Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About the Ochsner Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • Ochsner Journal Blog

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Ochsner Journal
  • Other Publications
    • Ochsner Journal Blog
  • My alerts
  • Log in
Ochsner Journal

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About the Ochsner Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
Review ArticleReviews and Commentaries

Effect of Opiates, Anesthetic Techniques, and Other Perioperative Factors on Surgical Cancer Patients

Alan David Kaye, Nayan Patel, Franklin Rivera Bueno, Brad Hymel, Nalini Vadivelu, Gopal Kodumudi and Richard D. Urman
Ochsner Journal June 2014, 14 (2) 216-228;
Alan David Kaye
1Department of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA
2Department of Pharmacology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nayan Patel
3Department of Anesthesiology, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Kansas City, MO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Franklin Rivera Bueno
4Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brad Hymel
1Department of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nalini Vadivelu
5Department of Anesthesiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gopal Kodumudi
6College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard D. Urman
7Department of Anesthesiology, Harvard School of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Opioid pharmacotherapy is often used to treat cancer pain. However, morphine and other opioid-like substance use in patients with cancer may have significant adverse consequences, including the suppression of both innate and acquired immune responses. Although studies have examined the possibility that regional anesthesia attenuates the immunosuppressive response of surgery, the effects of morphine and other opioid-related substances on tumor progression remain unknown.

Methods This article presents an evidence-based review of the influence of opioids and anesthetic technique on the immune system in the context of cancer recurrence. The review focuses on the field of regional anesthesia and the setting of surgical oncologic procedures. The method for perioperative pain management and the technique of anesthesia chosen for patients in cancer surgery were explored.

Results General anesthetics have been indicated to suppress both cell-mediated immunity and humoral immunity. Evidence suggests that intravenous opioids suppress the immune system. However, the mechanisms by which anesthetics and analgesics inhibit the immune system are not understood. Compared with the alternatives, regional analgesia offers reduced blood loss and superior postoperative analgesia. Because of these advantages, the use of regional analgesia has increased in oncologic surgeries.

Conclusion Immune responses from all components of the immune system, including both the humoral and cell-mediated components, appear to be suppressed by anesthetics and analgesics. The clinical anesthesiologist should consider these factors in the application of technique, especially in cancer surgery.

Keywords
  • Analgesics–opioid
  • anesthetics
  • immunosuppression
  • neoplasm

INTRODUCTION

Cancer and control of cancer-related pain are major public health problems worldwide. In the United States, 1 in 4 deaths is related to cancer.1 According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), an estimated 1,665,540 new cancer cases and 577,190 deaths from cancer are projected to occur in the United States in 2014.1 The ACS projects that the majority of new cancer cases diagnosed will be cancer of the digestive system (289,610), lung/bronchial system (242,550), breast (235,030), and prostate (233,000).1

Many treatments are available for cancer, including surgical resection, chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy, and various pharmacotherapies. For many cancers, early detection can result in a decrease in cancer recurrence and metastasis.1 Because of current diagnostic and therapeutic advances, many cancers are now surgically resected at earlier stages compared with years past when these same tumors would not have been identified until after they had further grown and spread.

Opioid pharmacotherapy has been a mainstay in the treatment of cancer pain. Morphine and related opioids are often used during the perioperative period. However, these substances may have significant potential adverse consequences for cancer patients given their immunological influences. Specifically, some evidence demonstrates an opioid-mediated suppression of innate immune responses and acquired immune responses. This suppression may lead to a decreased resistance to infection and may expedite the progression of cancer in patients who take opioids.2,3 Further, the effect of opioids on the immune system may be of particular clinical relevance in certain select populations, including elderly or immunocompromised patients.4 The effects of regional anesthesia on the immune system in the context of cancer recurrence have not been extensively studied.

In this article, we present an evidence-based review of the influence of opioids and anesthetic technique on the immune system in the context of cancer recurrence. We focused our review on the field of regional anesthesia and the setting of surgical oncologic procedures.

OPIOID-MEDIATED IMMUNOLOGIC EFFECTS

The administration of morphine and other opioid agents for both acute and chronic situations produces a decrease in cellular immunity as demonstrated in human cells and in animal cells.5-7 Both preclinical and clinical studies have shown the immunomodulatory effects of morphine.8 A faster progression of cancer and an increased susceptibility to infection have been associated with the use of morphine in cancer patients.9 Intravenous opioids such as morphine, codeine, and fentanyl, along with volatile anesthetics such as isoflurane, have demonstrated immunosuppressive properties that include suppression of natural killer (NK) cells.7 NK cells are vital to the rejection of tumor cells and to the eradication of viruses. In both in vivo animal studies and in vitro human studies, intravenous opioids have been shown to decrease NK cell cytotoxicity (NKCC).3,4 The exact effect of opioid-mediated immunosuppression depends on the agent. Just as morphine-, codeine-, and fentanyl-mediated immunosuppressive effects have been substantiated in animal models, the partial agonist buprenorphine appears to have a more favorable immune profile devoid of intrinsic immunosuppressive activity.4

ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA EFFECTS

The effects of anesthesia and analgesia on cellular immunity are outlined in Table 1.10 The endeavor to isolate these anesthesia effects for scrutiny has presented challenges because major surgery itself has a suppressive effect on cellular immunity as outlined in Table 2.11 The change in cellular immunity may stem from the invasive nature of surgery.10

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Anesthetics and Effects on Immune System of Hosts

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Surgical Factors That Lead to Immunosuppression, Proposed Mechanisms, Examples

Researchers have measured the anesthesia and analgesia substances eliciting a certain immune response and have used fluctuations of specific cytokines—interleukin (IL)-2, IL-10, IL-12, and interferon gamma (IFN-γ)—as a measure for immunosuppression.10 The effects of anesthesia and analgesia on cellular immunity have been studied in vitro, in certain animal models, and in humans.10

Intravenous Anesthetic Agents

Melamed et al investigated the effect of intravenous anesthetic agents on cellular immunity.12 They injected rats with tumor cells and subsequently subjected the animals to different anesthetic agents. Rats treated with ketamine had 5.5 times the number of tumor cells of control rats. Rats treated with thiopental had 2 times the number of tumor cells of control rats. Melamed et al also found that ketamine, thiopental, and propofol treatments suppressed NK cell activity and NK cell levels compared with the controls. They found a correlation between the number of viable tumor cells present at autopsy and NK cells in the aggregate of the groups but not in the individual groups.

The link between docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and the low incidences of several strains of cancer has also been investigated. Siddiqui et al tested propofol-docosahexaenoate (propofol-DHA) and propofol-eicosapentaenoate (propofol-EPA) for their effects on the migration, adhesion, and apoptosis of MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells.13 The propofol conjugates inhibited cellular adhesion, migration, and apoptosis in MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells.

