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

Anesthetic Approaches and Their Impact on Cancer Recurrence and Metastasis: A Comprehensive Review

Cancer recurrence and metastasis remain critical challenges following surgical resection, influenced by complex perioperative mechanisms. This review explores how surgical stress triggers systemic changes, such as neuroendocrine responses, immune suppression, and inflammation, which promote the dissemination of residual cancer cells and circulating tumor cells. Key mechanisms, such as epithelial-mesenchymal transition and angiogenesis, further enhance metastasis, while hypoxia-inducible factors and inflammatory responses create a microenvironment conducive to tumor progression. Anesthetic agents and techniques modulate these mechanisms in distinct ways. Inhaled anesthetics, such as sevoflurane, may suppress immune function by increasing catecholamines and cytokines, thereby promoting cancer progression. In contrast, propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia mitigates stress responses and preserves natural killer cell activity, supporting immune function. Opioids suppress immune surveillance and promote angiogenesis through the activation of the mu-opioid receptor. Opioid-sparing strategies using NSAIDs show potential in preserving immune function and reducing recurrence risk. Regional anesthesia offers benefits by reducing systemic stress and immune suppression, though the clinical outcomes remain inconsistent. Additionally, dexmedetomidine and ketamine exhibit dual effects, both enhancing and inhibiting tumor progression depending on the dosage and context. This review emphasizes the importance of individualized anesthetic strategies to optimize long-term cancer outcomes. While retrospective studies suggest potential benefits of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia and regional anesthesia, further large-scale trials are essential to establish the definitive role of anesthetic management in cancer recurrence and survival.

Survival benefits of propofol-based versus inhalational anesthesia in non-metastatic breast cancer patients: a comprehensive meta-analysis

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.

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.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

Propofol-based intravenous anesthesia is associated with improved survival outcomes after major cancer surgery: a nationwide cohort study in South Korea

BACKGROUND

The optimal anesthetic technique for cancer surgery remains a controversial issue. This study aimed to examine whether propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) was associated with survival outcomes after major cancer surgery in South Korea and compare its effectiveness with that of inhalation anesthesia.

METHODS

This nationwide population-based cohort study included adult patients who were admitted to the hospital and underwent major cancer surgery between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020. The major cancers included lung, gastric, colorectal, esophageal, small bowel, liver, pancreatic, and bile duct or gallbladder cancers.

RESULTS

A total of 253,003 patients who underwent major cancer surgery were included in the analysis. After propensity score (PS) matching, 115,370 patients (57,685 in each group) were included in the final analysis. In the PS-matched cohort, the TIVA group showed 9% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.91, 95% CI [0.85, 0.98], P = 0.018) and 7% (HR: 0.93, 95% CI [0.89, 0.96], P < 0.001) lower 90-day and one-year mortality rates, respectively, than the inhalation group. In subgroup analyses, the TIVA group showed lower 90-day mortality than the inhalation group in the gastric (HR: 0.86, 95% CI [0.72, 0.97], P = 0.033), colorectal (HR: 0.64, 95% CI [0.56, 0.73], P < 0.001), and pancreatic (HR: 0.76, 95% CI [0.57, 0.94], P = 0.038) cancer surgery groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol-based TIVA is associated with better survival outcomes after major cancer surgeries. Moreover, propofol-based TIVA was beneficial in patients who underwent gastric, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer surgeries.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Findings

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

Interpretation

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

Funding

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

The Potential Effect of General Anesthetics in Cancer Surgery: Meta-Analysis of Postoperative Metastasis and Inflammatory Cytokines

Metastasis or recurrence following curative surgery is the main indicator of tumor progress and is the main cause of patient death. For more than three decades, the potential for general anesthesia to affect cancer outcomes has been a subject of concern with considerable research interest. Here, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the effect of inhalational anesthesia (IHNA) vs. propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) on metastasis and recurrence after cancer surgery from clinical and pre-clinical studies. The relative risk for metastasis/recurrence in TIVA is 0.61 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.46 to 0.82, p = 0.0009) compared to IHNA. Inflammatory cytokines have been implicated in cancer metastasis following cancer surgery, thus we analyzed inflammatory cytokines levels after surgery under IHNA or TIVA. Based on pooled analysis, a lower IL-6 level was noticed in TIVA in comparison to IHNA (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.097 to 1.44, I2 = 92%, p = 0.02) but not TNF-α or IL-10. Preclinical animal model studies show that inhalational anesthetics increase the risk of breast cancer metastasis compared to propofol. In conclusion, the current evidence suggests intravenous anesthetic propofol is associated with less metastasis/recurrence and lower postoperative IL-6 level over inhaled anesthetics in the oncological surgery. We urge more well-designed clinical and preclinical studies in this field.

