Systematic review and consensus definitions for standardised endpoints in perioperative medicine: postoperative cancer outcomes

Impact of spinal or epidural anaesthesia on perioperative outcomes in adult noncardiac surgery: a narrative review of recent evidence

Spinal and epidural anaesthesia and analgesia are important anaesthetic techniques, familiar to all anaesthetists and applied to patients undergoing a range of surgical procedures. Although the immediate effects of a well-conducted neuraxial technique on nociceptive and sympathetic pathways are readily observable in clinical practice, the impact of such techniques on patient-centred perioperative outcomes remains an area of uncertainty and active research. The aim of this review is to present a narrative synthesis of contemporary clinical science on this topic from the most recent 5-year period and summarise the foundational scholarship upon which this research was based. We searched electronic databases for primary research, secondary research, opinion pieces, and guidelines reporting the relationship between neuraxial procedures and standardised perioperative outcomes over the period 2018-2023. Returned citation lists were examined seeking additional studies to contextualise our narrative synthesis of results. Articles were retrieved encompassing the following outcome domains: patient comfort, renal, sepsis and infection, postoperative cancer, cardiovascular, and pulmonary and mortality outcomes. Convincing evidence of the beneficial effect of epidural analgesia on patient comfort after major open thoracoabdominal surgery outcomes was identified. Recent evidence of benefit in the prevention of pulmonary complications and mortality was identified. Despite mechanistic plausibility and supportive observational evidence, there is less certain experimental evidence to support a role for neuraxial techniques impacting on other outcome domains. Evidence of positive impact of neuraxial techniques is best established for the domains of patient comfort, pulmonary complications, and mortality, particularly in the setting of major open thoracoabdominal surgery. Recent evidence does not strongly support a significant impact of neuraxial techniques on cancer, renal, infection, or cardiovascular outcomes after noncardiac surgery in most patient groups.

A mixed methods study protocol to identify research priorities for perioperative medicine in Australia

Background

Clinical research in perioperative medicine requires the perspectives of patients and caregivers to increase its relevance and quality, benefiting both researchers and the community. Identifying these priorities will enable researchers, funders, and governing bodies to efficiently use scarce funding and resources. We aim to identify the top 10 research priorities in perioperative medical research in Australia.

Methods

A mixed-methods, exploratory-sequential design will be conducted. The study will include five phases. Initially, a published open-ended survey gathered responses from the population (researchers, healthcare workers, and consumers) regarding uncertainties/questions relevant to the population about perioperative medical research. We collected 544 questions and quantitatively analysed and grouped them according to the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine-Core Outcomes Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC) endpoints. Using multicriteria decision-making software, workshops combining the population will be conducted to determine the top 10 priorities for perioperative medicine research for the Australian population.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from the Alfred Health (Australia) Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: 171/19). The findings will be disseminated in peer review publications, conferences, and dissemination across perioperative research networks. The top 10 priorities will be available to inform research funders, grant submissions, guidelines, and the population.

Days alive and out of hospital after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery wedge resection in the era of enhanced recovery

BACKGROUND

Days alive and out of hospital is proposed as a valid and patient-centred quality measure for perioperative care. However, no procedure-specific data exist after pulmonary wedge resection. The aim of this study was to assess the first 90 days alive and out of hospital after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery wedge resection in an optimized enhanced recovery programme.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients undergoing enhanced recovery thoracoscopic wedge resections from January 2021 to June 2022 in a high-volume centre was carried out. All factors leading to hospitalization, readmission, and death were evaluated individually. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate predictors. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 433 patients were included (21.7% (n = 94) with non-small cell lung cancer, 47.6% (n = 206) with metastasis, 26.8% (n = 116) with benign nodules, and 3.9% (n = 17) with other lung cancers). The median duration of hospital stay was 1 day. The median of postoperative 30 and 90 days alive and out of hospital was 28 and 88 days respectively. Air leak (112 patients) and pain (96 patients) were the most frequent reasons for reduced days alive and out of hospital from postoperative day 1 to 30, whereas treatment of the original cancer or metastasis (36 patients) was the most frequent reason for reduced days alive and out of hospital from postoperative day 31 to 90. Male sex, reduced lung function, longer dimension of resection margin, pleural adhesions, and non-small cell lung cancer were independent risks, confirmed by a sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

Days alive and out of hospital within 90 days after enhanced recovery thoracoscopic wedge resection was only reduced by a median of 2 days, mainly due to air leak and pain.

Anaesthetic Techniques and Strategies: Do They Influence Oncological Outcomes?

BACKGROUND

With the global disease burden of cancer increasing, and with at least 60% of cancer patients requiring surgery and, hence, anaesthesia over their disease course, the question of whether anaesthetic and analgesia techniques during primary cancer resection surgery might influence long term oncological outcomes assumes high priority.