Inhalational Agents

Halogenated volatile anesthetics have been shown to have properties of immunomodulation and to suppress the function of NK cells.7,14 Specifically, isoflurane and halothane each attenuate the interferon stimulation of NKCC in mice.7,10 In addition, 1 in vitro investigation has yielded results that warrant further investigation of the effects of inhalational agents on immunosuppression.15 This study has demonstrated that sevoflurane administration leads to the altered release of cytokines such as IL-1β and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α by NK and NK-like cells.15

The identification and characterization of the immunosuppressive effects of inhalational agents has been challenging for researchers because of the many variables in the conditions of inhalational anesthesia administration and the different drugs to which patients are exposed.10 In a large retrospective analysis, Schlagenhauff et al found a relationship between anesthesia and cancer survival rate: compared with the use of local anesthesia, general anesthesia was associated with a decreased survival rate for patients with primary melanoma excisions.16

Another study indicated that general anesthesia leads to the reduced circulation of NK cells in patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery.17 Also, previous literature has suggested an association between cancer surgery and the systemic release of tumor cells and micrometastases.18 Further research has yielded data from both in vitro evaluations and in vivo animal studies that indicate impairment of neutrophils, macrophages, dendritic cells, and T cells with the use of anesthesia for cancer surgery.18

Nitrous Oxide

The toxicity of nitrous oxide has been demonstrated. Nitrous oxide disrupts the process of DNA synthesis and depresses neutrophil chemotaxis. Additionally, nitrous oxide administration is associated with both depressed neutrophil function and reduced mononuclear cell production.19

The mouse model has revealed the possibility of immunosuppression from nitrous oxide administration; Shapiro et al demonstrated that nitrous oxide exposure is associated with the accelerated development of lung and liver metastasis.20

Nitrous oxide has also been examined for its effects on humans.21,22 Nitrous oxide exposure may increase bowel distension in patients who are subject to elective colon resection.23 However, further investigation has led to the interpretation that nitrous oxide does not increase the incidence of surgical wound infection.21 In addition, a follow-up of a randomized controlled trial indicated that nitrous oxide may not increase the risk of cancer recurrence after colorectal surgery.22

Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs lead to the attenuation of prostaglandin synthesis by inhibiting the cyclooxygenase (COX) enzyme.10 Furthermore, tumor cells have been shown to secrete prostaglandins, and researchers have explored the possibility that the ability to secrete prostaglandins may be a mechanism to evade the immune response.24

The rat model has demonstrated that COX-2 inhibitors possess both antitumor and antiangiogenic properties.25 Benish et al elucidated the relationship between COX-2 inhibitors and immune suppression.26 They found that postoperative immunosuppression may stem from the excess release of prostaglandins and catecholamines.

The work of Farooqui et al was undertaken to determine if celecoxib prevents morphine-induced tumor growth without compromising analgesia.27 They found that celecoxib thwarts the morphine-induced stimulation of COX-2, PGE2, angiogenesis, tumor growth, metastasis, and mortality and that celecoxib achieves these preventive actions without the attenuation of analgesia.

Local Anesthetics

The effects of local anesthetics on tumor suppression have been studied in cells.10 Lidocaine seems to exert an antitumor effect.28 Ropivacaine seems to exert a suppressive effect on the growth of tumor cells.29

Lidocaine possibly exerts its antiproliferative effect on tumors through the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR).28 An experiment was structured such that lidocaine was administered in clinical concentrations to tongue cancer cells with the concurrent evaluation of EGFR levels of activity.28 The clinical concentration of administered lidocaine led to the marked decrease of EGFR-induced proliferation of tongue cancer cells and to the inhibition of the EGFR-stimulated tyrosine kinase activity that stimulates EGFR.28

The effect of ropivacaine on cancer cell growth has been studied in vitro.29 Ropivacaine seems to suppress the growth of human colon adenocarcinoma cells and has been demonstrated to inhibit cancer cells in a dose-dependent manner.29 Although more research is needed to elucidate the effects of local anesthetics on cancer cell growth, these studies show promise for optimized approaches.

OTHER FACTORS' EFFECTS

Regional Anesthesia

More studies on the effect of regional anesthesia on immunosuppression are needed. To date, most of the studies on the effect of regional anesthesia on immunosuppression are retrospective. One study examined the incidence of biochemical cancer recurrence in 2 treatment groups after open prostatectomy under general anesthesia.30 One group received open prostatectomies with epidural analgesia and the other group was given postoperative opioid analgesia. The group with epidural analgesia had a 57% reduction in cancer recurrence compared to the opioid group.

An investigation by Wada et al explored the possibility that general anesthesia may improve the overall treatment of cancer.31 In a rat model, sevoflurane general anesthesia and laparotomy each suppressed tumoricidal function in liver mononuclear cells, and spinal block attenuated this suppressive effect. The Wada et al study also explored the possibility that the combined administration of sevoflurane and a spinal block may reduce the promotion of tumor metastasis.

Regional anesthesia may exert an effect on breast cancer metastasis. In one investigation, serum samples were taken from breast cancer surgery patients who experienced various anesthetic techniques.32 These samples were studied for breast cancer cell function in vitro, and the results indicated a possible link between anesthetic technique and breast cancer cell function.

Regional anesthesia influences the long-term outcome of cancer surgery in 3 ways.10,18 First, regional anesthesia may attenuate the intrinsic immunosuppression from surgery.33 Second, patients who receive regional analgesia often do not need as much opioid treatment, and as a result, tend to avoid the immunosuppressive effects that accompany opioid treatment.34 Third, the combination therapy of regional and general anesthesia leads to a reduction in the dose of inhalational anesthetic required. This decrease in the required dose can potentially affect long-term outcome from cancer-related surgery.10

Acute Pain

The conventional understanding holds that acute pain exerts a suppressive effect on NK cell activity.35,36 The rat model has been used to demonstrate that different pain management techniques may have varying effects on host immunity, including antitumor defense mechanisms. In a study by Page et al, the suggestion that postoperative pain somehow mediates tumor production was examined by comparing the effects of 2 regimens of analgesia for postoperative pain in rat tumors after surgery: systemic fentanyl and intrathecal administration of bupivacaine and morphine.37 The surgery-induced increase in lung tumor retention was attenuated by >65% in the rats treated with fentanyl and by >45% in the rats treated with the bupivacaine/morphine regimen. In addition, fentanyl had a suppressive effect on NK activity. Whether these data reflect a more significant clinical relevance of morphine-induced cancer progression vs fentanyl-induced cancer progression is uncertain.

The nature and effects of acute pain challenge the elucidation of the influence of opioids on the immune system.10 Opioids possibly improve cancer resistance in postoperative pain in vivo, exert an immunosuppressive effect when administered at a basal level, and may exert different effects on the immune system during different states of pain.38

Blood Transfusion

Blood transfusions may support metastasis.10,39 Allogeneic blood, or transfusion-associated immunomodulation, has an immunosuppressive effect.40 This effect has been substantiated both in vivo and in vitro.41-43

Blajchman et al examined the possibility that blood transfusions may exert adverse effects on cancer patients.43 Using rat, mouse, and rabbit models, they compared the effects of allogeneic blood transfusion with the effects of leukodepleted allogeneic blood transfusion. Animals that received the allogeneic blood transfusion experienced a significant increase in metastatic pulmonary nodule growth.