An intravenous anesthetic drug-propofol, influences the biological characteristics of malignant tumors and reshapes the tumor microenvironment: A narrative literature review

Malignant tumors are the second leading cause of death worldwide. This is a public health concern that negatively impacts human health and poses a threat to the safety of life. Although there are several treatment approaches for malignant tumors, surgical resection remains the primary and direct treatment for malignant solid tumors. Anesthesia is an integral part of the operation process. Different anesthesia techniques and drugs have different effects on the operation and the postoperative prognosis. Propofol is an intravenous anesthetic that is commonly used in surgery. A substantial number of studies have shown that propofol participates in the pathophysiological process related to malignant tumors and affects the occurrence and development of malignant tumors, including anti-tumor effect, pro-tumor effect, and regulation of drug resistance. Propofol can also reshape the tumor microenvironment, including anti-angiogenesis, regulation of immunity, reduction of inflammation and remodeling of the extracellular matrix. Furthermore, most clinical studies have also indicated that propofol may contribute to a better postoperative outcome in some malignant tumor surgeries. Therefore, the author reviewed the chemical properties, pharmacokinetics, clinical application and limitations, mechanism of influencing the biological characteristics of malignant tumors and reshaping the tumor microenvironment, studies of propofol in animal tumor models and its relationship with postoperative prognosis of propofol in combination with the relevant literature in recent years, to lay a foundation for further study on the correlation between propofol and malignant tumor and provide theoretical guidance for the selection of anesthetics in malignant tumor surgery.

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.

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.

Clinical Value of Total Intravenous Anesthesia with Sufentanil and Propofol in Radical Mastectomy

Objective

To investigate the clinical value of sufentanil combined with propofol for total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) in radical mastectomy.

Methods

The data of 120 patients undergoing radical mastectomy of breast cancer in our hospital from February 2020 to February 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, and they were randomly assigned to the experimental group (EXG) (n = 60) and the control group (COG) (n = 60). The anesthesia maintenance scheme was 0.01–0.03 μg/(kg·min) of sufentanil + 80–100 μg/(kg·min) of propofol in EXG and 3 μg/(kg·h) of fentanyl + 80–100 μg/(kg·min) of propofol in COG. The hemodynamic indices, stress indexes, postoperative pain scores, and incidence of adverse reactions were compared between EXG and COG.

Results

The heart rates (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) after tracheal intubation (T₂) and at separation of deep tissues (T₃), tracheal extubation (T₄), and the end of surgery (T₅) were markedly lower in EXG than in COG (P < 0.001). The stress indexes and postoperative pain scores at 1 h (T₆), 6 h (T₇), and 12 h (T₈) after surgery were lower in EXG than in COG (P < 0.001). The incidence of dizziness, headache, pruritus, and emergence agitation in EXG was lower compared with that in COG (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Sufentanil combined with propofol for TIVA can stabilize intraoperative hemodynamic indices of patients undergoing radical mastectomy, alleviate perioperative stress response, and reduce pain perception. Therefore, this anesthesia method is safe and merits clinical promotion.

Effect of Different General Anesthesia Methods on the Prognosis of Patients with Breast Cancer after Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

The effect of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and inhalation anesthesia (IA) on the prognosis of breast cancer patients has been controversial. The study is aimed at exploring the effects of different anesthesia methods on the postoperative prognosis of breast cancer patients.

Methods

Literature retrieval was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CNKI databases. The literature topic was to compare the effects of TIVA and IA on the prognosis of patients undergoing breast cancer resection. Two researchers extracted data from the literature independently. This study included randomized controlled trials that evaluated for risk of bias according to the “Risk assessment Tool for Bias in Randomized Trials” in the Cochrane Manual. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in observational studies. The chi-square test was used for the heterogeneity test. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. If heterogeneity existed between literature, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were used to explore the source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding low-quality and different-effect models. Data were statistically analyzed using the Cochrane software RevMan 5.3. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for statistical description.