METHODS

We searched the available literature linking anaesthetic-analgesic techniques and strategies during tumour resection surgery to oncological outcomes and synthesised this narrative review, predominantly using studies published since 2019. Current evidence is presented around opioids, regional anaesthesia, propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) and volatile anaesthesia, dexamethasone, dexmedetomidine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications and beta-blockers.

CONCLUSIONS

The research base in onco-anaesthesia is expanding. There continue to be few sufficiently powered RCTs, which are necessary to confirm a causal link between any perioperative intervention and long-term oncologic outcome. In the absence of any convincing Level 1 recommending a change in practice, long-term oncologic benefit should not be part of the decision on choice of anaesthetic technique for tumour resection surgery.

Fluid Optimisation in Emergency Laparotomy (FLO-ELA) Trial: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised trial of cardiac output-guided fluid therapy compared to usual care in patients undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery are a major burden on healthcare systems. Optimal management of perioperative intravenous fluids may reduce mortality rates and improve outcomes from surgery. Previous small trials of cardiac-output guided haemodynamic therapy algorithms in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery have suggested this intervention results in reduced complications and a modest reduction in mortality. However, this existing evidence is based mainly on elective (planned) surgery, with little evaluation in the emergency setting. There are fundamental clinical and pathophysiological differences between the planned and emergency surgical setting which may influence the effects of this intervention. A large definitive trial in emergency surgery is needed to confirm or refute the potential benefits observed in elective surgery and to inform widespread clinical practice.

METHODS

The FLO-ELA trial is a multi-centre, parallel-group, open, randomised controlled trial. 3138 patients aged 50 and over undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio using minimisation to minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring to guide protocolised administration of intra-venous fluid, or usual care without cardiac output monitoring. The trial intervention will be carried out during surgery and for up to 6 h postoperatively. The trial is funded through an efficient design call by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme and uses existing routinely collected datasets for the majority of data collection. The primary outcome is the number of days alive and out of hospital within 90 days of randomisation. Participants and those delivering the intervention will not be blinded to treatment allocation. Participant recruitment started in September 2017 with a 1-year internal pilot phase and is ongoing at the time of publication.

DISCUSSION

This will be the largest contemporary randomised trial examining the effectiveness of perioperative cardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy in patients undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery. The multi-centre design and broad inclusion criteria support the external validity of the trial. Although the clinical teams delivering the trial interventions will not be blinded, significant trial outcome measures are objective and not subject to detection bias.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 14729158. Registered on 02 May 2017.

Quality indicators for anesthesia and perioperative medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Routine monitoring of care quality is fundamental considering the high reported rates of preventable perioperative morbidity and mortality. However, no set of valid and feasible quality indicators is available as the gold standard for comprehensive routine monitoring of the overall quality of perioperative care. The purpose of this review is to describe underlying difficulties, to summarize current trends and initiatives and to outline the perspectives in support of suitable perioperative quality indicators.

RECENT FINDINGS

Most perioperative quality indicators used in the clinical setting are based on low or no evidence. Evidence-based perioperative quality indicators validated for research purposes are not always applicable in routine care. Developing a core set of perioperative quality indicators for clinical practice may benefit from matching feasible routine indicators with evidence-based indicators validated for research, from evaluating additional new indicators, and from including patients' views.

SUMMARY

A core set of valid and feasible quality indicators is essential for monitoring perioperative care quality. The development of such a set may benefit from matching evidence-based indicators with feasible standard indicators and from including patients' views.

General Anesthetics in CAncer REsection Surgery (GA-CARES) randomized multicenter trial of propofol vs volatile inhalational anesthesia: protocol description

BACKGROUND

Studies indicate that patients can be "seeded" with their own cancer cells during oncologic surgery and that the immune response to these circulating cancer cells might influence the risk of cancer recurrence. Preliminary data from animal studies and some retrospective analyses suggest that anesthetic technique might affect the immune response during surgery and hence the risk of cancer recurrence. In 2015, experts called for prospective scientific inquiry into whether anesthetic technique used in cancer resection surgeries affects cancer-related outcomes such as recurrence and mortality. Therefore, we designed a pragmatic phase 3 multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) called General Anesthetics in Cancer Resection (GA-CARES).

METHODS

After clinical trial registration and institutional review board approval, patients providing written informed consent were enrolled at five sites in New York (NY) State. Eligible patients were adults with known or suspected cancer undergoing one of eight oncologic surgeries having a high risk of cancer recurrence. Exclusion criteria included known or suspected history of malignant hyperthermia or hypersensitivity to either propofol or volatile anesthetic agents. Patients were randomized (1:1) stratified by center and surgery type using REDCap to receive either propofol or volatile agent for maintenance of general anesthesia (GA). This pragmatic trial, which seeks to assess the potential impact of anesthetic type in "real world practice", did not standardize any aspect of patient care. However, potential confounders, e.g., use of neuroaxial anesthesia, were recorded to confirm the balance between study arms. Assuming a 5% absolute difference in 2-year overall survival rates (85% vs 90%) between study arms (primary endpoint, minimum 2-year follow-up), power using a two-sided log-rank test with type I error of 0.05 (no planned interim analyses) was calculated to be 97.4% based on a target enrollment of 1800 subjects. Data sources include the National Death Index (gold standard for vital status in the USA), NY Cancer Registry, and electronic harvesting of data from electronic medical records (EMR), with minimal manual data abstraction/data entry.