Chen et al compared the effects of allogeneic blood transfusion and autologous blood transfusion in cancer patients.44 Both transfusion types resulted in a decrease in IFN-γ, T-helper cells, and the T-helper/cytotoxic T-cell ratio. The levels of these substances remained low in patients who received allogeneic blood transfusion when measured 5 days after operation. The levels of these substances were maintained in patients who received autologous blood transfusion.

Immunotherapy

Rats pretreated with an IFN inducer have been shown to experience an increase of NK cell activity and a dampened immunosuppression induced by fentanyl.45 Colacchio et al found that pretreatment of rats with IFN may dampen the NK cell inhibition that is normally associated with surgery and anesthesia.46 The study also showed that treatment of mice with low-dose IL-2 and ketorolac leads to a reversal of NK cell-mediated immunosuppression. This immunosuppression is highly associated with surgery. In addition, Colacchio et al demonstrated that morphine enhances the NK cell-mediated immunosuppression from surgery.

Ben-Eliyahu has considered the effect of surgery on cancer, specifically whether surgery promotes metastasis.47 He is also credited with proposing that immunotherapy yields improved results when administered during the perioperative period.

Hypothermia

Hypothermia has been studied in rats for its suppression of NK cell activity.48 The rat model has also been used to demonstrate that hypothermia may suppress resistance to metastasis.48 Melamed et al suggested that the extent of hypothermia, namely the rat's temperature (with hypothermia exposures of 33°C-35°C for 1 hour), influences immunosuppression.12

Hypothermia is a common surgical complication and has been suggested as a cause of other surgical complications. Ben-Eliyahu et al examined the immunosuppressive effect of hypothermia in 2 groups of rats.48 One group was hypothermic and another group was normothermic. Each group was injected with tumor cells, and the blood of each group was monitored for NK cell activity. Tumor retention was increased by 250% in the hypothermic group compared with the normothermic group. In addition, metastasis increased up to fourfold in the hypothermic group compared with the normothermic group.

Anxiety

Studies indicate that anxiety both suppresses the immune system and creates an environment that supports cancer growth.10 Experiments with rat models have indicated that stress has a suppressive effect on NK cell activity and a retentive effect on lung tumor growth.49 Human studies have explored how psychological stress contributes to immunosuppression.50

Stefanski et al examined the effects of stress on the immune system, measuring both NK cell activity and lung tumor retention.49 Rats were injected with tumor cells, and pretreatment with the beta-adrenergic antagonist butoxamine significantly influenced stress, NK function, and distribution, suggesting a mediation or modulation linked to an adrenergic mechanism.

Andersen et al examined the effect of chronic stress on cellular immune responses in patients during the periods of breast cancer diagnosis and breast cancer surgery.50 In their examination of 116 patients who had been treated surgically for invasive breast cancer, stress served as a significant predictor of lowered NK cell lysis, the NK cell response to recombinant IFN-γ, and the proliferative response of peripheral blood lymphocytes to different proteins.

BASIC SCIENCE FINDINGS RELATED TO NEURAXIAL AND REGIONAL ANESTHESIA

Reduced blood loss, decreased need for blood transfusion, superior analgesia, and increased mobility have all been cited as advantages of regional anesthesia over systemic opioids.51-53

In addition, neuraxial and regional anesthesia and analgesia provide a substantial reduction in postoperative pain, intravenous opioid use, and volatile anesthetic requirements. Both the attenuation of the surgical response and the inhibition of the immune response as a result of the use of either epidural analgesia or anesthesia have been documented in a study by Hong and Lim.54 Only a few studies have been published that demonstrate the effect of neuraxial and regional anesthesia on the immune system. Even fewer studies explore the effect of neuraxial and regional anesthesia on the immune system and cancer recurrence.

Studies have illustrated the effects of regional anesthesia on cytokine serum levels Il-2, IFN-γ, Il-10, and plasma epinephrine/cortisol.55,56 Plasma levels of cortisol and epinephrine were shown to be significantly decreased in the regional anesthesia group. IFN-γ also was shown to increase as a result of the administration of regional anesthesia. A measurement of T-helper cells and lymphocytes revealed that the regional anesthesia group had significantly higher numbers of T-helper cells and lymphocytes postoperation compared to the group without regional anesthesia. Another in vitro study of 32 people demonstrated the effect of regional anesthesia on TNF-β and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).57 TNF-β and VEGF are important markers for inflammation. Although the sample group in this study was small, in terms of the effect of regional anesthesia, it illustrated both a postoperative fall in VEGF and also a postoperative increase in TNF-β.

Both of these in vitro studies share a theme that merits further study: regional anesthesia attenuates the immunosuppressive response to surgery.14,54,56,58 Different studies58,59 conflict with regard to the effects of morphine on tumor progression. One study demonstrated that morphine treatment leads to a reduction in colon adenocarcinoma cells.59 Different receptors for endogenous and exogenous opioids possibly cause divergent effects for in vivo animal studies and in vitro assays.60

Normal volunteers have also shown that morphine administration leads to the suppression of antibody-dependent cell cytotoxicity.61 However, the effect of morphine on NK and B cells remains unknown. Possible mechanisms by which morphine exerts its effects are explored in Figures 1 and 2, reprinted from Gach et al.11

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Possible mechanisms of the opioid receptor–mediated influence of morphine on tumor growth. Morphine binds to the μ-opioid receptor and (1) stimulates the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway via the G protein-coupled receptors/extracellular-signal-regulated kinase (ERK) pathway, resulting in cell cycle progression; (2) activates the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/AKT (PI3K/AKT) pathway, mediating antiapoptotic effects through the Bcl-xL/Bcl-2-associated death promoter protein; (3) upregulates urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) expression and secretion promoting extracellular matrix (ECM) degradation and metastasis; (4) transactivates vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors and induces angiogenesis; and (5) suppresses the function of T lymphocytes, leading to immunosuppression. (Figure and caption reprinted with permission from Gach et al.11)

EGF, epidermal growth factor; Src, sarcoma.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Possible pathways, other than through the opioid receptors, by which morphine influences cancer progression and suppression. (Figure and caption reprinted with permission from Gach et al.11)

Bax, bcl-2–associated x protein; Bcl-2, B cell lymphoma 2; Bim, bcl-2–interacting mediator of cell death; COX-2, cyclooxygenase-2; ECM, extracellular matrix; Fas, TNF receptor superfamily member 6; IL, interleukin; JNK, c-Jun N-terminal kinase; MAPK, mitogen-activated protein kinase; MMPs, matrix metalloproteinases; NK, natural killer (cells); NO, nitric oxide; PGE-2, prostaglandin E2; ROS, reactive oxygen species; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor.

