahlstrand
- Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden
| | - Per Flisberg
- Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Helsingborg Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden
| | - Lars Hedlund
- Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Skellefteå Hospital, Sweden
| | - Ingrid Östlund
- Department of Perioperative and Intensive Care, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
| | - Leif Bergkvist
- Centre for Clinical Research, Västmanland Hospital Västerås, University of Uppsala, Sweden
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Volatile versus propofol general anesthesia and long-term survival after breast cancer surgery: a national registry retrospective cohort study. Anesthesiology 2022; 137:315-326. [PMID: 35759394 DOI: 10.1097/aln.0000000000004309] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/01/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
7
|
Fang P, Zhou J, Xia Z, Lu Y, Liu X. Effects of Propofol Versus Sevoflurane on Postoperative Breast Cancer Prognosis: A Narrative Review. Front Oncol 2022; 11:793093. [PMID: 35127500 PMCID: PMC8811129 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.793093] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2021] [Accepted: 12/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Perioperative interventions produce substantial biologic perturbations which are associated with the risk of recurrence after cancer surgery. The changes of tumor microenvironment caused by anesthetic drugs received increasing attention. Till now, it’s still unclear whether or not anesthetic drugs may exert positive or negative impact on cancer outcomes after surgery. Breast cancer is the most common tumor and the leading cause of cancer deaths in women. Propofol and sevoflurane are respectively the most commonly used intravenous and inhaled anesthetics. Debates regarding which of the two most commonly used anesthetics may relatively contribute to the recurrence and metastasis vulnerability of breast cancer postoperatively remain. This review aimed to provide a comprehensive view about the effect of propofol versus sevoflurane on the prognosis of breast cancer obtained from pre-clinical studies and clinical studies. Laboratory and animal studies have demonstrated that sevoflurane may enhance the recurrence and metastasis of breast cancer, while propofol is more likely to reduce the activity of breast cancer cells by attenuating the suppression of the immune system, promoting tumor cells apoptosis, and through other direct anti-tumor effects. However, retrospective clinical studies have shown contradictory results about the effects of propofol and sevoflurane on long-term survival in breast cancer patients. Furthermore, recent prospective studies did not identify significant differences between propofol and sevoflurane in breast cancer metastasis and recurrence. Therefore, more preclinical studies and randomized controlled studies are needed to guide the choice of anesthetics for breast cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Panpan Fang
- Department of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China
| | - Jiaqi Zhou
- Department of Anesthesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Medical University, Zhanjiang, China
| | - Zhengyuan Xia
- Department of Anesthesiology, Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Medical University, Zhanjiang, China
- State Key Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Department of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
- *Correspondence: Yao Lu, ; Zhengyuan Xia,
| | - Yao Lu
- Department of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China
- *Correspondence: Yao Lu, ; Zhengyuan Xia,
| | - Xuesheng Liu
- Department of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Montejano J, Jevtovic-Todorovic V. Anesthesia and Cancer, Friend or Foe? A Narrative Review. Front Oncol 2022; 11:803266. [PMID: 35004329 PMCID: PMC8735748 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.803266] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2021] [Accepted: 12/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Cancer remains the leading cause of death worldwide with close to 10 million deaths reported annually. Due to growth of the advanced age cohort in our population, it is predicted that the number of new cancer cases diagnosed between now until 2035 is to reach potentially 24 million individuals, a staggering increase in a relatively short time period. For many solid tumors, surgical resection along with chemotherapy is the best available approach to a potential cure which leads to almost 80% of cancer patients undergoing at least one surgical procedure during the course of their disease. During surgical intervention, the exposure to general anesthesia can be lengthy, complex and often involves various modalities resulting in an important question as to the role, if any, anesthesia may play in primary recurrence or metastatic conversion. Many components of the stress and inflammatory responses exhibited in the perioperative period can contribute to cancer growth and invasion. The agents used to induce and maintain general anesthesia have variable interactions with the immune and neuroendocrine systems and can influence the stress response during surgery. Thus, debating the best type of anesthesia that would help to attenuate sympathetic and/or pro-inflammatory responses while modulating cytokine release and transcription factors/oncogenes remains at the forefront. This may affect inducible cancer cell survival and migratory abilities not only intra-operatively, but also during the immediate post-operative phase of recovery. The ultimate question becomes how and whether the choice of anesthesia may influence the outcomes of cancer surgery with two major approaches being considered, i.e., regional and general anesthesia as well as the various hypnotics, analgesics and sympatholytics commonly used. In this review, we will address the latest information as to the role that anesthesia may play during cancer surgery with specific focus on primary recurrence and metastasis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julio Montejano
