Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27227779›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

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

Carlijn R Hooijmans, Florentine J Geessink, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga, Gert Jan Scheffer

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Anesthesia and cancer recurrence: a narrative review.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carlijn R HooijmansDepartment of SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Radboud University Medical Centre, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6435-5714
Florentine J GeessinkDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Merel Ritskes-HoitingaDepartment of SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Radboud University Medical Centre, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Gert Jan SchefferDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDistant 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.

methodsPubMed 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.

results20 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.

conclusionsAnaesthetics 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.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalPostoperative ComplicationsAnestheticsAnimalsHumansNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasmsAnesthetics

Identifiers

PMID27227779
PMCPMC4882001
OpenAlexW2399720646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.