DISCUSSION

Enrollment has been completed (n = 1804) and the study is in the follow-up phase. This unfunded, pragmatic trial, uses a novel approach for data collection focusing on electronic sources.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered (NCT03034096) on January 27, 2017, prior to consent of the first patient on January 31, 2017.

Days alive and out of hospital following primary surgery for oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Days Alive and Out of Hospital (DAOH) is a recently introduced, readily obtainable postoperative outcome measure method that expresses procedure and disease-associated morbidity and mortality. In this study, we evaluated DAOH with 30- and 365-days follow-up periods after primary surgery (DAOH₃₀ and DAOH₃₆₅, respectively) for patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). The aim of this study is to identify patient-, procedure- and disease-associated risk factors for patients treated with primary surgery for primary OSCC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study from a prospective collected database represents patients from Eastern Denmark surgically treated for primary OSCC in the period 2000-2014. DAOH₃₀ and DAOH₃₆₅ were calculated and associations with patient characteristics including comorbidity, tumor characteristics, clinical outcomes such as length of stay, readmission, and mortality were evaluated. Tests for difference and significance between groups were assessed with Mann-Whitney U test and quantile linear regression.

RESULTS

We included 867 patients (63% males, median age: 63 years (IQR 56-70 years)). Median DAOH₃₀ and DAOH₃₆₅ after OSCC surgery were 25 days (IQR 21-27 days) and 356 days (IQR 336-360 days), respectively. Alcohol consumption had a significant association with a lower DAOH₃₆₅, p < 0.01, but not with DAOH₃₀. Advanced T-stage, adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) and increased Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score was significantly associated with a lower DAOH₃₀ and DAOH₃₆₅.

CONCLUSION

In this population-based study in OSCC patients treated with primary surgery, we found that DAOH after 30 days was 25 days (83%), while DAOH after 365 days was 356 days (98%). Advanced T-stage acts as a predictor for significant DAOH₃₀ and DAOH₃₆₅ reduction while excessive alcohol consumption predicts a significant DAOH₃₆₅ reduction. Readmission within 30 days following surgery was associated with further readmission within one year.

Opioid Free Anesthesia in Thoracic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

Introduction: Recent studies showed that balanced opioid-free anesthesia is feasible and desirable in several surgical settings. However, in thoracic surgery, scientific evidence is still lacking. Thus, we conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis of opioid-free anesthesia in this field. Methods: The primary outcome was the occurrence of any complication. Secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, recovery room length of stay, postoperative pain at 24 and 48 h, and morphine equivalent consumption at 48 h. Results: Out of 375 potentially relevant articles, 6 studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 5 observational cohort studies) counting a total of 904 patients were included. Opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid-based anesthesia, was associated with a lower rate of any complication (74 of 175 [42%] vs. 200 of 294 [68%]; RR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65−0.89; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), lower 48 h morphine equivalent consumption (MD −14.5 [−29.17/−0.22]; p = 0.05; I2 = 95%) and lower pain at 48 h (MD −1.95 [−3.6/0.3]; p = 0.02, I = 98%). Conclusions: Opioid-free anesthesia in thoracic surgery is associated with lower postoperative complications, and less opioid demand with better postoperative analgesia at 48 h compared to opioid-based anesthesia.

Anesthetics and Long Term Cancer Outcomes: May Epigenetics Be the Key for Pancreatic Cancer?

Knowledge shows a divergence of results between preclinical and clinical studies regarding anesthesia and postoperative progression of cancer. While laboratory and animal data from then 2000s onwards raised much enthusiasm in this field of research leading to several clinical investigations worldwide, data from randomized trials seem to have killed off hope for many scientists. However several aspects of the actual knowledge should be reevaluated and there is space for new strategies of investigation. In this paper, we perform a critical review of actual knowledge and propose new research strategies with a special focus on anesthetic management and repurposed anesthetic adjuvants for pancreatic cancer.

Perioperative changes in haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations from preoperative intravenous iron isomaltoside for iron deficiency anaemia in patients with colorectal cancer: A pilot randomised controlled trial

Background

Patients with colorectal cancer have a high risk of iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) due to chronic tumour induced blood loss, a reduced dietary iron intake from poor nutrition or gastrointestinal malabsorption. This pilot, double blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) examined the effect and feasibility of using preoperative iron isomaltoside for treating iron deficiency anaemia.