The opioid-cancer recurrence associations found in animal studies and in human in vitro studies have increased interest in the use of regional anesthesia and analgesia in patients with cancer. In the past decade, several retrospective trials have shown mixed results regarding the relationship between opioids and the stimulation of both metastasis and immunosuppression.58

CLINICAL SCIENCE FINDINGS

Ovarian Cancer

A retrospective study by de Oliveira et al analyzed 182 patients who underwent cytoreductive ovarian debulking.62 Patients who had <1.0 cm of their tumors remaining were evaluated. Time to recurrence (defined as cancer antigen [CA]-125 >21 u/mL) was the primary endpoint of the study, and time to death was the secondary endpoint. Each patient in the study received general anesthesia; none received regional anesthesia alone. Induction was performed with fentanyl 2-3 mcg/kg, midazolam 0.02-0.04 mg/kg, and propofol 1.5-2.5 mg/kg. Sevoflurane was the inhalation agent used during the maintenance of anesthesia.

Patient health records were analyzed for 3-9 years and were stratified into 3 groups. In 1 group, 127 patients received neither epidural anesthesia nor analgesia. In another group, 26 patients received epidural anesthesia/analgesia intraoperatively as part of a balanced anesthetic technique and for postoperative pain control. In another group, 29 patients received epidural anesthesia/analgesia for postoperative pain control only. The variation in group sizes deserves emphasis; 127 patients received only intravenous opioids for intraoperative and postoperative pain control, and 55 patients received epidural anesthesia/analgesia.62

Both intraoperative opioid use and postoperative opioid use were measured in milligrams of morphine equivalents. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were obtained. A log-rank test was used to compare median survival time and time to recurrence between groups. The results for the group whose members received preoperative epidurals indicated an increased time to recurrence of ovarian cancer of 73 months. Results showed a decreased time to recurrence for the group whose members received no epidural of 38 months (P<0.001) and an average of 33 months (P<0.002) for those who received epidurals for postoperative pain control use only.62

Although propensity scores were used in statistical analysis, this retrospective study suffered from a confounding variable bias. In addition, neither the operative care nor the postoperative care was standardized, particularly regarding the amount of volatile anesthetic administered and the amount of postoperative opioid administered.

Colon Cancer

Other retrospective studies on patients with colon cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer have yielded mixed results regarding cancer recurrence in the context of opioid analgesia/anesthesia.30,63-66 Gottschalk et al retrospectively initially examined 669 patients for 7 years, examining the time to recurrence of cancer in 2 groups.63 One underwent colorectal surgery with epidural analgesia (n=256) and the other group underwent colorectal surgery with general anesthesia (n=253). The median follow-up time for this study was 1.8 years. Cancer recurrence was detected in 16% of the nonepidural therapy patients and in 13% of the epidural therapy patients. The patients who received epidural therapy shared certain characteristics. More males than females received epidural therapy. The patients who received epidural therapy generally had lower American Society of Anesthesiologists classification scores, had worse tumor grades, and received a lower fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) intraoperatively. Also, the patients who received epidural therapy underwent different surgical procedures, received greater crystalloid volume, experienced higher estimated blood loss, and were more likely to receive radiation and chemotherapy.63

The multivariable analysis of this study showed no association between the epidural procedure and the time to recurrence of cancer (P=0.43). The post-hoc analysis of 9 pairwise interactions indicated that only age showed a linear effect. Those who were older than 64 experienced better outcomes (P=0.001, hazard ratio of 0.67) with the use of epidurals compared to those younger than 64. Because these results are in the form of a post-hoc analysis, they could be classified as a type 1 statistical error as described by the authors.63

These authors further postulated that younger patients may experience more aggressive forms of the disease and of histological tumor types. However, this retrospective study may be confounded by the lack of determination of the exact time of epidural infusion discontinuation. The article states that the median follow-up time was short and that a longer follow-up time may have indicated more significant differences.

The study by Gottschalk et al conflicts with the Christopherson et al prospective analysis of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Number 345 (CSN 345).67 CSN 345 was a multicenter prospective trial in which 1,021 randomized colon cancer patients were placed either into a general anesthesia group or an epidural anesthesia supplemented with general anesthesia treatment group. During a 30-day postoperative period, the results of the study did not indicate significant differences in death or major complications between the 2 treatment groups.

Christopherson et al further expanded upon the CSN 345 trial by recording and evaluating long-term survival statistics for patients (n=177) who suffered from colon cancer.67 They employed multivariable analysis to construct log regression survival models that they used to analyze pathological stage, type of anesthesia used, and other variables. Epidural supplementation was associated with improved survival (P=0.012) within the first 1.46 years after the operation, but after 1.46 years, the type of anesthesia was not found to affect survival (P=0.27) in the patients without metastases. Epidural anesthesia had no effect on the survival of patients with metastases.

In comparing the results of the 2 studies, Gottschalk et al concluded, smaller sample size notwithstanding, that no clear difference in data in terms of variables exists in their study. The different findings of these 2 studies may be explained by the observed differences ensuing from the perioperative management of epidurals. Christopherson et al stated that their investigation was preliminary and that covariables such as cause of death merited further examination.67

Prostate Cancer

Biki et al performed a retrospective analysis of 225 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy.30 Patients were divided into 2 groups. One group was treated with general anesthesia/intravenous opioids, and the other group was treated with epidural/general anesthesia. This study used biochemical recurrence, defined as the increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) compared with its immediate postoperative nadir, to serve as the primary endpoint measurement. This study also charted the recurrence-free interval time, which is the time after both surgery and PSA readings at or below the postoperative nadir. The follow-up interval was 2.8-12.8 years.

The data demonstrated a lower estimated risk of recurrence for the epidural/general anesthesia group (P<0.001, hazard ratio of 0.34) compared with the general anesthesia/intravenous opioid group. Risk calculations—adjusted for tumor size, Gleason score, and preoperative PSA—led to a 57% lower risk (95% confidence interval [CI] 17%, 78%) in the epidural/general anesthesia group compared with the general anesthesia/intravenous opioid group.30

This study had several limitations. Because the work was a retrospective analysis, the patients were not randomized. In addition, several unaccountable confounding variables were not able to be excluded. Furthermore, the sample size was small, which may have caused a type 1 error according to the study authors.

Tsui et al conducted a retrospective analysis of 99 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with either general anesthesia alone or general anesthesia with epidural anesthesia.68 The measured biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer was defined as a PSA score >0.2 ng/mL. The median follow-up time was 4.5 years. No difference was found between the combined epidural anesthesia/general anesthesia and the general anesthesia group (P=0.44).

