IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0156152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review of the Modifying Effect of Anaesthetic Drugs on Metastasis in Animal Models for Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Carlijn R Hooijmans
  • Florentine J Geessink
  • Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga
  • Gert Jan Scheffer

Abstract

Background: Distant metastasis or local recurrence after primary tumour resection remain a major clinical problem. The anaesthetic technique used during oncologic surgery is suggested to influence the metastatic process. While awaiting the results of ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we have analyzed the evidence regarding the influence of anaesthetic drugs on experimental tumour metastasis in animal studies. Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched until April 21st, 2015. Studies were included in the systematic review when they 1) assessed the effect of an anaesthetic drug used in clinical practice on the number or incidence of metastasis in animal models with experimental cancer, 2) included an appropriate control group, and 3) presented unique data. Results: 20 studies met the inclusion criteria (published between 1958–2010). Data on number of metastases could be retrieved from 17 studies. These studies described 41 independent comparisons, 33 of which could be included in the meta-analysis (MA). The incidence of metastases was studied in 3 unique papers. From these 3 papers, data on 7 independent comparisons could be extracted and included in the MA. Locally administered local anaesthetics appear to decrease the number of metastases (SMD -6.15 [-8.42; -3.88]), whereas general anaesthetics (RD: 0.136 [0.045, 0.226]), and more specifically volatile anaesthetics (SMD 0.54 [0.24; 0.84]), appear to increase the number and risk of metastases in animal models for cancer. Conclusions: Anaesthetics influence the number and incidence of metastases in experimental cancer models. Although more high quality experimental research is necessary, based on the currently available evidence from animal studies, there is no indication to suggest that locally administered local anaesthetics are harmful during surgery in cancer patients. Volatile anaesthetics, however, might increase metastasis in animal models and clinical trials investigating this possibly harmful effect should receive priority. The results of our systematic review in animal studies are broadly consistent with clinical reports that anaesthetic technique does seem to affect the tumour metastasis process.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlijn R Hooijmans & Florentine J Geessink & Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga & Gert Jan Scheffer, 2016. "A Systematic Review of the Modifying Effect of Anaesthetic Drugs on Metastasis in Animal Models for Cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-16, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0156152
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0156152
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0156152&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0156152?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0156152. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.