Results

Seven literatures were selected for meta-analysis. There were 9781 patients, 3736 (38.20%) receiving TIVA and 6045 (61.80%) receiving inhalation anesthesia. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between TIVA and IA breast cancer patients (HR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.91, 1.22), Z = 0.70, P = 0.49). There was no difference in the literature (χ² = 6.82, P = 0.34, I² = 12%), and there was no obvious publication bias. There was no significant difference in recurrence-free survival (RFS) between TIVA and IA patients (HR = 0.95, 95% CI (0.79, 1.13), Z = 0.61, P = 0.54). There was no heterogeneity in the literature (χ² = 5.23, P = 0.52, I² = 0%), and there was no significant publication bias.

Conclusion

There is no significant difference in OS and RFS between TIVA and IA patients during breast cancer resection. The prognostic effects of TIVA and IA were similar.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

Application of Anesthetics in Cancer Patients: Reviewing Current Existing Link With Tumor Recurrence

Surgery remains the most effective cancer treatment, but residual disease in the form of scattered micro-metastases and tumor cells is usually unavoidable. Whether minimal residual disease results in clinical metastases is a function of host defense and tumor survival and growth. The much interesting intersection of anesthesiology and immunology has drawn increasing clinical interest, particularly, the existing concern of the possibility that the perioperative and intraoperative anesthetic care of the surgical oncology patient could meaningfully influence tumor recurrence. This paper examines current data, including recent large clinical trials to determine whether the current level of evidence warrants a change in practice. Available pieces of evidence from clinical studies are particularly limited, largely retrospective, smaller sample size, and often contradictory, causing several questions and providing few answers. Recent randomized controlled clinical trials, including the largest study (NCT00418457), report no difference in cancer recurrence between regional and general anesthesia after potentially curative surgery. Until further evidence strongly implicates anesthesia in future clinical trials, clinicians may continue to choose the optimum anesthetic-analgesic agents and techniques in consultation with their cancer patients, based on their expertise and current best practice.

Antitumorigenic Effect of Tramadol and Synergistic Effect With Doxorubicin in Human Breast Cancer Cells

Background

Breast cancer in women is one of the leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide, and curative therapy is the main focus of clinical treatment. Anesthetic-analgesic techniques might alter stress responses and immunity and thereby influence outcomes in cancer patients. This study investigated the effect of tramadol on breast cancer progression and metastasis.

Methods

The effects of tramadol on two different subtypes of human breast adenocarcinoma cell lines, MDA-MB-231 and MCF-7, were studied with regard to cell growth, migration, colony formation and invasion and normoxic or hypoxic microenvironment for the expression of hypoxia-inducible factor-1α, reactive oxygen species, epithelial-mesenchymal transition related and cyclin-related proteins. The co-administration of tramadol and doxorubicin was studied to determine whether the effective doxorubicin dose might be reduced in combination with tramadol.

Results

The results showed that tramadol inhibited cell growth at concentrations more than 0.5 and more than 1.0 mg/mL in MDA-MB-231 and MCF-7 cells, respectively. Additionally, cell migration, colony formation and invasion were inhibited in a dose-dependent manner by tramadol in both cell lines. The combination of tramadol and doxorubicin induced synergistic effects in MDA-MD-231 cells and, with specific dosage combinations in MCF-7 cells.

Conclusions

Tramadol may regulate epithelial-mesenchymal transition and possess cytotoxic effects in breast cancer cells. Tramadol inhibits the progression of breast cancer cells and might be a candidate for combination therapy, especially for triple-negative breast cancer, and is a promising treatment strategy for breast cancer.

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

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

Effect of Inhalation Anesthetics on Tumor Metastasis

Many factors affect the prognosis of patients undergoing tumor surgery, and anesthesia is one of the potential influencing factors. In general anesthesia, inhalation anesthesia is widely used in the clinic because of its strong curative effect and high controllability. However, the effect of inhalation anesthetics on the tumor is still controversial. More and more research has proved that inhalation anesthetics can intervene in local recurrence and distant metastasis of tumor by acting on tumor biological behavior, immune response, and gene regulation. In this paper, we reviewed the research progress of diverse inhalation anesthetics promoting or inhibiting cancer in the critical events of tumor recurrence and metastasis, and compared the effects of inhalation anesthetics on patients' prognosis in clinical studies, to provide theoretical reference for anesthesia management of patients undergoing tumor surgery.