Methods

Forty eligible adults with IDA were randomised to receive either intravenous iron isomaltoside (20 mg.kg^-1 up to 1000 mg over 30 minutes) or usual preoperative care (control) three weeks before scheduled colorectal surgery. The primary outcomes were perioperative changes in haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations.

Results

The recruitment rate was 78% of all eligible referred patients (1.9 patients/month). The haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations were higher in the iron isomaltoside group than the control group over the perioperative period (group*time interaction P = 0.042 and P < 0.001 respectively). Mean haemoglobin change from baseline to before surgery was higher in the iron isomaltoside group (7.8, 95% CI: 3.2 to 12.3 g.l^-1) than the control group (1.7, 95% CI: -1.9 to 5.3 g.l^-1) [mean difference 6.1, 95% CI: 0.3 to 11.8 g.l^-1; P = 0.040]. The ferritin change from baseline to before surgery between groups was large in favour of the iron isomaltoside group (mean difference 296.9, 95% CI: 200.6 to 393.2 μg.l^-1; P < 0.001]. There were no differences between groups in packed red blood cell transfusions needed, surgical complications, quality of recovery and days (alive and) at home within 30 days after surgery.

Conclusion

Iron isomaltoside therapy was safe and had a minimal effect on perioperative changes in haemoglobin concentration. Given the slow recruitment and new evidence emerging during the conduct of this study, conducting a multi-centre RCT based on the current pilot trial protocol is unlikely to be feasible.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03565354.

Antagonists of the Mu-Opioid Receptor in the Cancer Patient: Fact or Fiction?

Purpose of Review

Antagonists of mu-opioid receptor role in cancer progression remains to be elucidated. The objective of this review was to summarize the available evidence on antagonists of mu-opioid receptor effect on tumor progression and prognosis in different types of cancers and an evaluation of the available findings on their mechanism of action.

Recent Findings

We have found studies related to methylnaltrexone (MNTX) and naltrexone (NTX) usage in cancer outcomes-related setting. We found consistent preclinical evidence of a potential action of MNTX and NTX on cancer growth and spread mediated mainly by effect on the opioid growth factor receptor (OGFr) axis, which results in depressed cell replication. However, clinical results are scarce and limited to poor-quality evidence.

Summary

Further high-quality studies are warranted to study antagonists of mu-opioid receptor role as a therapeutic option in different types of cancer, especially in patients where the classical treatment causes unacceptable side effects.

Solid Tumor Opioid Receptor Expression and Oncologic Outcomes: Analysis of the Cancer Genome Atlas and Genotype Tissue Expression Project

Background

Opioid receptors are expressed not only by neural cells in the central nervous system, but also by many solid tumor cancer cells. Whether perioperative opioids given for analgesia after tumor resection surgery might inadvertently activate tumor cells, promoting recurrence or metastasis, remains controversial. We analysed large public gene repositories of solid tumors to investigate differences in opioid receptor expression between normal and tumor tissues and their association with long-term oncologic outcomes.

Methods

We investigated the normalized gene expression of µ, κ, δ opioid receptors (MOR, KOR, DOR), Opioid Growth Factor (OGFR), and Toll-Like 4 (TLR4) receptors in normal and tumor samples from twelve solid tumor types. We carried out mixed multivariable logistic and Cox regression analysis on whether there was an association between these receptors' gene expression and the tissue where found, i.e., tumor or normal tissue. We also evaluated the association between tumor opioid receptor gene expression and patient disease-free interval (DFI) and overall survival (OS).

Results

We retrieved 8,780 tissue samples, 5,852 from tumor and 2,928 from normal tissue, of which 2,252 were from the Genotype Tissue Expression Project (GTEx) and 672 from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) repository. The Odds Ratio (OR) [95%CI] for gene expression of the specific opioid receptors in the examined tumors varied: MOR: 0.74 [0.63-0.87], KOR: 1.27 [1.17-1.37], DOR: 1.66 [1.48-1.87], TLR4: 0.29 [0.26-0.32], OGFR: 2.39 [2.05-2.78]. After controlling all confounding variables, including age and cancer stage, there was no association between tumor opioid receptor expression and long-term oncologic outcomes.

Conclusion

Opioid receptor gene expression varies between different solid tumor types. There was no association between tumor opioid receptor expression and recurrence. Understanding the significance of opioid receptor expression on tumor cells remains elusive.

Core Outcome Measures for Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (COMPAC): a modified Delphi process to develop a core outcome set for trials in perioperative care and anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Outcome selection underpins clinical trial interpretation. Inconsistency in outcome selection and reporting hinders comparison of different trials' results, reducing the utility of research findings.

METHODS

We conducted an iterative consensus process to develop a set of Core Outcome Measures for Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (COMPAC), following the established Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) methodology. First, we undertook a systematic review of RCTs in high-impact journals to describe current outcome reporting trends. We then surveyed patients, carers, researchers, and perioperative clinicians about important outcomes after surgery. Finally, a purposive stakeholder sample participated in a modified Delphi process to develop a core outcome set for perioperative and anaesthesia trials.

