Avril J Lusty1, Gregory W Hosier1, Madhuri Koti2, Stephen Chenard2, Glenio B Mizubuti3, Melanie Jaeger3, D Robert Siemens4. 1. Department of Urology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada. 2. Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada. 3. Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada. 4. Department of Urology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada; Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada. Electronic address: robert.siemens@kingstonhsc.ca.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is increasing awareness that different anesthetic and analgesic techniques may impact outcomes after oncological surgery, generally through modifying effects on the immune system but potentially via other mechanisms including mitigating the surgical stress response. This narrative review aims to summarize the mechanisms underlying the effect of perioperative factors on oncological outcomes, with an emphasis on the available urologic literature. METHODS: Literature on anesthetic technique (i.e., general vs. regional) and oncological outcomes were reviewed with a particular focus on urological studies. RESULTS: In prostate cancer surgery, the risk of mortality has been reported to be reduced with the use of regional (i.e., neuraxial) anesthesia, but there was no association between anesthetic technique and progression-free or biochemical recurrence-free survival. In nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer, regional anesthesia has been associated with lower recurrence rates and longer time to recurrence following transurethral resection of bladder tumor. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the role of regional anesthesia to improve oncoimmunological responses after surgery, potentially through decreased use of volatile anesthetics and opioids, decreased activation of the surgical stress response, and a direct local anesthetic-mediated anti-inflammatory effect. Available urological literature suggests an association of anesthetic type and outcomes for nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer and prostate cancer surgeries but the evidence is limited. Prospective studies are needed to further investigate the relationship between anesthetic technique and urologic oncological outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: There is increasing awareness that different anesthetic and analgesic techniques may impact outcomes after oncological surgery, generally through modifying effects on the immune system but potentially via other mechanisms including mitigating the surgical stress response. This narrative review aims to summarize the mechanisms underlying the effect of perioperative factors on oncological outcomes, with an emphasis on the available urologic literature. METHODS: Literature on anesthetic technique (i.e., general vs. regional) and oncological outcomes were reviewed with a particular focus on urological studies. RESULTS: In prostate cancer surgery, the risk of mortality has been reported to be reduced with the use of regional (i.e., neuraxial) anesthesia, but there was no association between anesthetic technique and progression-free or biochemical recurrence-free survival. In nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer, regional anesthesia has been associated with lower recurrence rates and longer time to recurrence following transurethral resection of bladder tumor. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the role of regional anesthesia to improve oncoimmunological responses after surgery, potentially through decreased use of volatile anesthetics and opioids, decreased activation of the surgical stress response, and a direct local anesthetic-mediated anti-inflammatory effect. Available urological literature suggests an association of anesthetic type and outcomes for nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer and prostate cancer surgeries but the evidence is limited. Prospective studies are needed to further investigate the relationship between anesthetic technique and urologic oncological outcomes.
Authors: Aaron R Muncey; Sephalie Y Patel; Christopher J Whelan; Robert S Ackerman; Robert A Gatenby Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2020 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.302