4.2 Review

Anesthetics or anesthetic techniques and cancer surgical outcomes: a possible link

Journal

KOREAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY
Volume 74, Issue 3, Pages 191-203

Publisher

KOREAN SOC ANESTHESIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4097/kja.20679

Keywords

Anesthesia; Anesthetics; Cancer; Neoplasms; Postoperative period; Surgery

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The review discusses the impact of anesthesia type and administration method on post-operative outcomes in cancer patients, highlighting the potential intervention opportunity offered by biological changes associated with the surgical inflammatory response.
As of 2018 cancer is responsible for almost 9.6 million deaths annually and, with an aging population, the incidence of cancer is expected to continue to rise. Surgery is an important treatment modality for patients with solid organ cancers. It has been postulated that, due to potentially overlapping processes underlying the development of malignancy and the therapeutic pathways of various anesthetic agents, the choice of anesthetic type and method of administration may affect post-operative outcomes in patients with cancer. This is a literature review of the most recent evidence extracted from various databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane, as well as journals and book reference lists. The review highlights the pathophysiological processes underpinning cancer development and the molecular actions of anesthetic agents, pre-clinical and retrospective studies investigating cancer and anesthetics, as well as ongoing clinical trials. Overall, there are conflicting results regarding the impact of regional vs. general anesthesia on cancer recurrence, whilst the majority of data suggest a benefit of the use of intravenous propofol over inhalational volatile anesthetics. The biological changes associated with the surgical inflammatory response offer a unique opportunity to intervene to counteract any potentially cancer-promoting effects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available