The limitation of this study is its small sample size, which may have caused a type 2 error in the acceptance of the null hypothesis according to the study authors. Demonstration of the effects of epidural analgesia on disease recurrence rates post–radical prostatectomy requires larger randomized controlled trials.30,68

Wuethrich et al published a retrospective trial concerning prostate cancer recurrence and epidural analgesia that focused on 250 patients undergoing retropubic radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph node dissection.69 The patients were assessed for various factors, including biochemical recurrence–free survival, clinical progression–free survival, and cancer-specific survival. The follow-up time was 3 years.69

The definitions of survival varied among the measured factors. Biochemical recurrence–free survival was indicated by a PSA score ≤0.2 ng/mL. Cancer-specific survival was defined from operation time to death caused by tumor. Clinical progression–free survival was determined at the points of either clinical progression or death. Overall survival was defined from operation time to time of death from any cause.69

Patients were divided into 2 groups; 1 group was treated with general anesthesia combined with epidural anesthesia and the other with general anesthesia and ketorolac/morphine analgesia. These groups showed no difference in rate of improved biochemical recurrence–free survival, cancer-specific survival, or overall survival. However, a reduction in the clinical progression of cancer was discovered (P=0.002, hazard ratio of 0.45 and 95% CI 0.27, 0.75).

This study is significant because all of the anesthetic techniques were standardized. However, this was also a retrospective analysis and, despite the propensity scores, the patients were not truly randomized.

Breast Cancer

Exadaktylos et al conducted a retrospective analysis of 129 patients who underwent simple mastectomy with axillary clearance during the span of 1 year.65 The patients were divided into 2 groups. One group received general anesthesia (n=79) with postoperative intravenous morphine, and the other group received a paravertebral block (n=50) with general anesthesia. Patients who underwent wide local excision procedures and sentinel axillary lymph node procedures were excluded because these procedures did not require paravertebral blocks and were also seen as less extensive.65

The paravertebral block was standardized among patients with a 0.2 mL/kg bolus of 0.25% levobupivacaine before the induction of general anesthesia. The infusion for each patient was scheduled for 48 hours after each operation. The same anesthetist placed all of the paravertebral catheters. The same surgeon performed all of the operations. The same oncologist cared for each patient. The same general anesthesia protocol was used for each patient.65

Either cancer recurrence or metastasis was documented in 6% of the patients who received the block and in 24% of the patients who received only general anesthesia/intravenous morphine (P=0.013). Multivariable analysis also indicated that the risk of recurrence was less after the adjustment for both the histological grade and the axillary involvement (P=0.012, hazard ratio of 0.21 and 95% CI 0.06, 0.71). As with all the previously mentioned studies, this study is limited because it is both retrospective and nonrandomized. The authors also state that confounding variables such as tumor size, margin size, chemotherapy rates and regimes, and the amount of postoperative morphine used further limited this study.65

Sessler et al conducted a prospective clinical trial with an enrollment of approximately 1,100 patients over the span of 5 years from 2008-2013.70 In this trial, they compared 2 groups of breast cancer surgery patients. One group was randomized to paravertebral or high-thoracic epidural analgesia combined with sedation or light anesthesia, and the other group was given intraoperative volatile anesthesia and postoperative opioid analgesia. They compared the local or metastatic recurrence after breast cancer surgery in the 2 groups and hypothesize that the local/metastatic recurrence after breast cancer surgery is lower with analgesia and sedation/light anesthesia than with intraoperative anesthesia and postoperative analgesia.70

Only 1 randomized prospective trial has demonstrated the effects of regional anesthesia on long-term cancer survival.71 The trial involved 446 patients and 23 clinical sites. This study examined abdominal procedures that focus on the complete surgical excision of cancer, including esophagectomy, gastrectomy, nephrectomy, cystectomy, radical hysterectomy, and open prostatectomy.

The patient populations were divided into groups. The epidural and postoperative analgesia group consisted of 263 patients. The nonepidural and postoperative intravenous opioid-based analgesia group originally consisted of 240 patients. The primary endpoint was cancer-free survival, and the secondary endpoint was all causes of mortality. The endpoints were measured in 5-year increments for up to 15 years. Both cancer recurrence rate and the survival from date of surgery were recorded. The research staff who collected follow-up outcome data were blinded to exposure status. Each patient received standardized premedication, intraoperative monitoring, and induction and maintenance anesthesia. Each epidural catheter was inserted in the thoracic region with continuous infusions of ropivacaine supplemented with either fentanyl or meperidine. The epidurals were kept in for about 3 days postoperatively.

The median time to recurrence of cancer or death was 2.6 years in the epidural group and 2.8 years in the nonepidural group (P=0.61, hazard ratio of 0.95, 95% CI 0.76, 1.17). Five-year recurrence and mortality rates were comparable in predefined subgroups such as sex, age, and type of surgery in all categories (all P values >0.10).

Analysis of the data identified significant predictors of early death or recurrence of cancer. These predictors included patient age (P<0.001), sex (P<0.001, hazard ratio of 0.65, 95% CI 0.52, 0.82), and risk from red cell transfusion (P=0.002, hazard ratio of 0.63, 95% CI 0.47, 0.84). However, the epidural group did not show negative predictors (P=0.72, hazard ratio of 1.04, 95% CI 0.84, 1.3).71

This study offers the strength of a relatively large sample group, randomization, and a long follow-up period. However, the study also has limitations. The exclusion criteria were examined to detect smaller effects that might still be of considerable clinical importance, particularly for individual types of cancer. The examination revealed that the study lacked power (n=446).

As of early 2014, approximately 29 prospective clinical trials are underway. More clinical trials are anticipated. We maintain optimism that at least 1 of these clinical trials will elucidate the effects of regional anesthesia in the context of oncologic therapy.

DISCUSSION

General anesthetics have been indicated to suppress both cell-mediated immunity and humoral immunity. Evidence suggests that intravenous opioids suppress the immune system. However, the mechanisms by which anesthetics and analgesics inhibit the immune system are not understood.

To avoid this immune suppression, the use of regional analgesia might be preferable to the use of intravenous opioids and general anesthetics. Compared with the alternatives, regional analgesia offers reduced blood loss and superior postoperative analgesia. The immunosuppressive effects of regional anesthesia and analgesia may be less than the immunosuppressive effects of either intravenous opioids or general anesthesia. Because of these perceived advantages, the use of regional analgesia has generally increased in oncologic surgeries although no hard data have been published at this time. More clinical studies are necessary to elucidate the impact of regional anesthesia on the immune system of the patient undergoing curative cancer surgery.

The effects of intraoperative and postoperative regional analgesia merit further extensive study. Also, certain factors merit further exploration: the reduction of metastasis and tumor recurrence, surgical site infection rates, and long-term survival rates.

CONCLUSION

Immune responses from all components of the immune system, including both the humoral and cell-mediated components, appear to be suppressed by anesthetics and analgesics. This suppression has been demonstrated in vitro and in vivo for both animals and humans. Although they serve to alleviate stress responses and pain, anesthetics and analgesics suppress immune function. The clinical anesthesiologist should consider these factors in the application of technique, especially in cancer surgery.

This article meets the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties Maintenance of Certification competencies for Patient Care and Medical Knowledge.

Footnotes

  • The authors have no financial or proprietary interest in the subject matter of this article.