- School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Zangrillo A, Lomivorotov VV, Pasyuga VV, Belletti A, Gazivoda G, Monaco F, Nigro Neto C, Likhvantsev VV, Bradic N, Lozovskiy A, Lei C, Bukamal NAR, Silva FS, Bautin AE, Ma J, Yong CY, Carollo C, Kunstyr J, Wang CY, Grigoryev EV, Riha H, Wang C, El-Tahan MR, Scandroglio AM, Mansor M, Lembo R, Ponomarev DN, Bezerra FJL, Ruggeri L, Chernyavskiy AM, Xu J, Tarasov DG, Navalesi P, Yavorovskiy A, Bove T, Kuzovlev A, Hajjar LA, Landoni G. Effect of Volatile Anesthetics on Myocardial Infarction After Coronary Artery Surgery: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Trial. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2022; 36:2454-2462. [PMID: 35168907 DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2022.01.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2021] [Revised: 12/08/2021] [Accepted: 01/02/2022] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alberto Zangrillo
- Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; School of Medicine, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Vladimir V Lomivorotov
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, E. Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, Novosibirsk, Russia; Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia
| | - Vadim V Pasyuga
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Federal Center for Cardiovascular Surgery Astrakhan, Astrakhan, Russia
| | - Alessandro Belletti
- Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Gordana Gazivoda
- Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Cardiovascular Institute Dedinje, Belgrade, Serbia
| | - Fabrizio Monaco
- Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Caetano Nigro Neto
- Anesthesia Section, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Dante Pazzanese Institute of Cardiology, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Valery V Likhvantsev
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia; V. Negovsky Reanimatology Research Institute, Moscow, Russia
| | - Nikola Bradic
- Department of Cardiovascular Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Clinical Department of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Dubrava, Zagreb, Croatia; Department of Biomedical Sciences, University North, Varazdin, Croatia
| | - Andrey Lozovskiy
- Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Ural Institute of Cardiology, Ekaterinburg, Russia
| | - Chong Lei
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Xijing Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Nazar A R Bukamal
- Cardiothoracic ICU and Anesthesia Department, Mohammed Bin Khalifa Cardiac Center, Riffa, Bahrain
| | | | - Andrey E Bautin
- Laboratory for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Almazov National Medical Research Center, Saint Petersburg, Russia
| | - Jun Ma
- Center for Anesthesiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Chow Yen Yong
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Hospital Pulau Pinang, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
| | - Cristiana Carollo
- Institute of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy
| | - Jan Kunstyr
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, First Faculty of Medicine Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Chew Yin Wang
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Evgeny V Grigoryev
- Intensive Care Unit, Scientific Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases, Kemerovo, Russia
| | - Hynek Riha
- Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Chengbin Wang
- Center for Anesthesiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Mohamed R El-Tahan
- Department of Anesthesiology, College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
| | - Anna Mara Scandroglio
- Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Marzida Mansor
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Rosalba Lembo
- Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Dmitry N Ponomarev
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, E. Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, Novosibirsk, Russia
| | - Francisco José Lucena Bezerra
- Anesthesia Section, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Dante Pazzanese Institute of Cardiology, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Laura Ruggeri
- Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Alexander M Chernyavskiy
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, E. Meshalkin National Medical Research Center, Novosibirsk, Russia
| | - Junmei Xu
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, China
| | - Dmitry G Tarasov
- Department of Cardiac Surgery, Federal Center for Cardiovascular Surgery Astrakhan, Astrakhan, Russian Federation
| | - Paolo Navalesi
- Institute of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy; Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Andrey Yavorovskiy
- Federal Research and Clinical Center of Resuscitation and Rehabilitation, Moscow, Russia
| | - Tiziana Bove
- Department of Medicine (DAME), University of Udine, Udine, Italy; Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, ASUFC University-Hospital of Central Friuli, Udine, Italy