RESULTS

Our systematic review revealed widespread inconsistency in outcome reporting, with variable or absent definitions, levels of detail, and temporal criteria. In the survey, almost all patients, carers, and clinicians rated clinical outcome measures critically important, but clinicians rated patient-centred outcomes less highly than patients and carers. The final core outcome set was: (i) mortality/survival (postoperative mortality, long-term survival); (ii) perioperative complications (major postoperative complications/adverse events; complications/adverse events causing permanent harm); (iii) resource use (length of hospital stay, unplanned readmission within 30 days); (iv) short-term recovery (discharge destination, level of dependence, or both); and (v) longer-term recovery (overall health-related quality of life).

CONCLUSIONS

This core set, incorporating important outcomes for both clinicians and patients, should guide outcome selection in future perioperative medicine or anaesthesia trials. Mapping these alongside standardised endpoint definitions will yield a comprehensive perioperative outcome framework.

Core outcome set for surgical trials in gastric cancer (GASTROS study): international patient and healthcare professional consensus

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the primary treatment that can offer potential cure for gastric cancer, but is associated with significant risks. Identifying optimal surgical approaches should be based on comparing outcomes from well designed trials. Currently, trials report different outcomes, making synthesis of evidence difficult. To address this, the aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS)-a standardized group of outcomes important to key international stakeholders-that should be reported by future trials in this field.

METHODS

Stage 1 of the study involved identifying potentially important outcomes from previous trials and a series of patient interviews. Stage 2 involved patients and healthcare professionals prioritizing outcomes using a multilanguage international Delphi survey that informed an international consensus meeting at which the COS was finalized.

RESULTS

Some 498 outcomes were identified from previously reported trials and patient interviews, and rationalized into 56 items presented in the Delphi survey. A total of 952 patients, surgeons, and nurses enrolled in round 1 of the survey, and 662 (70 per cent) completed round 2. Following the consensus meeting, eight outcomes were included in the COS: disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, and 'serious' adverse events.

CONCLUSION

A COS for surgical trials in gastric cancer has been developed with international patients and healthcare professionals. This is a minimum set of outcomes that is recommended to be used in all future trials in this field to improve trial design and synthesis of evidence.

Developing an enhanced recovery after surgery program for oncology patients who undergo hip or knee reconstruction surgery

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are applied in orthopedic surgery and are intended to reduce perioperative stress by implementing combined evidence-based practices with the cooperation of various health professionals as an interdisciplinary team. ERAS pathways include pre-operative patient counselling, regional anesthesia and analgesia techniques, post-operative pain management, early mobilization and early feeding. Studies have shown improvement in the recovery of patients who followed an ERAS program after hip or knee arthroplasty, compared with those who followed a traditional care approach. ERAS protocols reduce post-operative stress, contribute to rapid recovery, shorten length of stay (LOS) without increasing the complications or readmissions, improve patient satisfaction and decrease the hospital costs. We suggest that the ERAS pathway could reduce the LOS in hospital for patients undergoing total hip replacement or total knee replacement. These programs require good organization and handling by the multidisciplinary team. ERAS programs increase patient's satisfaction due to their active participation which they experience as personalized treatment. The aim of the study was to develop an ERAS protocol for oncology patients who undergo bone reconstruction surgeries using massive endoprosthesis, with a view to improving the surgical outcomes.

Comparison between epidural and intravenous analgesia effects on disease-free survival after colorectal cancer surgery: a randomised multicentre controlled trial

Background

Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) has been suggested to improve survival after curative surgery for colorectal cancer compared with systemic opioid analgesia. The evidence, exclusively based on retrospective studies, is contradictory.

Methods

In this prospective, multicentre study, patients scheduled for elective colorectal cancer surgery between June 2011 and May 2017 were randomised to TEA or patient-controlled i.v. analgesia (PCA) with morphine. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival at 5 yr after surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, complications, length of stay (LOS) at the hospital, and first return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT).

Results

We enrolled 221 (110 TEA and 111 PCA) patients in the study, and 180 (89 TEA and 91 PCA) were included in the primary outcome. Disease-free survival at 5 yr was 76% in the TEA group and 69% in the PCA group; unadjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.31 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74–2.32), P=0.35; adjusted HR: 1.19 (95% CI: 0.61–2.31), P=0.61. Patients in the TEA group had significantly better pain relief during the first 24 h, but not thereafter, in open and minimally invasive procedures. There were no differences in postoperative complications, LOS, or RIOT between the groups.

