BACKGROUND: Previous experimental and clinical studies have shown that anesthetic agents have varying effects on cancer prognosis; however, the results were inconsistent among these studies. The authors compared overall and recurrence-free survival in patients given volatile or intravenous anesthesia for digestive tract cancer surgery. METHODS: The authors selected patients who had elective esophagectomy, gastrectomy, hepatectomy, cholecystectomy, pancreatectomy, colectomy, and rectal cancer surgery from July 2010 to March 2018 using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. Patients were divided into a volatile anesthesia group (desflurane, sevoflurane, or isoflurane with/without nitrous oxide) and a propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia group. The authors hypothesized that total intravenous anesthesia is associated with greater overall and recurrence-free survival than volatile anesthesia. Subgroup analyses were performed for each type of surgery. RESULTS: The authors identified 196,303 eligible patients (166,966 patients in the volatile anesthesia group and 29,337 patients in the propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia group). The numbers (proportions) of death in the volatile anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia groups were 17,319 (10.4%) and 3,339 (11.4%), respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.07; P = 0.28) or recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.03; P = 0.59), whereas instrumental variable analyses showed a slight difference in recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.98; P = 0.01). Subgroup analyses showed no significant difference in overall or recurrence-free survival between the groups in any type of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Overall and recurrence-free survival were similar between volatile and intravenous anesthesia in patients having digestive tract surgery. Selection of the anesthetic approach for these patients should be based on other factors.
BACKGROUND: Previous experimental and clinical studies have shown that anesthetic agents have varying effects on cancer prognosis; however, the results were inconsistent among these studies. The authors compared overall and recurrence-free survival in patients given volatile or intravenous anesthesia for digestive tract cancer surgery. METHODS: The authors selected patients who had elective esophagectomy, gastrectomy, hepatectomy, cholecystectomy, pancreatectomy, colectomy, and rectal cancer surgery from July 2010 to March 2018 using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. Patients were divided into a volatile anesthesia group (desflurane, sevoflurane, or isoflurane with/without nitrous oxide) and a propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia group. The authors hypothesized that total intravenous anesthesia is associated with greater overall and recurrence-free survival than volatile anesthesia. Subgroup analyses were performed for each type of surgery. RESULTS: The authors identified 196,303 eligible patients (166,966 patients in the volatile anesthesia group and 29,337 patients in the propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia group). The numbers (proportions) of death in the volatile anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia groups were 17,319 (10.4%) and 3,339 (11.4%), respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.07; P = 0.28) or recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.03; P = 0.59), whereas instrumental variable analyses showed a slight difference in recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.98; P = 0.01). Subgroup analyses showed no significant difference in overall or recurrence-free survival between the groups in any type of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Overall and recurrence-free survival were similar between volatile and intravenous anesthesia in patients having digestive tract surgery. Selection of the anesthetic approach for these patients should be based on other factors.
Authors: Luke V Selby; Ana Fernandez-Bustamante; Aslam Ejaz; Ana Gleisner; Timothy M Pawlik; David J Douin Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 3.267
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
Authors: Jianqi Zheng; Hengrui Liang; Runchen Wang; Ran Zhong; Shunjun Jiang; Wei Wang; Yi Zhao; Zhuxing Chen; Wenhua Liang; Jun Liu; Jianxing He Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2021-10
Authors: Jadie Plücker; Naita M Wirsik; Alina S Ritter; Thomas Schmidt; Markus A Weigand Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 3.445