| | - Artem Kuzovlev
- V. Negovsky Reanimatology Research Institute, Moscow, Russia
| | - Ludhmila A Hajjar
- Department of Cardiopneumology, Instituto do Coração, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Intensive Care Unit, Hospital SirioLibanes, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Giovanni Landoni
- Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; School of Medicine, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Huang YH, Wu ZF, Lee MS, Lou YS, Wu KL, Cheng KI, Lai HC. Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia is associated with better survival than desflurane anesthesia in glioblastoma surgery. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0255627. [PMID: 34351978 PMCID: PMC8341516 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255627] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2021] [Accepted: 07/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yi-Hsuan Huang
- Department of Anesthesiology, Tri-Service General Hospital and National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
| | - Zhi-Fu Wu
- Department of Anesthesiology, Tri-Service General Hospital and National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.,Department of Anesthesiology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China.,Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China
| | - Meei-Shyuan Lee
- School of Public Health, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
| | - Yu-Sheng Lou
- Graduate Institutes of Life Sciences, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
| | - Ke-Li Wu
- Postgraduate Year of Medicine Residency Training, Tri-Service General Hospital and National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
| | - Kuang-I Cheng
- Department of Anesthesiology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China
| | - Hou-Chuan Lai
- Department of Anesthesiology, Tri-Service General Hospital and National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Is It Definitely Clear That Long-Term Survival after Breast Cancer Surgery Is Not Affected by Anaesthetics? Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13143390. [PMID: 34298606 PMCID: PMC8307537 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13143390] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2021] [Revised: 06/08/2021] [Accepted: 06/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
12
|
Enlund M, Berglund A, Ahlstrand R, Walldén J, Lundberg J, Wärnberg F, Ekman A, Sjöblom Widfeldt N, Enlund A, Bergkvist L. Survival after primary breast cancer surgery following propofol or sevoflurane general anesthesia-A retrospective, multicenter, database analysis of 6305 Swedish patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2020; 64:1048-1054. [PMID: 32415980 DOI: 10.1111/aas.13644] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2020] [Revised: 04/28/2020] [Accepted: 05/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Retrospective studies indicate that the choice of anesthetic can affect long-term cancer survival. Propofol seems to have an advantage over sevoflurane. However, this is questioned for breast cancer. We gathered a large cohort of breast cancer surgery patients from seven Swedish hospitals and hypothesized that general anesthesia with propofol would be superior to sevoflurane anesthesia regarding long-term breast cancer survival. METHODS We identified all patients who were anaesthetized for breast cancer surgery between 2006 and 2012. The patients were matched to the Swedish Breast Cancer Quality Register, to retrieve tumor characteristics, prognostic factors, and adjuvant treatment as well as date of death. Overall survival between patients undergoing sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia was analyzed with different statistical approaches: (a) multiple Cox regression models adjusted for demographic, oncological, and multiple control variables, (b) propensity score matching on the same variables, but also including the participating centers as a cofactor in a separate analysis. RESULTS The database analysis identified 6305 patients. The 5-year survival rates were 91.0% and 81.8% for the propofol and sevoflurane group, respectively, in the final model (P = .126). Depending on the statistical adjustment method used, different results were obtained, from a non-significant to a "proposed" and even a "determined" difference in survival that favored propofol, with a maximum of 9.2 percentage points higher survival rate at 5 years (hazard ratio 1.46, 95% CI 1.10-1.95). CONCLUSIONS It seems that propofol may have a survival advantage compared with sevoflurane among breast cancer patients, but the inherent weaknesses of retrospective analyses were made apparent.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mats Enlund
- Center for Clinical Research Västmanland Hospital Uppsala University Västerås Sweden
| | | | - Rebecca Ahlstrand
- Department of Anesthesia & Intensive Care University Hospital Örebro Sweden
| | - Jakob Walldén
- Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (Sundsvall) Umeå University Sundsvall Sweden
| | - Johan Lundberg
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Lund University Lund Sweden
- Skane University Hospital Lund Sweden
| | - Fredrik Wärnberg
- Department of Surgical Sciences Uppsala University Uppsala Sweden
| | | | | | - Anna Enlund
- Center for Clinical Research Västmanland Hospital Uppsala University Västerås Sweden
- Department of Surgical Sciences Uppsala University Uppsala Sweden
| | - Leif Bergkvist
- Center for Clinical Research Västmanland Hospital Uppsala University Västerås Sweden
| |
Collapse
|