Conclusions

There was no significant difference between the TEA and PCA groups in disease-free survival at 5 yr in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. Other than a reduction in postoperative pain during the first 24 h after surgery, no other differences were found between TEA compared with i.v. PCA with morphine.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

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

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Methodologies for systematic reviews with meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials in pain, anaesthesia, and perioperative medicine

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) are increasing in popularity, but should they be used to inform clinical decision-making in anaesthesia? We present evidence that the certainty of evidence from SRMAs in anaesthesia (and in general) may be unacceptably low because of risks of bias exaggerating treatment effects, unexplained heterogeneity reducing certainty in estimates, random errors, and widespread prevalence of publication bias. We also present the latest methodological advances to help improve the certainty of evidence from SRMAs. The target audience includes both review authors and practising clinicians to help with SRMA appraisal. Issues discussed include minimising risks of bias from included trials, trial sequential analysis to reduce random error, updated methods for presenting effect estimates, and novel publication bias tests for commonly used outcome measures. These methods can help to reduce spurious conclusions on clinical significance, explain statistical heterogeneity, and reduce false positives when evaluating small-study effects. By reducing concerns in these domains of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, it should help improve the certainty of evidence from SRMAs used for decision-making in anaesthesia, pain, and perioperative medicine.

Days alive and out of hospital a validated patient-centred outcome to be used for patients undergoing transoral robotic surgery: protocol and perspectives

BACKGROUND

Days Alive and Out of Hospital (DAOH) has been validated as a suitable clinical trial outcome. It can be used as a proxy for surgical quality and reflects both procedure specific morbidity and mortality.

AIMS/OBJECTIVES

We propose DAOH as a supplement to established patient-related and objective outcomes, since it adds information on health care burden. Two upcoming studies incorporating DAOH are planned and will report DAOH for patients undergoing transoral robotic surgery.

METHODS

Firstly, a multicentre national prospective cohort study investigating DAOH with a 1-year follow-up after TORS is planned. Secondly a retrospective study of DAOH with a 1-year follow-up period will be performed using our institute's, the largest TORS center in Scandinavia, transoral robotic surgery (TORS) database. The database consists of more than 250 patients with more than 300 procedures performed between 2013 and 2018.

CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE

The planned studies of DAOH may, when applied to TORS, contribute to a better interpretation of post-treatment morbidity and provide a basis for further interventional studies to enhance recovery, perioperative optimization, and serve as a comparison tool between treatment modalities.

Prehabilitation in elective abdominal cancer surgery in older patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation has emerged as a strategy to prepare patients for elective abdominal cancer surgery with documented improvements in postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the evidence for prehabilitation interventions of relevance to the older adult.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and PsychINFO. Studies of preoperative intervention (prehabilitation) in patients undergoing abdominal cancer surgery reporting postoperative outcomes were included. Age limits were not set as preliminary searches revealed this would be too restrictive. Articles were screened and selected based on PRISMA guidelines, and assessment of bias was performed. Qualitative, quantitative and meta-analyses of data were conducted as appropriate.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies (3962 patients) were included. Interventions included exercise, nutrition, psychological input, comprehensive geriatric assessment and optimization, smoking cessation and multimodal (two or more interventions). Nine studies purposely selected high-risk, frail or older patients. Thirty studies were at moderate or high risk of bias. Ten studies individually reported benefits in complication rates, with meta-analyses for overall complications demonstrating significant benefit: multimodal (risk difference -0·1 (95 per cent c.i. -0·18 to -0·02); P = 0·01, I2  = 18 per cent) and nutrition (risk difference -0·18 (-0·26 to -0·10); P < 0·001, I2  = 0 per cent). Seven studies reported reductions in length of hospital stay, with no differences on meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

The conclusions of this review are limited by the quality of the included studies, and the heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures reported. Exercise, nutritional and multimodal prehabilitation may reduce morbidity after abdominal surgery, but data specific to older patients are sparse.

[Lidocaine in oncological surgery: the role of blocking in voltage-gated sodium channels. A narrative review]

BACKGROUND

The current evidence suggests that oncological surgery, which is a therapy used in the treatment of solid tumors, increases the risk of metastasis. In this regard, a wide range of tumor cells express Voltage-Gated Sodium Channels (VGSC), whose biological roles are not related to the generation of action potentials. In epithelial tumor cells, VGSC are part of cellular structures named invadopodia, involved in cell proliferation, migration, and metastasis. Recent studies showed that lidocaine could decrease cancer recurrence through its direct effects on tumor cells and immunomodulatory properties on the stress response.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this narrative review is to highlight the role of VGSC in tumor cells, and to describe the potential antiproliferative effect of lidocaine during the pathogenesis of metastasis.

CONTENTS

A critical review of literature from April 2017 to April 2019 was performed. Articles found on PubMed (2000-2019) were considered. A free text and MeSH-lidocaine; voltage-gated sodium channels; tumor cells; invadopodia; surgical stress; cell proliferation; metastasis; cancer recurrence-for articles in English, Spanish and Portuguese language-was used. A total of 62 were selected.

CONCLUSION

In animal studies, lidocaine acts by blocking VGSC and other receptors, decreasing migration, invasion, and metastasis. These studies need to be replicated in humans in the context of oncological surgery.