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.

The long-term survival outcomes of gastric cancer patients with total intravenous anesthesia or inhalation anesthesia: a single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The relationship between the type of anesthesia and the survival outcomes of gastric cancer patients is uncertain. This study compared the overall outcome of gastric cancer patients after surgery with total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or inhalation anesthesia (IHA).

METHODS

Clinicopathological variables of gastric cancer patients were retrieved from the database of the Surgical Gastric Cancer Patient Registry in West China Hospital, Sichuan University. Patients were grouped according to whether they received TIVA or IHA during the operation. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to balance the baseline variables, and survival outcomes were compared between these two groups. In addition, studies comparing survival outcomes between TIVA and IHA used for gastric cancer surgery and published before April 20th, 2020, were identified, and their data were pooled.

RESULTS

A total of 2827 patients who underwent surgical treatment from Jan 2009 to Dec 2016 were included. There were 323 patients in the TIVA group and 645 patients in the IHA group, with 1:2 PS matching. There was no significant difference in overall survival outcomes between the TIVA and IHA groups before matching the cohort (p = 0.566) or after matching the cohort (p = 0.679) by log-rank tests. In the Cox hazard regression model, there was no significant difference between the TIVA and IHA groups before (HR: 1.054, 95% CI: 0.881-1.262, p = 0.566) or after (HR: 0.957, 95% CI: 0.779-1.177, p = 0.679) PS matching. The meta-analysis of survival outcomes between the TIVA and IHA groups found critical statistical value in the before PS matching cohort (HR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57-0.96 p < 0.01) and after PS matching cohort (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.46-0.94, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined with the results of previous studies, total intravenous anesthesia has been shown to be superior to inhalation anesthesia in terms of overall survival for gastric cancer patients undergoing surgical treatment. The selection of intravenous or inhalation anesthesia for gastric cancer surgery should take into account the long-term prognosis of the patient.

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.

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.

Oxygen sensing, anaesthesia and critical care: a narrative review

In 2019, the scientists who discovered how cells sense and adapt to oxygen availability were awarded the Nobel Prize. This elegant sensing pathway is conserved throughout evolution, and it underpins the physiology and pathology that we, as clinicians in anaesthesia and critical care, encounter on a daily basis. The purpose of this review is to bring hypoxia-inducible factor, and the oxygen-sensing pathway as a whole, to the wider clinical community. We describe how this unifying mechanism was discovered, and how it orchestrates diverse changes such as erythropoiesis, ventilatory acclimatisation, pulmonary vascular remodelling and altered metabolism. We explore the lessons learnt from genetic disorders of oxygen sensing, and the wider implications in evolution of all animal species, including our own. Finally, we explain how this pathway is relevant to our clinical practice, and how it is being manipulated in new treatments for conditions such as cancer, anaemia and pulmonary hypertension.

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

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

The Prognostic Value of Long Non-Coding RNA SNHG7 in Human Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The long non-coding RNA SNHG7 is upregulated in many types of cancer and plays a role as an oncogene. However, its overall predictive ability in human cancer prognosis has not been assessed using existing databases. Therefore, further study of its prognostic value and clinical significance in human malignancies is warranted.

METHODS

We systematically collected relevant literature from multiple electronic document databases about the relationship between SNHG7 expression level and prognosis in patients with solid cancers. We further screened them for eligibility. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the prognostic value. Odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% CIs were collected to evaluate the relationship between the expression of SNHG7 and clinicopathological features, including lymph node metastasis (LNM), tumour size, tumour node metastasis (TNM) stage and histological grade.

RESULTS

Fourteen original studies involving 971 patients were enrolled strictly following the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that SNHG7 expression was significantly correlated with poor overall survival (HR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.64-2.26, p<0.001) in human cancer patients. In addition, the pooled OR indicated that overexpression of SNHG7 was associated with earlier LNM (OR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.44-2.32; P <0.001), and advanced TNM stage (OR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.44-2.30; P <0.001).Meanwhile, there was no significant heterogeneity between the selected studies, proving the reliability of the meta-analysis results.

