Sevoflurane depletes macrophages from the melanoma microenvironment.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
19
11
2019
accepted:
12
05
2020
entrez:
30
5
2020
pubmed:
30
5
2020
medline:
10
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
With more than 18 million annual new cases, cancer belongs to the major challenges of modern healthcare. Surgical resection of solid tumours under general anaesthesia is the prime therapy. Different aspects of anaesthesia are under discussion to independently influence the long-term outcome of cancer patients. Most recently, the commonly used volatile anaesthetics like sevoflurane have entered the spotlight, as retrospective studies suggest a detrimental outcome in certain cancer aetiologies with sparse mechanistic understanding. Our objective was to investigate this concept in a murine melanoma model, herein comparing the consequence of inhalative and injection anesthesia on tumour composition and growth. We used a murine model of malignant melanoma in male, adult C57BL/6 mice (n = 92), induced by the subcutaneous injection of B16-F10 cells. We either exposed the melanoma cells to sevoflurane before implantation or subjected the animals to single or double anaesthesia with either volatile or injection drugs. After a maximum follow-up of 4 weeks, leucocytes within the tumour microenvironment (TME) were comprehensively analysed by flow cytometry with focus on tumor-associated macrophages (TAM). We found that exposure of melanoma cells to sevoflurane before implantation induced long-lasting transcriptome changes and aggravated tumour growth, without extensive changes of the TME. Contrastingly, both a single and double anaesthesia with sevoflurane led to a significant reduction of TAMs (injection vs. sevoflurane: 2,0 vs. 0.3% and 1.2 vs. 0.6%, respectively), whilst increasing PD-L1 expression on the remaining cells (mean fluorescent intensity injection vs. sevoflurane: 3,804 vs. 7,143 and 9,090 vs. 32,228, respectively). No changes in tumour growth were observed in these groups. In sharp contrast to the detrimental impact of sevoflurane on patients' outcome reported in retrospective clinical studies, we propose here that sevoflurane might actually exert a beneficial effect by decreasing TAMs within the TME, rendering the tumour again susceptible for cytotoxic T cells and immunotherapies. Further research is warranted to delineate, how these results translate into the clinic.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
With more than 18 million annual new cases, cancer belongs to the major challenges of modern healthcare. Surgical resection of solid tumours under general anaesthesia is the prime therapy. Different aspects of anaesthesia are under discussion to independently influence the long-term outcome of cancer patients. Most recently, the commonly used volatile anaesthetics like sevoflurane have entered the spotlight, as retrospective studies suggest a detrimental outcome in certain cancer aetiologies with sparse mechanistic understanding. Our objective was to investigate this concept in a murine melanoma model, herein comparing the consequence of inhalative and injection anesthesia on tumour composition and growth.
METHODS
We used a murine model of malignant melanoma in male, adult C57BL/6 mice (n = 92), induced by the subcutaneous injection of B16-F10 cells. We either exposed the melanoma cells to sevoflurane before implantation or subjected the animals to single or double anaesthesia with either volatile or injection drugs. After a maximum follow-up of 4 weeks, leucocytes within the tumour microenvironment (TME) were comprehensively analysed by flow cytometry with focus on tumor-associated macrophages (TAM).
RESULTS
We found that exposure of melanoma cells to sevoflurane before implantation induced long-lasting transcriptome changes and aggravated tumour growth, without extensive changes of the TME. Contrastingly, both a single and double anaesthesia with sevoflurane led to a significant reduction of TAMs (injection vs. sevoflurane: 2,0 vs. 0.3% and 1.2 vs. 0.6%, respectively), whilst increasing PD-L1 expression on the remaining cells (mean fluorescent intensity injection vs. sevoflurane: 3,804 vs. 7,143 and 9,090 vs. 32,228, respectively). No changes in tumour growth were observed in these groups.