  • © Academic Division of Ochsner Clinic Foundation

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Siegel R,
    2. Ma J,
    3. Zou Z,
    4. Jemal A
    (Jan-Feb 2014) Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 64(1):9–29, pmid:24399786, Epub 2014 Jan 7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Vallejo R,
    2. de Leon-Casasola O,
    3. Benyamin R
    (Sep-Oct 2004) Opioid therapy and immunosuppression: a review. Am J Ther 11(5):354–365, pmid:15356431.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. McCarthy L,
    2. Wetzel M,
    3. Sliker JK,
    4. Eisenstein TK,
    5. Rogers TJ
    (4 1, 2001) Opioids, opioid receptors, and the immune response. Drug Alcohol Depend 62(2):111–123, pmid:11245967.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Sacerdote P
    (3, 2008) Opioid-induced immunosuppression. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care 2(1):14–81, pmid:18685388.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Sacerdote P,
    2. Manfredi B,
    3. Mantegazza P,
    4. Panerai AE
    (6, 1997) Antinociceptive and immunosuppressive effects of opiate drugs: a structure-related activity study. Br J Pharmacol 121(4):834–840, pmid:9208156.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sacerdote P,
    2. Bianchi M,
    3. Gaspani L,
    4. et al.
    (6, 2000) The effects of tramadol and morphine on immune responses and pain after surgery in cancer patients. Anesth Analg 90(6):1411–1414, pmid:10825330.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Markovic SN,
    2. Knight PR,
    3. Murasko DM
    (4, 1993) Inhibition of interferon stimulation of natural killer cell activity in mice anesthetized with halothane or isoflurane. Anesthesiology 78(4):700–706, pmid:8466070.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Sacerdote P,
    2. Limiroli E,
    3. Gaspani L
    (2003) Experimental evidence for immunomodulatory effects of opioids. Adv Exp Med Biol 521:106–116, pmid:12617569.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Risdahl JM,
    2. Khanna KV,
    3. Peterson PK,
    4. Molitor TW
    (3 15, 1998) Opiates and infection. J Neuroimmunol 83((1-2)):4–18, pmid:9610668.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Snyder GL,
    2. Greenberg S
    (8, 2010) Effect of anaesthetic technique and other perioperative factors on cancer recurrence. Br J Anaesth 105(2):106–115, pmid:20627881.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Gach K,
    2. Wyrębska A,
    3. Fichna J,
    4. Janecka A
    (9, 2011) The role of morphine in regulation of cancer cell growth. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 384(3):221–230, pmid:21800094, Epub 2011 Jul 29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Melamed R,
    2. Bar-Yosef S,
    3. Shakhar G,
    4. Shakhar K,
    5. Ben-Eliyahu S
    (11, 2003) Suppression of natural killer cell activity and promotion of tumor metastasis by ketamine, thiopental, and halothane, but not by propofol: mediating mechanisms and prophylactic measures. Anesth Analg 97(5):1331–1339, pmid:14570648.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Siddiqui RA,
    2. Zerouga M,
    3. Wu M,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Anticancer properties of propofol-docosahexaenoate and propofol-eicosapentaenoate on breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res 7(5):R645–R654, pmid:16168109, Epub 2005 Jun 7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Hole A,
    2. Unsgaard G
    (4, 1983) The effect of epidural and general anaesthesia on lymphocyte functions during and after major orthopaedic surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 27(2):135–141, pmid:6837247.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Mitsuhata H,
    2. Shimizu R,
    3. Yokoyama MM
    (6, 1995) Suppressive effects of volatile anesthetics on cytokine release in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Int J Immunopharmacol 17(6):529–534, pmid:7499031.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Schlagenhauff B,
    2. Ellwanger U,
    3. Breuninger H,
    4. Stroebel W,
    5. Rassner G,
    6. Garbe C
    (4, 2000) Prognostic impact of the type of anaesthesia used during the excision of primary cutaneous melanoma. Melanoma Res 10(2):165–169, pmid:10803717.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Brand JM,
    2. Kirchner H,
    3. Poppe C,
    4. Schmucker P
    (5, 1997) The effects of general anesthesia on human peripheral immune cell distribution and cytokine production. Clin Immunol Immunopathol 83(2):190–194, pmid:9143381.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Sessler DI
    (6, 2008) Does regional analgesia reduce the risk of cancer recurrence? A hypothesis. Eur J Cancer Prev 17(3):269–272, pmid:18414199.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Weimann J
    (3, 2003) Toxicity of nitrous oxide. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 17(1):47–61, pmid:12751548.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Shapiro J,
    2. Jersky J,
    3. Katzav S,
    4. Feldman M,
    5. Segal S
    (9, 1981) Anesthetic drugs accelerate the progression of postoperative metastases of mouse tumors. J Clin Invest 68(3):678–685, pmid:7276167.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Fleischmann E,
    2. Lenhardt R,
    3. Kurz A,
    4. et al.
    (9 24-30, 2005) Outcomes Research Group. Nitrous oxide and risk of surgical wound infection: a randomised trial. Lancet 366(9491):1101–1107, pmid:16182898.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Fleischmann E,
    2. Marschalek C,
    3. Schlemitz K,
    4. et al.
    (2 3, 2009) Nitrous oxide may not increase the risk of cancer recurrence after colorectal surgery: a follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol 9:1, pmid:19192300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Akca O,
    2. Lenhardt R,
    3. Fleischmann E,
    4. et al.
    (8, 2004) Nitrous oxide increases the incidence of bowel distension in patients undergoing elective colon resection. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 48(7):894–898, pmid:15242436.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Wojtowicz-Praga S
    (2, 2003) Reversal of tumor-induced immunosuppression by TGF-beta inhibitors. Invest New Drugs 21(1):21–32, pmid:12795527.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Leahy KM,
    2. Ornberg RL,
    3. Wang Y,
    4. Zweifel BS,
    5. Koki AT,
    6. Masferrer JL
    (2 1, 2002) Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition by celecoxib reduces proliferation and induces apoptosis in angiogenic endothelial cells in vivo. Cancer Res 62(3):625–631, pmid:11830509.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Benish M,
    2. Bartal I,
    3. Goldfarb Y,
    4. et al.
    (7, 2008) Perioperative use of beta-blockers and COX-2 inhibitors may improve immune competence and reduce the risk of tumor metastasis. Ann Surg Oncol 15(7):2042–2052, pmid:18398660, Epub 2008 Apr 9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Farooqui M,
    2. Li Y,
    3. Rogers T,
    4. et al.
    (12 3, 2007) COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib prevents chronic morphine-induced promotion of angiogenesis, tumour growth, metastasis and mortality, without compromising analgesia. Br J Cancer 97(11):1523–1531, pmid:17971769, Epub 2007 Oct 30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Sakaguchi M,
    2. Kuroda Y,
    3. Hirose M