CONCLUSIONS

High SNHG7 expression may predict poor oncological outcomes in patients with multiple human cancers, which could be a novel prognostic biomarker of unfulfilled clinicopathological features. However, further high-quality studies are needed to verify and strengthen the clinical value of SNHG7 in different types of cancer.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Breast Cancer and Anaesthesia: Genetic Influence

Breast cancer is the leading cause of mortality in women. It is a heterogeneous disease with a high degree of inter-subject variability even in patients with the same type of tumor, with individualized medicine having acquired significant relevance in this field. The clinical and morphological heterogeneity of the different types of breast tumors has led to a diversity of staging and classification systems. Thus, these tumors show wide variability in genetic expression and prognostic biomarkers. Surgical treatment is essential in the management of these patients. However, the perioperative period has been found to significantly influence survival and cancer recurrence. There is growing interest in the pro-tumoral effect of different anaesthetic and analgesic agents used intraoperatively and their relationship with metastatic progression. There is cumulative evidence of the influence of anaesthetic techniques on the physiopathological mechanisms of survival and growth of the residual neoplastic cells released during surgery. Prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to obtain quality evidence on the relationship between cancer and anaesthesia. This document summarizes the evidence currently available about the effects of the anaesthetic agents and techniques used in primary cancer surgery and long-term oncologic outcomes, and the biomolecular mechanisms involved in their interaction.

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.

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.

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.

Critically ill patients with cancer: A clinical perspective

Cancer patients account for 15% of all admissions to intensive care unit (ICU) and 5% will experience a critical illness resulting in ICU admission. Mortality rates have decreased during the last decades because of new anticancer therapies and advanced organ support methods. Since early critical care and organ support is associated with improved survival, timely identification of the onset of clinical signs indicating critical illness is crucial to avoid delaying. This article focused on relevant and current information on epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of the main clinical disorders experienced by critically ill cancer patients.

Survival after primary breast cancer surgery following propofol or sevoflurane general anesthesia-A retrospective, multicenter, database analysis of 6305 Swedish patients

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.

Effects of Anesthesia on Postoperative Recurrence and Metastasis of Malignant Tumors

It is difficult to control the recurrence and metastasis of malignant tumors; furthermore, anesthesia is considered one of the main influencing factors. There has been increasing clinical attention on the effects of anesthetic drugs and methods on postoperative tumor growth and metastasis. We reviewed the effects of anesthesia on tumor recurrence and metastasis; specifically, the effects of anesthetic agents, anesthesia methods, and related factors during the perioperative period on the tumor growth and metastasis were analyzed. This study can provide reference standards for rational anesthesia formulations and cancer-related pain analgesia protocols for surgical procedures in patients with malignant tumors. Moreover, it contributes toward an experimental basis for the improvement and development of novel anesthetic agents and methods.

Propofol‑induced miR‑125a‑5p inhibits the proliferation and metastasis of ovarian cancer by suppressing LIN28B

Propofol, a commonly used intravenous anesthetic agent during surgery, has relatively widespread pharmacological actions. Previous studies have reported that propofol may act as an antitumor drug in several cancer types, such as pancreatic cancer, lung cancer and gastric cancer. However, the underlying mechanism in ovarian cancer remain unknown. Therefore, the present study investigated the pharmacological effect of propofol on microRNAs (miRNAs) in ovarian cancer treatment. Propofol (1, 5 or 10 µg/ml) was used to treat A2780 and SKOV3 ovarian cancer cells for 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 days. The MTT assay was used to detect cell viability, while wound healing and Transwell assays were utilized to assess the invasive and migratory abilities. The bioinformatics prediction approach identified differentially expressed miRNAs (miRs) that were used in Gene Ontology, Gene Set Enrichment Analysis and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes analyses. The expression levels of miR‑125a‑5p and lin‑28 homolog B (LIN28B) were evaluated by reverse transcription‑quantitative PCR (RT‑qPCR). A luciferase assay was performed to identify the relationship between miR‑125a‑5p and LIN28B. Western blotting was conducted to measure the protein expression of LIN28B. It was demonstrated that propofol significantly upregulated miR‑125a‑5p to exert its antitumor activity. RT‑qPCR results suggested that propofol could upregulate miR‑125a‑5p and LIN28B expression levels in ovarian cancer cell lines. Western blot analysis also indicated that propofol could enhance the expression of LIN28B in ovarian cancer cell lines. The luciferase assay identified that miR‑125a‑5p could directly inhibit the expression of LIN28B to suppress proliferation and metastasis in ovarian cancer. In conclusion, these results suggested that propofol inhibited ovarian cancer proliferation and metastasis by enhancing miR‑125a‑5p, which targets LIN28B.

