Potential Influence of the Anesthetic Technique Used during Open Radical Prostatectomy on Prostate Cancer-related Outcome A Retrospective Study

University Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Bern, and Institute of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Bern, Berne, Switzerland.
Anesthesiology (Impact Factor: 6.17). 09/2010; 113(3):570-6. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181e4f6ec
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recently published studies suggest that the anesthetic technique used during oncologic surgery affects cancer recurrence. To evaluate the effect of anesthetic technique on disease progression and long-term survival, we compared patients receiving general anesthesia plus intraoperative and postoperative thoracic epidural analgesia with patients receiving general anesthesia alone undergoing open retropubic radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph node dissection.
Two sequential series were studied. Patients receiving general anesthesia combined with epidural analgesia (January 1994-June 1997, n=103) were retrospectively compared with a group given general anesthesia combined with ketorolac-morphine analgesia (July 1997-December 2000, n=158). Biochemical recurrence-free survival, clinical progression-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier technique and compared using a multivariate Cox-proportional-hazards regression model and an alternative model with inverse probability weights to adjust for propensity score.
Using propensity score adjustment with inverse probability weights, general anesthesia combined with epidural analgesia resulted in improved clinical progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.75, P=0.002). No significant differences in the two groups were found for biochemical recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival, or overall survival. Higher preoperative serum values for prostate-specific antigen, specimen Gleason score of at least 7, non-organ-confined tumor stage, and positive lymph node status were independent predictors of biochemical recurrence-free survival.
General anesthesia with epidural analgesia was associated with a reduced risk of clinical cancer progression. However, no significant difference was found between general anesthesia plus postoperative ketorolac-morphine analgesia and general anesthesia plus intraoperative and postoperative thoracic epidural analgesia in biochemical recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival, or overall survival.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review the published literature regarding the effects of anesthesia on cancer surgery to prevent tumor cell proliferation/migration or induce apoptosis. Surgery is the main treatment for potentially curable solid tumors, but most cancer-related deaths in patients who have received previous surgical treatment are caused by metastatic disease. There is increasing evidence that anesthetic technique has the potential to affect long-term outcome after cancer surgery. This work reviews the English published literature that was obtained by performing a search of the PubMed database up to January 2014. We selected articles that provided evidence or reviewed the possible actions of anesthetics on cancer cells or the influence of anesthesia in recurrence/outcome. Inhaled anesthetics induce immunosuppression and activate inflammatory cascade activation, whereas propofol has a protective action. Opioids might promote cancer recurrence and metastasis. In vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated that local anesthetics inhibit proliferation and migration of cancer cells and induce apoptosis. Anesthesiologists should follow current best clinical practice and include all strategies that effectively decrease pain and attenuate stress. Regional anesthesia and multimodal analgesia, adding anti-inflammatory drugs, play an unquestionable role in the control of perioperative pain and may improve recurrence-free survival. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 03/2015; 27(3). DOI:10.1016/j.jclinane.2015.02.007 · 1.21 Impact Factor
  • Regional anesthesia and pain medicine 01/2010; 36(3):308-9. DOI:10.1097/AAP.0b013e31821681cf · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Anesthesia technique has been associated with cancer outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP). These studies are limited by variability in surgeon experience, bias in patient selection, and in some cases, sample size. We evaluated the impact of anesthesia technique for RP on biochemical recurrence (BCR) using a large cohort of patients operated on by a single experienced surgeon. Methods We retrospectively reviewed data from a prospective institutional oncologic database on 929 patients treated with RP by a single surgeon from 1999-2008. Spinal anesthesia was used for patients from 2002-2006. We compared outcomes of these patients (n = 264) with outcomes of patients who underwent general anesthesia (n = 665) at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center from 1999-2001 and 2006-2008. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess differences in BCR rates between the anesthesia groups adjusting for differences in postoperative factors related to anesthetic technique and tumour pathologic characteristics associated with BCR after RP. Results Median follow-up among patients free from BCR was 4.6 yr. On multivariable analysis, spinal anesthesia did not independently predict the rate of BCR (hazard ratio = 1.10; 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 1.74; P = 0.7). Independent predictors of BCR were preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA), pathologic Gleason grade, extracapsular extension, and seminal vesicle invasion. Conclusions We did not find an association between anesthesia technique and disease recurrence in men with prostate cancer treated with RP. Anesthesia technique is unlikely to alter disease recurrence following RP independent of surgical and pathological factors.
    Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 08/2014; 61(12). DOI:10.1007/s12630-014-0221-y · 2.50 Impact Factor