    (4, 2006) The antiproliferative effect of lidocaine on human tongue cancer cells with inhibition of the activity of epidermal growth factor receptor. Anesth Analg 102(4):1103–1107, pmid:16551906.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Martinsson T
    (2, 1999) Ropivacaine inhibits serum-induced proliferation of colon adenocarcinoma cells in vitro. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 288(2):660–664, pmid:9918572.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Biki B,
    2. Mascha E,
    3. Moriarty DC,
    4. Fitzpatrick JM,
    5. Sessler DI,
    6. Buggy DJ
    (8, 2008) Anesthetic technique for radical prostatectomy surgery affects cancer recurrence: a retrospective analysis. Anesthesiology 109(2):180–187, pmid:18648226.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Wada H,
    2. Seki S,
    3. Takahashi T,
    4. et al.
    (3, 2007) Combined spinal and general anesthesia attenuates liver metastasis by preserving TH1/TH2 cytokine balance. Anesthesiology 106(3):499–506, pmid:17325508.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Deegan CA,
    2. Murray D,
    3. Doran P,
    4. Ecimovic P,
    5. Moriarty DC,
    6. Buggy DJ
    (11, 2009) Effect of anaesthetic technique on oestrogen receptor-negative breast cancer cell function in vitro. Br J Anaesth 103(5):685–690, pmid:19776028, Epub 2009 Sep 22. Erratum in: Br J Anaesth. 2010 Apr;104(4):516.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. O'Riain SC,
    2. Buggy DJ,
    3. Kerin MJ,
    4. Watson RW,
    5. Moriarty DC
    (1, 2005) Inhibition of the stress response to breast cancer surgery by regional anesthesia and analgesia does not affect vascular endothelial growth factor and prostaglandin E2. Anesth Analg 100(1):244–249, pmid:15616085.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Moller JF,
    2. Nikolajsen L,
    3. Rodt SA,
    4. Ronning H,
    5. Carlsson PS
    (12, 2007) Thoracic paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery: a randomized double-blind study. Anesth Analg 105(6):1848–1851, pmid:18042892, table of contents.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Shavit Y,
    2. Martin FC,
    3. Yirmiya R,
    4. et al.
    (12, 1987) Effects of a single administration of morphine or footshock stress on natural killer cell cytotoxicity. Brain Behav Immun 1(4):318–328, pmid:3453207.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Sacerdote P,
    2. Manfredi B,
    3. Bianchi M,
    4. Panerai AE
    (9, 1994) Intermittent but not continuous inescapable footshock stress affects immune responses and immunocyte beta-endorphin concentrations in the rat. Brain Behav Immun 8(3):251–260, pmid:7865896.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Page GG,
    2. Blakely WP,
    3. Ben-Eliyahu S
    (2 1, 2001) Evidence that postoperative pain is a mediator of the tumor-promoting effects of surgery in rats. Pain 90((1-2)):191–199, pmid:11166986.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Page GG
    (3, 2005) Acute pain and immune impairment. Pain Clin Updates 13(1):1–4.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Weber RS,
    2. Jabbour N,
    3. Martin RC
    (1, 2008) 2nd. Anemia and transfusions in patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 15(1):34–45, pmid:17943390, Epub 2007 Oct 18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Blajchman MA
    (7, 1999) Transfusion-associated immunomodulation and universal white cell reduction: are we putting the cart before the horse? Transfusion 39(7):665–670, pmid:10413271.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Kaplan J,
    2. Sarnaik S,
    3. Gitlin J,
    4. Lusher J
    (7, 1984) Diminished helper/suppressor lymphocyte ratios and natural killer activity in recipients of repeated blood transfusions. Blood 64(1):308–310, pmid:6234037.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Brunson ME,
    2. Alexander JW
    (9, 1990) Mechanisms of transfusion-induced immunosuppression. Transfusion 30(7):651–658, pmid:2205953.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Blajchman MA,
    2. Bardossy L,
    3. Carmen R,
    4. Sastry A,
    5. Singal DP
    (4 1, 1993) Allogeneic blood transfusion-induced enhancement of tumor growth: two animal models showing amelioration by leukodepletion and passive transfer using spleen cells. Blood 81(7):1880–1882, pmid:8461473.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Chen G,
    2. Zhang FJ,
    3. Gong M,
    4. Yan M
    (8, 2007) Effect of perioperative autologous versus allogeneic blood transfusion on the immune system in gastric cancer patients. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 8(8):560–565, pmid:17657857.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Beilin B,
    2. Martin FC,
    3. Shavit Y,
    4. Gale RP,
    5. Liebeskind JC
    (6, 1989) Suppression of natural killer cell activity by high-dose narcotic anesthesia in rats. Brain Behav Immun 3(2):129–137, pmid:2477090.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Colacchio TA,
    2. Yeager MP,
    3. Hildebrandt LW
    (1, 1994) Perioperative immunomodulation in cancer surgery. Am J Surg 167(1):174–179, pmid:8311130.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Ben-Eliyahu S
    (9, 2002) The price of anticancer intervention. Does surgery promote metastasis? Lancet Oncol 3(9):578–579.
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Ben-Eliyahu S,
    2. Shakhar G,
    3. Rosenne E,
    4. Levinson Y,
    5. Beilin B
    (9, 1999) Hypothermia in barbiturate-anesthetized rats suppresses natural killer cell activity and compromises resistance to tumor metastasis: a role for adrenergic mechanisms. Anesthesiology 91(3):732–740, pmid:10485785.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Stefanski V,
    2. Ben-Eliyahu S
    (7, 1996) Social confrontation and tumor metastasis in rats: defeat and beta-adrenergic mechanisms. Physiol Behav 60(1):277–282, pmid:8804676.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Andersen BL,
    2. Farrar WB,
    3. Golden-Kreutz D,
    4. et al.
    (1 7, 1998) Stress and immune responses after surgical treatment for regional breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 90(1):30–36, pmid:9428780.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Liu S,
    2. Carpenter RL,
    3. Neal JM
    (6, 1995) Epidural anesthesia and analgesia. Their role in postoperative outcome. Anesthesiology 82(6):1474–1506, pmid:7793661.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tuman KJ,
    2. McCarthy RJ,
    3. March RJ,
    4. DeLaria GA,
    5. Patel RV,
    6. Ivankovich AD
    (12, 1991) Effects of epidural anesthesia and analgesia on coagulation and outcome after major vascular surgery. Anesth Analg 73(6):696–704, pmid:1952169.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Capdevila X,
    2. Barthelet Y,
    3. Biboulet P,
    4. Ryckwaert Y,
    5. Rubenovitch J,
    6. d'Athis F
    (7, 1999) Effects of perioperative analgesic technique on the surgical outcome and duration of rehabilitation after major knee surgery. Anesthesiology 91(1):8–15, pmid:10422923.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Hong JY,
    2. Lim KT
    (Jan-Feb 2008) Effect of preemptive epidural analgesia on cytokine response and postoperative pain in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Reg Anesth Pain Med 33(1):44–51, pmid:18155056.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Murphy GS,
    2. Szokol JW,
    3. Marymont JH,
