The impact of inhalation versus total intravenous anesthesia on the immune status in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: a double-blind randomized clinical trial (TeMP).

anesthesia cancer immunity propofol sevoflurane

Journal

Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2024
Historique:
received: 16 03 2024
accepted: 16 07 2024
medline: 12 8 2024
pubmed: 12 8 2024
entrez: 12 8 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Breast cancer (BC) mortality primarily stems from metastases rather than the primary tumor itself. Perioperative stress, encompassing both surgical and anesthetic factors, profoundly impacts the immune system, leading to alterations in neuroendocrine pathways and immune functions, potentially facilitating tumor progression and metastasis. Understanding the immunomodulatory effects of different anesthesia techniques is crucial for optimizing perioperative care in patients with BC. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) serves as one of the key indicators of perioperative immune response. To compare the effects of inhalation anesthesia (IA) and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) on perioperative immune response in BC surgery patients. In this randomized, double-blind clinical trial, BC surgery patients were randomized to receive either TIVA with propofol or IA with sevoflurane. The primary endpoint was NLR assessment. Secondary immune parameters measured included natural killer cells, various T cell subsets, B cells, the immuno-regulatory index [T-helpers (CD3+CD4+)/cytotoxic T-cells (CD3+CD8+)], matrix metallopeptidases (MMP-9), complement components, and immunoglobulins, preoperatively and at 1 and 24 hours postoperatively. The study included 98 patients (IA: 48, TIVA: 50). The baseline characteristics exhibited remarkable similarity across the groups. No significant difference in absolute NLR values was found between IA and TIVA groups at any time point (1 hour: p = 0.519, 24 hours: p = 0.333). Decreased IgA and IgM levels post-surgery suggested potential negative impacts of IA on humoral immunity compared to TIVA. CRP levels increased more by 24 hours (p = 0.044) in IA compared to TIVA. No significant differences were observed in natural killer cells, T cell subsets, B cells, MMP-9 levels or complement components between groups. Significant differences in the immuno-regulatory index between the TIVA and IA groups at one hour postoperatively (p = 0.033) were not maintained at 24 hours. While there were no notable differences in NLR among the types of anesthesia, the observed disparities in immunoglobulin content and C-reactive protein levels between groups suggest that we cannot dismiss the potential immunosuppressive effects of inhalational anesthesia in breast cancer surgeries. Further investigation needed to clarify the impact of various anesthesia methods on immune function and their implications for long-term cancer outcomes.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Breast cancer (BC) mortality primarily stems from metastases rather than the primary tumor itself. Perioperative stress, encompassing both surgical and anesthetic factors, profoundly impacts the immune system, leading to alterations in neuroendocrine pathways and immune functions, potentially facilitating tumor progression and metastasis. Understanding the immunomodulatory effects of different anesthesia techniques is crucial for optimizing perioperative care in patients with BC. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) serves as one of the key indicators of perioperative immune response.
Objective UNASSIGNED
To compare the effects of inhalation anesthesia (IA) and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) on perioperative immune response in BC surgery patients.
Methods UNASSIGNED
In this randomized, double-blind clinical trial, BC surgery patients were randomized to receive either TIVA with propofol or IA with sevoflurane. The primary endpoint was NLR assessment. Secondary immune parameters measured included natural killer cells, various T cell subsets, B cells, the immuno-regulatory index [T-helpers (CD3+CD4+)/cytotoxic T-cells (CD3+CD8+)], matrix metallopeptidases (MMP-9), complement components, and immunoglobulins, preoperatively and at 1 and 24 hours postoperatively.
Results UNASSIGNED
The study included 98 patients (IA: 48, TIVA: 50). The baseline characteristics exhibited remarkable similarity across the groups. No significant difference in absolute NLR values was found between IA and TIVA groups at any time point (1 hour: p = 0.519, 24 hours: p = 0.333). Decreased IgA and IgM levels post-surgery suggested potential negative impacts of IA on humoral immunity compared to TIVA. CRP levels increased more by 24 hours (p = 0.044) in IA compared to TIVA. No significant differences were observed in natural killer cells, T cell subsets, B cells, MMP-9 levels or complement components between groups. Significant differences in the immuno-regulatory index between the TIVA and IA groups at one hour postoperatively (p = 0.033) were not maintained at 24 hours.
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
While there were no notable differences in NLR among the types of anesthesia, the observed disparities in immunoglobulin content and C-reactive protein levels between groups suggest that we cannot dismiss the potential immunosuppressive effects of inhalational anesthesia in breast cancer surgeries. Further investigation needed to clarify the impact of various anesthesia methods on immune function and their implications for long-term cancer outcomes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39132502
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1401910
pmc: PMC11310116
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

1401910

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Kadantseva, Subbotin, Akchulpanov, Berikashvili, Yadgarov, Zhukova, Kvetenadze, Svitich, Kukina, Kuznetsov, Shemetova, Smirnova, Polyakov, Shebankov and Likhvantsev.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Auteurs

Kristina Kadantseva (K)

Department of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.
Department of Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, A. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia.

Valery Subbotin (V)

Department of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.
Department of Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, A. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia.

Roman Akchulpanov (R)

Department of Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, A. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia.

Levan Berikashvili (L)

Department of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.

Mikhail Yadgarov (M)

Department of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.

Lyudmila Zhukova (L)

Department of Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, A. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia.

Guram Kvetenadze (G)

Department of Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, A. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia.

Oxana Svitich (O)

Department of Immunology, Mechnikov Research Institute of Vaccines and Sera, Moscow, Russia.

Polina Kukina (P)

Department of Immunology, Mechnikov Research Institute of Vaccines and Sera, Moscow, Russia.

Ivan Kuznetsov (I)

Department of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.

Mariya Shemetova (M)

Department of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.

Anastasiya Smirnova (A)

Department of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.

Petr Polyakov (P)

Department of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.

Andrey Shebankov (A)

Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education "N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University" of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.

Valery Likhvantsev (V)

Department of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.
Department of Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, I. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.

Classifications MeSH