Effects of propofol on the development of cancer in humans

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

Anesthetic propofol epigenetically regulates breast cancer trastuzumab resistance through IL-6/miR-149-5p axis

Propofol, a common intravenous anesthetic, has been found to exert anti-cancer effects with inhibition of cancer cell proliferation, migration and invasion. We tested its possible action against HER2-overexpressing breast cancer cells that developed resistance against trastuzumab. Cell viability assay, ELISA for cytokines, mammosphere formation, quantitative RT-PCR for EMT/IL-6-targeting miRNAs and the in vivo experimental pulmonary metastasis model were performed to understand the epigenetic action of propofol. Propofol sensitized HER2 overexpressing cells to trastuzumab but such action was even more pronounced in resistant cells. Increased cytokines IL-6 as well as IL-8 were released by resistant cells, along with increased mammospheres and induction of EMT, all of which was inhibited by propofol. IL-6 targeting tumor suppressor miR-149-5p was found to be the novel miRNA that was up-regulated by propofol, resulting in the observed effects on cell viability, IL-6 production, mammospheres generation as well as EMT induction. Further, antagonizing miR-149-5p attenuated the propofol effects confirming the epigenetic activity of propofol through miR-149-5p regulation. Finally, in vivo validation in an experimental metastasis model conformed an inhibitory action of propofol against experimental lung metastasis and the essential mechanistic role of miR-149-5p/IL-6 loop. These results present a novel role of general anesthetic propofol against resistant breast cancer cells and the underlying epigenetic regulation of a tumor suppressor miRNA.

Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia is associated with better survival than desflurane anesthesia in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Background

Previous researches have shown that anesthetic techniques may influence the patients’ outcomes after cancer surgery. Here, we studied the relationship between the type of anesthetic techniques and patients’ outcomes following elective robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who received elective, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy between January 2008 and December 2018. Patients were grouped according to the anesthesia they received, namely 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. Subgroup analyses were performed for tumor-node-metastasis stage and disease progression. The primary outcome was overall survival, and the secondary outcome was postoperative biochemical recurrence.

Results

A total of 365 patients (24 deaths, 7.0%) under desflurane anesthesia, and 266 patients (2 deaths, 1.0%) under propofol anesthesia were included. The all-cause mortality rate was significantly lower in the propofol anesthesia than in the desflurane anesthesia during follow-up (P = 0.001). Two hundred sixty-four patients remained in each group after propensity matching. The propofol anesthesia was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.03–0.48; P = 0.003) in the matched analysis. Subgroup analyses showed that patients under propofol anesthesia had less postoperative biochemical recurrence than those under desflurane (hazard ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.05–0.91; P = 0.038) in the matched analysis.

Conclusions

Propofol anesthesia was associated with improved overall survival in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with desflurane anesthesia. In addition, patients under propofol anesthesia had less postoperative biochemical recurrence.

Propofol-based intravenous anesthesia is associated with better survival than desflurane anesthesia in pancreatic cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Previous researches have shown that anesthetic techniques can influence the patient outcomes of cancer surgery. Here, we studied the relationship between type of anesthetic and patient outcomes following elective, open pancreatic cancer surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who received elective, open pancreatic cancer surgery between January 2005 and July 2018. Patients were grouped according to the anesthesia they received, namely 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. Subgroup analyses were performed for all-cause mortality, cancer-specific mortality, and disease progression.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients (56 deaths, 82.0%) under desflurane anesthesia, and 72 patients (43 deaths, 60.0%) under propofol anesthesia were included. Fifty-eight patients remained in each group after propensity matching. The propofol anesthesia was associated with improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.99; P = 0.047) in the matched analysis. Subgroup analyses showed significantly better cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.97; P = 0.037) in the propofol group. Additionally, patients under propofol had less postoperative recurrence, but not fewer postoperative metastases formation, than those under desflurane (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.90; P = 0.028) in the matched analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In a limited sample size, we observed that propofol anesthesia was associated with improved survival in open pancreatic cancer surgery compared with desflurane anesthesia. Further investigations are needed to inspect the influences of propofol anesthesia on patient outcomes of pancreatic cancer surgery.