    4. Avram MJ,
    5. Vender JS
    (6, 2007) The effects of morphine and fentanyl on the inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Anesth Analg 104(6):1334–1342, pmid:17513621, table of contents.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Ahlers O,
    2. Nachtigall I,
    3. Lenze J,
    4. et al.
    (12, 2008) Intraoperative thoracic epidural anaesthesia attenuates stress-induced immunosuppression in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Br J Anaesth 101(6):781–787, pmid:18922851, Epub 2008 Oct 15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Looney M,
    2. Doran P,
    3. Buggy DJ
    (11, 2010) Effect of anesthetic technique on serum vascular endothelial growth factor C and transforming growth factor β in women undergoing anesthesia and surgery for breast cancer. Anesthesiology 113(5):1118–1125, pmid:20930611.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Afsharimani B,
    2. Cabot PJ,
    3. Parat MO
    (8 8, 2011) Morphine use in cancer surgery. Front Pharmacol 2:46, pmid:21852973.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Yeager MP,
    2. Colacchio TA
    (4, 1991) Effect of morphine on growth of metastatic colon cancer in vivo. Arch Surg 126(4):454–456, pmid:2009060.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Eisenstein TK,
    2. Hilburger ME
    (3 15, 1998) Opioid modulation of immune responses: effects on phagocyte and lymphoid cell populations. J Neuroimmunol 83((1-2)):36–44, pmid:9610671.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Yeager MP,
    2. Colacchio TA,
    3. Yu CT,
    4. et al.
    (9, 1995) Morphine inhibits spontaneous and cytokine-enhanced natural killer cell cytotoxicity in volunteers. Anesthesiology 83(3):500–508, pmid:7661350.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. de Oliveira GS Jr.,
    2. Ahmad S,
    3. Schink JC,
    4. Singh DK,
    5. Fitzgerald PC,
    6. McCarthy RJ
    (May-Jun 2011) Intraoperative neuraxial anesthesia but not postoperative neuraxial analgesia is associated with increased relapse-free survival in ovarian cancer patients after primary cytoreductive surgery. Reg Anesth Pain Med 36(3):271–277, pmid:21519312.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Gottschalk A,
    2. Ford JG,
    3. Regelin CC,
    4. et al.
    (7, 2010) Association between epidural analgesia and cancer recurrence after colorectal cancer surgery. Anesthesiology 113(1):27–34, pmid:20508494.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ismail H,
    2. Ho KM,
    3. Narayan K,
    4. Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan S
    (8, 2010) Effect of neuraxial anaesthesia on tumour progression in cervical cancer patients treated with brachytherapy: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Anaesth 105(2):145–149, pmid:20573631, Epub 2010 Jun 23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Exadaktylos AK,
    2. Buggy DJ,
    3. Moriarty DC,
    4. Mascha E,
    5. Sessler DI
    (10, 2006) Can anesthetic technique for primary breast cancer surgery affect recurrence or metastasis? Anesthesiology 105(4):660–664, pmid:17006061.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Afsharimani B,
    2. Cabot P,
    3. Parat MO
    (6, 2011) Morphine and tumor growth and metastasis. Cancer Metastasis Rev 30(2):225–238, pmid:21267766.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Christopherson R,
    2. James KE,
    3. Tableman M,
    4. Marshall P,
    5. Johnson FE
    (7, 2008) Long-term survival after colon cancer surgery: a variation associated with choice of anesthesia. Anesth Analg 107(1):325–332, pmid:18635504.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Tsui BC,
    2. Rashiq S,
    3. Schopflocher D,
    4. et al.
    (2, 2010) Epidural anesthesia and cancer recurrence rates after radical prostatectomy. Can J Anaesth 57(2):107–112, pmid:19911247.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Wuethrich PY,
    2. Hsu Schmitz SF,
    3. Kessler TM,
    4. et al.
    (9, 2010) Potential influence of the anesthetic technique used during open radical prostatectomy on prostate cancer-related outcome: a retrospective study. Anesthesiology 113(3):570–576, pmid:20683253.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Sessler DI,
    2. Ben-Eliyahu S,
    3. Mascha EJ,
    4. Parat MO,
    5. Buggy DJ
    (7, 2008) Can regional analgesia reduce the risk of recurrence after breast cancer? Methodology of a multicenter randomized trial. Contemp Clin Trials 29(4):517–526, pmid:18291727, Epub 2008 Jan 12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Myles PS,
    2. Peyton P,
    3. Silbert B,
    4. Hunt J,
    5. Rigg JR,
    6. Sessler DI
    (2011) ANZCA Trials Group Investigators. Perioperative epidural analgesia for major abdominal surgery for cancer and recurrence-free survival: randomised trial. BMJ 342(d1491), Mar 29.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Ochsner Journal
Vol. 14, Issue 2
Jun 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Ochsner Journal.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effect of Opiates, Anesthetic Techniques, and Other Perioperative Factors on Surgical Cancer Patients
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Ochsner Journal
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Ochsner Journal web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Effect of Opiates, Anesthetic Techniques, and Other Perioperative Factors on Surgical Cancer Patients
Alan David Kaye, Nayan Patel, Franklin Rivera Bueno, Brad Hymel, Nalini Vadivelu, Gopal Kodumudi, Richard D. Urman
Ochsner Journal Jun 2014, 14 (2) 216-228;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Effect of Opiates, Anesthetic Techniques, and Other Perioperative Factors on Surgical Cancer Patients
Alan David Kaye, Nayan Patel, Franklin Rivera Bueno, Brad Hymel, Nalini Vadivelu, Gopal Kodumudi, Richard D. Urman
Ochsner Journal Jun 2014, 14 (2) 216-228;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • OPIOID-MEDIATED IMMUNOLOGIC EFFECTS
    • ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA EFFECTS
    • OTHER FACTORS' EFFECTS
    • BASIC SCIENCE FINDINGS RELATED TO NEURAXIAL AND REGIONAL ANESTHESIA
    • CLINICAL SCIENCE FINDINGS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Rhabdomyolysis: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Treatment
  • iPhone and iPad Use in Orthopedic Surgery
  • Drug-Induced Acute Pancreatitis: A Review
Show more Reviews and Commentaries

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Analgesics–opioid
  • Anesthetics
  • immunosuppression
  • neoplasm

Current Post at the Blog

American Association for the Advancement of Science Surveys Scientists About Article Publishing Charges—And Uncovers More Problems

Our Content

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Featured Contributors
  • Ochsner Journal Blog
  • Archive at PubMed Central

Information & Forms

  • Instructions for Authors
  • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Submission Checklist
  • FAQ
  • License for Publishing-Author Attestation
  • Patient Consent Form
  • Submit a Manuscript

Services & Contacts

  • Permissions
  • Sign up for our electronic table of contents
  • Feedback Form
  • Contact Us

About Us

  • Editorial Board
  • About the Ochsner Journal
  • Ochsner Health
  • University of Queensland-Ochsner Clinical School
  • Alliance of Independent Academic Medical Centers

© 2023 Ochsner Clinic Foundation

Powered by HighWire