Background Commonly used inhalational hypnotics, such as sevoflurane, are pro-inflammatory, whereas the intravenously administered hypnotic agent propofol is anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative. A few clinical studies have indicated similar effects in patients. We examined the possible association between patient survival after radical cancer surgery and the use of sevoflurane or propofol anaesthesia.Patients and methods Demographic, anaesthetic, and surgical data from 2,838 patients registered for surgery for breast, colon, or rectal cancers were included in a database. This was record-linked to regional clinical quality registers. Cumulative 1- and 5-year overall survival rates were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method, and estimates were compared between patients given propofol (n = 903) or sevoflurane (n = 1,935). In a second step, Cox proportional hazard models were calculated to assess the risk of death adjusted for potential effect modifiers and confounders.Results Differences in overall 1- and 5-year survival rates for all three sites combined were 4.7% (p = 0.004) and 5.6% (p < 0.001), respectively, in favour of propofol. The 1-year survival for patients operated for colon cancer was almost 10% higher after propofol anaesthesia. However, after adjustment for several confounders, the observed differences were not statistically significant.Conclusion Propofol anaesthesia might be better in surgery for some cancer types, but the retrospective design of this study, with uneven distributions of several confounders, distorted the picture. These uncertainties emphasize the need for a randomized controlled trial.

Background: Retrospective studies indicate that the choice of anesthetic can affect long-term cancer survival. Propofol seems to have an advantage over sevoflurane. However, this is questioned for breast cancer. We gathered a large cohort of breast cancer surgery patients from seven Swedish hospitals and hypothesized that general anesthesia with propofol would be superior to sevoflurane anesthesia regarding long-term breast cancer survival. Methods: We identified all patients who were anaesthetized for breast cancer surgery between 2006 and 2012. The patients were matched to the Swedish Breast Cancer Quality Register, to retrieve tumor characteristics, prognostic factors, and adjuvant treatment as well as date of death. Overall survival between patients undergoing sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia was analyzed with different statistical approaches: (a) multiple Cox regression models adjusted for demographic, oncological, and multiple control variables, (b) propensity score matching on the same variables, but also including the participating centers as a cofactor in a separate analysis. Results: The database analysis identified 6305 patients. The 5-year survival rates were 91.0% and 81.8% for the propofol and sevoflurane group, respectively, in the final model (P = .126). Depending on the statistical adjustment method used, different results were obtained, from a non-significant to a "proposed" and even a "determined" difference in survival that favored propofol, with a maximum of 9.2 percentage points higher survival rate at 5 years (hazard ratio 1.46, 95% CI 1.10-1.95). Conclusions: It seems that propofol may have a survival advantage compared with sevoflurane among breast cancer patients, but the inherent weaknesses of retrospective analyses were made apparent.

No abstract

Background: Based on animal data only, some clinicians have adopted propofol-based anesthesia for cancer surgery with the aim of increased survival. Objective: Our objective is to verify or refute the hypothesis that survival increases after cancer surgery with propofol compared with sevoflurane for anesthesia maintenance. This aim deserves a large-scale randomized study. The primary hypothesis is an absolute increase of minimum 5%-units in 1- and 5-year survival with propofol- based anesthesia for breast or colorectal cancer after radical surgery, compared with sevoflurane-based anesthesia. Method: Ethics and medical agency approvals were received and pre-study registrations at clinicaltrial.gov and EudraCT were made for our now ongoing prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter study. A power analysis based on a retrospective study, including a safety margin for drop outs, resulted in a total requirement of 8,000 patients. The initial inclusion period constituted a feasibility phase with an emphasis on the functionality of the infrastructure at the contributing centers and at the monitoring organization, as well as on protocol adherence. Conclusion: The infrastructure and organization work smoothly at the different contributing centers. Protocol adherence is good, and the monitors are satisfied. We expect this trial to be able to either verify or refute that propofol is better than sevoflurane for cancer surgery.

No abstract

Background Several retrospective studies using administrative or single center data have failed to show any difference between general anesthesia using propofol versus inhaled volatiles on long-term survival after breast cancer surgery. Although randomized controlled trials are ongoing, validated data from national clinical registries may advance the reliability of existing knowledge. Methods Data on breast cancer surgery performed under general anesthesia between 2013 and 2019 from The Swedish PeriOperative Register and The National Quality Register for Breast Cancer were record-linked. Overall survival was compared between patients receiving propofol or inhaled volatile for anesthesia maintenance. Results Of 18,674 subjects, 13,873 patients (74.3%) received propofol and 4,801 (25.7%) received an inhaled volatile for general anesthesia maintenance. The two cohorts differed in most respects. Patients receiving inhaled volatile were older (67 years vs 65 years), sicker (888 [19.0%] ASA status 3-5 versus 1,742 [12.8%]), and the breast cancer to be more advanced. Median follow-up was 33 months (IQR, 19 to 48). In the full, unmatched cohort, there was a statistically significantly higher overall survival among patients receiving propofol (13,489/ 13,873 (97.2%)) versus inhaled volatile (4,039/4,801 (84.1%)) hazard ratio = 0.80 (95% CI 0.70-0.90, P &lt; 0.001). Following 1:1 propensity score matching (4,658 matched pairs) there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival, (propofol 4,284/4,658 (92.0%) versus inhaled volatile 4,288/4,658 (92.1%) hazard ratio = 0.98 (95% CI 0.85-1.13, P = 0.756)). Conclusions Among patients undergoing breast cancer surgery under general anesthesia, no association was observed between the choice of propofol or an inhaled volatile maintenance and overall survival.

Due to the small path length and low injection volume the concentration limit of detection is comparatively poor in capillary electrophoresis (CZE) with UV detection. This limitation can be overcome by means of preconcentration methods and/or improved detection techniques. This paper describes a strategy where isotachophoresis (ITP) is used to preconcentrate a new cholinesterase inhibitor (NXX-066) prior to a capillary zone electrophoresis analysis in the same single capillary. A hydrodynamic backpressure is used to prevent the analyte from migrating out of the capillary. Laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) is used to further increase the detectability. The total gain in detectability with ITP-CZE-LIF compared to CZE-UV was at least 5500-fold, and it is possible to determine NXX-066 at the 1 nM level. The ITP-CZE method was further evaluated for two beta-blockers; the mean coefficient of variation of the peak areas was 3.4% and the linearity of the calibration plots was satisfying.

No abstract