Dataset Information

Regional anesthesia and cancer recurrence in patients with late-stage cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Whether regional anesthesia may help to prevent disease recurrence in cancer patients is still controversial. The stage of cancer at the time of diagnosis is a key factor that defines prognosis and is one of the most important sources of heterogeneity for the treatment effect. We sought to update existing systematic reviews and clarify the effect of regional anesthesia on cancer recurrence in late-stage cancer patients.

Methods

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to September 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that assessed the effect of regional anesthesia on cancer recurrence and overall survival (OS) compared with general anesthesia. Late-stage cancer patients were primarily assessed according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer Cancer Staging Manual (eighth edition), and the combined hazard ratio (HR) from random-effects models was used to evaluate the effect of regional anesthesia.

Results

A total of three RCTs and 34 cohort studies (including 64,691 patients) were identified through the literature search for inclusion in the analysis. The risk of bias was low in the RCTs and was moderate in the observational studies. The pooled HR for recurrence-free survival (RFS) or OS did not favor regional anesthesia when data from RCTs in patients with late-stage cancer were combined (RFS, HR = 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-2.18, P = 0.729, I2 = 76%; OS, HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.63-1.18, P = 0.345, I2 = 48%). Findings from observational studies showed that regional anesthesia may help to prevent disease recurrence (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.78-0.96, P = 0.008, I2 = 71%) and improve OS (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79-0.98, P = 0.022, I2 = 79%).

Conclusions

RCTs reveal that OS and RFS were similar between regional and general anesthesia in late-stage cancers. The selection of anesthetic methods should still be based on clinical evaluation, and changes to current practice need more support from large, well-powered, and well-designed studies.

SUBMITTER: Zhang YL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8654444 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDexamethasone is a common adjuvant for local anesthetics in regional anesthesia, but the optimal route of administration is controversial. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of perineural versus intravenous dexamethasone on local anesthetic regional nerve-blockade outcomes.Materials and methodsMedline (through PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Biosis Previews databases were systematically searched (published from inception of each database to January 1, 2017) to identify randomized controlled trials. The data of the selected trials were statistically analyzed to find any significant differences between the two modalities. The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of motor block, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative analgesic dose at 24 hours. We conducted a planned subgroup analysis to compare the effects between adding epinephrine or not.ResultsTen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria of our analysis, with a total of 749 patients. Without the addition of epinephrine, the effects of perineural and intravenous dexamethasone were equivalent concerning the duration of analgesia (mean difference 0.03 hours, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.24). However, with the addition of epinephrine, the analgesic duration of perineural dexamethasone versus intravenous dexamethasone was prolonged (mean difference 3.96 hours, 95% CI 2.66-5.27). Likewise, the impact of epinephrine was the same on the duration of motor block. The two routes of administration did not show any significant differences in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, nor on postoperative analgesic consumption at 24 hours.ConclusionOur results show that perineural dexamethasone can prolong the effects of analgesic duration when compared to the intravenous route, only when epinephrine is coadministered. Without epinephrine, the two modalities show equivalent effect as adjuvants on regional anesthesia.