Nitrous oxide may not increase the risk of cancer recurrence after colorectal surgery: a follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Even the best cancer surgery is usually associated with minimal residual disease. Whether these remaining malignant cells develop into clinical recurrence is at least partially determined by adequacy of host defense, especially natural killer cell function. Anesthetics impair immune defenses to varying degrees, but nitrous oxide appears to be especially problematic. We therefore tested the hypothesis that colorectal-cancer recurrence risk is augmented by nitrous oxide administration during colorectal surgery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a 4- to 8-year follow-up of 204 patients with colorectal cancer who were randomly assigned to 65% nitrous oxide (n = 97) or nitrogen (n = 107), balanced with isoflurane and remifentanil. The primary outcome was the time to cancer recurrence. Our primary analysis was a multivariable Cox-proportional-hazards regression model that included relevant baseline variables. In addition to treatment group, the model considered patient age, tumor grade, dissemination, adjacent organ invasion, vessel invasion, and the number of nodes involved. The study had 80% power to detect a 56% or greater reduction in recurrence rates (i.e., hazard ratio of 0.44 or less) at the 0.05 significance level.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>After adjusting for significant baseline covariables, risk of recurrence did not differ significantly for nitrous oxide and nitrogen, with a hazard ratio estimate (95% CI) of 1.10 (0.66, 1.83), <it>P </it>= 0.72. No two-way interactions with the treatment were statistically significant.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Colorectal-cancer recurrence risks were not greatly different in patients who were randomly assigned to 65% nitrous oxide or nitrogen during surgery. Our results may not support avoiding nitrous oxide use to prevent recurrence of colorectal cancer.</p> <p>Implications Statement</p> <p>The risk of colorectal cancer recurrence was similar in patients who were randomly assigned to 65% nitrous oxide or nitrogen during colorectal surgery.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Clinical Trials NCT00781352 <url>http://www.clinicaltrials.gov</url></p

TYRP1 mRNA expression in melanoma metastases correlates with clinical outcome.

Clinical outcome of patients with high-risk melanoma cannot be reliably predicted on the basis of classical histopathological examination. Our study aimed to determine in melanoma metastases a gene expression profile associated with patient survival, and to identify and validate marker(s) of poor clinical outcome.Journal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tSCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Melanoma patients with unknown primary site or nodal recurrence after initial diagnosis have a favourable survival compared to those with synchronous lymph node metastasis and primary tumour

Background: A direct comparison of prognosis between patients with regional lymph node metastases (LNM) detected synchronously with the primary melanoma (primary LNM), patients who developed their first LNM subsequently (secondary LNM) and those with initial LNM in melanoma with unknown primary site (MUP) is missing thus far.\ud \ud Patients and Methods: Survival of 498 patients was calculated from the time point of the first macroscopic LNM using Kaplan Meier and multivariate Cox hazard regression analysis.\ud \ud Results: Patients with secondary LNM (HR = 0.67; p = 0.009) and those with initial LNM in MUP (HR = 0.45; p = 0.008) had a better prognosis compared to patients with primary LNM (median survival time 52 and 65 vs. 24 months, respectively). A high number of involved nodes, the presence of in-transit/satellite metastases and male gender had an additional independent unfavourable effect.\ud \ud Conclusions: Survival of patients with LNM in MUP and with secondary LNM is similar and considerably more favourable compared to those with primary LNM. This difference needs to be considered during patient counselling and for stratification purposes in clinical trials. The assumption of an immune privilege of patients with MUP which is responsible for rejection of the primary melanoma, and results in a favourable prognosis is not supported by our data