Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39132502›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024

The impact of inhalation versus total intravenous anesthesia on the immune status in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: a double-blind randomized clinical trial (TeMP).

Kristina Kadantseva, Valery Subbotin, Roman Akchulpanov, Levan Berikashvili, Mikhail Yadgarov, Lyudmila Zhukova, Guram Kvetenadze, Oxana Svitich, Polina Kukina, Ivan Kuznetsov and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review of the Effects of Anesthetic Techniques and Medications on the Immune Response During the Perioperative Period.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
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

15 authors.

Kristina KadantsevaDepartment of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.
Valery SubbotinDepartment of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.
Roman AkchulpanovDepartment of Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, A. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia.
Levan BerikashviliDepartment of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.
Mikhail YadgarovDepartment of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.
Lyudmila ZhukovaDepartment of Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, A. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia.
Guram KvetenadzeDepartment of Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, A. Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia.
Oxana SvitichDepartment of Immunology, Mechnikov Research Institute of Vaccines and Sera, Moscow, Russia.
Polina KukinaDepartment of Immunology, Mechnikov Research Institute of Vaccines and Sera, Moscow, Russia.
Ivan KuznetsovDepartment of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.
Mariya ShemetovaDepartment of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.
Anastasiya SmirnovaDepartment of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.
Petr PolyakovDepartment of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.
Andrey ShebankovFederal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education "N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University" of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.
Valery LikhvantsevDepartment of Clinical Trials and intelligent IT, Federal Research and Clinical Centre of Intensive Care Medicine and Rehabilitology, Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Breast cancer (BC) mortality primarily stems from metastases rather than the primary tumor itself. Perioperative stress, encompassing both surgical and anesthetic factors, profoundly impacts the immune system, leading to alterations in neuroendocrine pathways and immune functions, potentially facilitating tumor progression and metastasis. Understanding the immunomodulatory effects of different anesthesia techniques is crucial for optimizing perioperative care in patients with BC. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) serves as one of the key indicators of perioperative immune response. Objective: To compare the effects of inhalation anesthesia (IA) and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) on perioperative immune response in BC surgery patients. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind clinical trial, BC surgery patients were randomized to receive either TIVA with propofol or IA with sevoflurane. The primary endpoint was NLR assessment. Secondary immune parameters measured included natural killer cells, various T cell subsets, B cells, the immuno-regulatory index [T-helpers (CD3+CD4+)/cytotoxic T-cells (CD3+CD8+)], matrix metallopeptidases (MMP-9), complement components, and immunoglobulins, preoperatively and at 1 and 24 hours postoperatively. Results: The study included 98 patients (IA: 48, TIVA: 50). The baseline characteristics exhibited remarkable similarity across the groups. No significant difference in absolute NLR values was found between IA and TIVA groups at any time point (1 hour: p = 0.519, 24 hours: p = 0.333). Decreased IgA and IgM levels post-surgery suggested potential negative impacts of IA on humoral immunity compared to TIVA. CRP levels increased more by 24 hours (p = 0.044) in IA compared to TIVA. No significant differences were observed in natural killer cells, T cell subsets, B cells, MMP-9 levels or complement components between groups. Significant differences in the immuno-regulatory index between the TIVA and IA groups at one hour postoperatively (p = 0.033) were not maintained at 24 hours. Conclusion: While there were no notable differences in NLR among the types of anesthesia, the observed disparities in immunoglobulin content and C-reactive protein levels between groups suggest that we cannot dismiss the potential immunosuppressive effects of inhalational anesthesia in breast cancer surgeries. Further investigation needed to clarify the impact of various anesthesia methods on immune function and their implications for long-term cancer outcomes.

Indexed as

anesthesiacancerimmunitypropofolsevoflurane

Identifiers

PMID39132502
PMCPMC11310116

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.