Lidocaine in oncological surgery

Background

The current evidence suggests that oncological surgery, which is a therapy used in the treatment of solid tumors, increases the risk of metastasis. In this regard, a wide range of tumor cells express Voltage-Gated Sodium Channels (VGSC), whose biological roles are not related to the generation of action potentials. In epithelial tumor cells, VGSC are part of cellular structures named invadopodia, involved in cell proliferation, migration, and metastasis. Recent studies showed that lidocaine could decrease cancer recurrence through its direct effects on tumor cells and immunomodulatory properties on the stress response.

Objective

The aim of this narrative review is to highlight the role of VGSC in tumor cells, and to describe the potential antiproliferative effect of lidocaine during the pathogenesis of metastasis.

Contents

A critical review of literature from April 2017 to April 2019 was performed. Articles found on PubMed (2000–2019) were considered. A free text and MeSH-lidocaine; voltage-gated sodium channels; tumor cells; invadopodia; surgical stress; cell proliferation; metastasis; cancer recurrence – for articles in English, Spanish and Portuguese language – was used. A total of 62 were selected.

Conclusion

In animal studies, lidocaine acts by blocking VGSC and other receptors, decreasing migration, invasion, and metastasis. These studies need to be replicated in humans in the context of oncological surgery.

Impact of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs on Recurrence and Survival after Melanoma Surgery: A Cohort Study

The aim of the study was to investigate if there was an association between intraoperative NSAID use and recurrence or survival. A cohort of patients who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma was retrospectively recruited. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 516 were included (NSAIDs = 307). The 10-year melanoma-specific survival was 63.2%. Log-rank test showed no statistically significant differences in time to treatment failure, melanoma-specific survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the study groups. The current study did not support the use of intraoperative NSAIDs in preventing death or recurrence in patients with melanoma.

A systematic review of outcomes reported inpediatric perioperative research: A report from the Pediatric Perioperative Outcomes Group

The Pediatric Perioperative Outcomes Group (PPOG) is an international collaborative of clinical investigators and clinicians within the subspecialty of pediatric anesthesiology and perioperative care which aims to use COMET (Core Outcomes Measures in Effectiveness Trials) methodology to develop core outcome setsfor infants, children and young people that are tailored to the priorities of the pediatric surgical population.Focusing on four age-dependent patient subpopulations determined a priori for core outcome set development: i) neonates and former preterm infants (up to 60 weeks postmenstrual age); ii) infants (>60 weeks postmenstrual age - <1 year); iii) toddlers and school age children (>1-<13 years); and iv) adolescents (>13-<18 years), we conducted a systematic review of outcomes reported in perioperative studies that include participants within age-dependent pediatric subpopulations. Our review of pediatric perioperative controlled trials published from 2008 to 2018 identified 724 articles reporting 3192 outcome measures. The proportion of published trials and the most frequently reported outcomes varied across pre-determined age groups. Outcomes related to patient comfort, particularly pain and analgesic requirement, were the most frequent domain for infants, children and adolescents. Clinical indicators, particularly cardiorespiratory or medication-related adverse events, were the most common outcomes for neonates and infants < 60 weeks and were the second most frequent domain at all other ages. Neonates and infants <60 weeks of age were significantly under-represented in perioperative trials. Patient-centered outcomes, heath care utilization, and bleeding/transfusion related outcomes were less often reported. In most studies, outcomes were measured in the immediate perioperative period, with the duration often restricted to the post-anesthesia care unit or the first 24 postoperative hours. The outcomes identified with this systematic review will be combined with patient centered outcomes identified through a subsequent stakeholder engagement study to arrive at a core outcome set for each age-specific group.

Pediatric perioperative outcomes: Protocol for a systematic literature review and identification of a core outcome set for infants, children, and young people requiring anesthesia and surgery

Clinical outcomes are measurable changes in health, function, or quality of life that are important for evaluating the quality of care and comparing the efficacy of interventions. However, clinical outcomes and related measurement tools need to be well-defined, relevant, and valid. In adults, Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) methodology has been used to develop core outcome sets for perioperative care. Systematic literature reviews identified standardized endpoints (StEP) and valid measurement tools, and consensus across a broader range of relevant stakeholders was achieved via a Delphi process to establish Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (COMPAC). Core outcome sets for pediatric perioperative care cannot be directly extrapolated from adult data. The type and weighting of endpoints within particular domains can be influenced by age-dependent differences in the indications for and/or nature of surgery and medical comorbidities, and the validity and utility of many measurement tools vary significantly with developmental stage and age. The involvement of parents/carers is essential as they frequently act as surrogate responders for preverbal and developmentally delayed children, parental response may influence child outcome, and parental and/or child ranking of outcomes may differ from those of health professionals. Here, we describe the formation of the international Pediatric Perioperative Outcomes Group, which aims to identify and create validated, broadly applicable, patient-centered outcome measures for infants, children, and young people. Methodologies parallel that of the StEP and COMPAC projects, and systematic literature searches have been performed within agreed age-dependent subpopulations to identify reported outcomes and measurement tools. This represents the first steps for developing core outcome sets for pediatric perioperative care.