CONCLUSION
In sharp contrast to the detrimental impact of sevoflurane on patients' outcome reported in retrospective clinical studies, we propose here that sevoflurane might actually exert a beneficial effect by decreasing TAMs within the TME, rendering the tumour again susceptible for cytotoxic T cells and immunotherapies. Further research is warranted to delineate, how these results translate into the clinic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32470095
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233789
pii: PONE-D-19-32108
pmc: PMC7259700
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anesthetics, Inhalation
0
Sevoflurane
38LVP0K73A
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0233789Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Anesth Analg. 2018 Jun;126(6):1910-1913
pubmed: 29570154
Nature. 2017 May 25;545(7655):495-499
pubmed: 28514441
J Pathol Transl Med. 2015 Jul;49(4):318-24
pubmed: 26081823
Oncotarget. 2016 May 3;7(18):26042-56
pubmed: 27028996
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2019 Aug;84(2):227-240
pubmed: 31240384
Immunity. 2017 Aug 15;47(2):323-338.e6
pubmed: 28813661
Cell. 2019 Sep 5;178(6):1509-1525.e19
pubmed: 31491389
Int J Immunopharmacol. 1995 Jun;17(6):529-34
pubmed: 7499031
J Exp Med. 2018 Mar 5;215(3):859-876
pubmed: 29436396
Br J Anaesth. 2019 Aug;123(2):135-150
pubmed: 31255291
J Anesth. 2017 Oct;31(5):764-778
pubmed: 28585095
J Hematol Oncol. 2017 Feb 28;10(1):58
pubmed: 28241846
Bioinformatics. 2015 Jan 15;31(2):166-9
pubmed: 25260700
Can J Anaesth. 2019 May;66(5):546-561
pubmed: 30834506
J Cancer. 2019 Jun 2;10(14):3112-3123
pubmed: 31289581
Bioinformatics. 2012 Dec 15;28(24):3211-7
pubmed: 23071270
Immunity. 2013 Jan 24;38(1):79-91
pubmed: 23273845
Immunity. 2014 Jul 17;41(1):21-35
pubmed: 25035951
Oncotarget. 2017 Oct 31;8(62):106132-106142
pubmed: 29285320
Bioinformatics. 2014 Aug 1;30(15):2114-20
pubmed: 24695404
Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550
pubmed: 25516281
J Exp Med. 1968 Sep 1;128(3):415-35
pubmed: 5666958
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Apr 24;115(17):E4041-E4050
pubmed: 29632196
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2003 May;47(5):559-63
pubmed: 12699513
J Exp Med. 2014 May 5;211(5):781-90
pubmed: 24778419
Int J Oncol. 2018 Apr;52(4):1071-1080
pubmed: 29532857
Br J Cancer. 2018 Jan;118(1):9-16
pubmed: 29319049
Front Oncol. 2019 Nov 05;9:1148
pubmed: 31750245
PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e50946
pubmed: 23284651
Front Cell Dev Biol. 2018 Apr 04;6:38
pubmed: 29670880
Bioinformatics. 2013 Jan 1;29(1):15-21
pubmed: 23104886
Oncogenesis. 2018 Jan 24;7(1):10
pubmed: 29362402
Br J Anaesth. 2015 May;114(5):825-30
pubmed: 25492570
Sci Transl Med. 2017 May 10;9(389):
pubmed: 28490665
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Nov 07;(11):CD008877
pubmed: 25379840
Curr Protoc Immunol. 2001 May;Chapter 20:Unit 20.1
pubmed: 18432774
Anesthesiology. 2016 Aug;125(2):399-411
pubmed: 27286478
J Exp Med. 2017 Jul 3;214(7):1913-1923
pubmed: 28606987
Bioinformatics. 2009 Aug 15;25(16):2078-9
pubmed: 19505943
Cell. 2015 Sep 10;162(6):1242-56
pubmed: 26359984
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Sci Transl Med. 2018 Apr 11;10(436):
pubmed: 29643229