Anesthetic Strategies in Oncological Surgery: Not Only a Simple Sleep, but Also Impact on Immunosuppression and Cancer Recurrence

Tumor recurrences or metastases remain a major hurdle in improving overall cancer survival. In the perioperative period, the balance between the ability of the cancer to seed and grow at the metastatic site and the ability of the patient to fight against the tumor (i.e. the host antitumor immunity) may determine the development of clinically evident metastases and influence the patient outcome. Up to 80% of oncological patients receive anesthesia and/or analgesia for diagnostic, therapeutic or palliative interventions. Therefore, anesthesiologists are asked to administer drugs such as opiates and volatile or intravenous anesthetics, which may determine different effects on immunomodulation and cancer recurrence. For instance, some studies suggest that intravenous drugs, such as propofol, may inhibit the host immunity to a lower extent as compared to volatile anesthetics. Similarly, some studies suggest that analgesia assured by local anesthetics may provide a reduction of cancer recurrence rate; whilst on the opposite side, opioids may exert negative consequences in patients undergoing cancer surgery, by interacting with the immune system response via the modulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and autonomic nervous system, or directly through the opioid receptors on the surface of immune cells. In this review, we summarize the main findings on the effects induced by different drugs on immunomodulation and cancer recurrence.

Impact of general anaesthesia in overall and disease-free survival compared to other types of anaesthesia in patients undergoing surgery for cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Cutaneous melanoma is an aggressive type of skin cancer. Anaesthetic agents may have an impact on the immune response, postoperative neurohumoral response and tumour progression. This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of general anaesthesia on overall and disease-free survival compared with other types anaesthesia in patients undergoing surgery for cutaneous melanoma.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The review will analyse data from controlled and observational studies of patients undergoing surgery for melanoma under general anaesthesia compared with other types of anaesthesia. The primary outcomes are overall survival and disease-free survival. The secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, time to tumour progression, distant disease-free survival, time to treatment failure, cancer-specific survival, biochemical recurrence, return of intended oncological therapy, days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days, cost analysis and adverse events. A comprehensive literature search will be performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, LILACS and IBECS databases. Grey literature will also be searched. Risk of methodological bias will be assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration's revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (RoB 2.0) and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Two reviewers will independently assess the eligibility of studies and risk of bias; a third author will solve discrepancies. One author will perform data extraction and the other will check the process and data. Qualitative analysis will be carried out using all included studies. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model for pooled risk estimates will be carried out for the two main outcomes and for selected secondary outcomes if they conform to previously stated criteria. The GRADE approach will be used to summarise the quality of evidence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required as we analyse data from previously reported studies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018114918.

Influence of perioperative anaesthetic and analgesic interventions on oncological outcomes: a narrative review

Surgery is an important treatment modality for the majority of solid organ cancers. Unfortunately, cancer recurrence following surgery of curative intent is common, and typically results in refractory disease and patient death. Surgery and other perioperative interventions induce a biological state conducive to the survival and growth of residual cancer cells released from the primary tumour intraoperatively, which may influence the risk of a subsequent metastatic disease. Evidence is accumulating that anaesthetic and analgesic interventions could affect many of these pathophysiological processes, influencing risk of cancer recurrence in either a beneficial or detrimental way. Much of this evidence is from experimental in vitro and in vivo models, with clinical evidence largely limited to retrospective observational studies or post hoc analysis of RCTs originally designed to evaluate non-cancer outcomes. This narrative review summarises the current state of evidence regarding the potential effect of perioperative anaesthetic and analgesic interventions on cancer biology and clinical outcomes. Proving a causal link will require data from prospective RCTs with oncological outcomes as primary endpoints, a number of which will report in the coming years. Until then, there is insufficient evidence to recommend any particular anaesthetic or analgesic technique for patients undergoing tumour resection surgery on the basis that it might alter the risk of recurrence or metastasis.

How Anesthetic, Analgesic and Other Non-Surgical Techniques During Cancer Surgery Might Affect Postoperative Oncologic Outcomes: A Summary of Current State of Evidence

The question of whether anesthetic, analgesic or other perioperative intervention during cancer resection surgery might influence long-term oncologic outcomes has generated much attention over the past 13 years. A wealth of experimental and observational clinical data have been published, but the results of prospective, randomized clinical trials are awaited. The European Union supports a pan-European network of researchers, clinicians and industry partners engaged in this question (COST Action 15204: Euro-Periscope). In this narrative review, members of the Euro-Periscope network briefly summarize the current state of evidence pertaining to the potential effects of the most commonly deployed anesthetic and analgesic techniques and other non-surgical interventions during cancer resection surgery on tumor recurrence or metastasis.