Perioperative changes in the plasma metabolome of patients receiving general anesthesia for pancreatic cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Modern anesthesia strives to offer personalized concepts to meet the patient's individual needs in sight of clinical outcome. Still, little is known about the impact of anesthesia on the plasma metabolome, although many metabolites have been shown to modulate the function of various immune cells, making it particularly interesting in the context of oncological surgery. In this study longitudinal dynamics in the plasma metabolome during general anesthesia in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery were analyzed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, observational study with 10 patients diagnosed with pancreatic (pre-) malignancy and subjected to elective resection surgery under general anesthesia. Plasma metabolites (n = 630) were quantified at eight consecutive perioperative timepoints using mass spectrometry-based targeted metabolomics. RESULTS: 39 metabolites significantly changed during the perioperative period. Tryptophan concentrations decreased by 45% with the maximum decrease after anesthesia induction (p = 6.24E-07), while taurine synthesis increased (p = 1.46E-04). Triacylglycerides and lysophosphatidylcholines were significantly reduced with increased liberation of free monounsaturated fatty acids (p = 0.03). Carnitine levels decreased significantly (p = 9.30E-04). CONCLUSIONS: The major finding of this study was perioperative tryptophan depletion and increased taurine synthesis. Both are essential for immune cell function and are therefore of significant interest for perioperative management. Further studies are needed to identify influencing anesthetic factors.

[Cancer Patients: Relevant Aspects for Anesthesiology]. / Der onkologische Patient: relevante Aspekte für die Anästhesie.

Surgical oncology makes up an essential part of all surgical procedures performed. Anesthetists can contribute significantly to the treatment success by a thorough pre-operative assessment of patients. Cancer patients are not only in general at higher risk for thrombosis and anemia but can also suffer from a plethora of adverse effects from modern cancer drugs. Hence, it is the responsibility of anesthetists to gather knowledge about the changes in organ systems due to the rapidly increasing list of anti-cancer agents. This article serves as a review from anesthetists to anesthetists conveying the important aspects for taking a comprehensive patient history as well as summarizing the adverse events of major drug classes currently in use in oncology.

Sevoflurane depletes macrophages from the melanoma microenvironment.

BACKGROUND: With more than 18 million annual new cases, cancer belongs to the major challenges of modern healthcare. Surgical resection of solid tumours under general anaesthesia is the prime therapy. Different aspects of anaesthesia are under discussion to independently influence the long-term outcome of cancer patients. Most recently, the commonly used volatile anaesthetics like sevoflurane have entered the spotlight, as retrospective studies suggest a detrimental outcome in certain cancer aetiologies with sparse mechanistic understanding. Our objective was to investigate this concept in a murine melanoma model, herein comparing the consequence of inhalative and injection anesthesia on tumour composition and growth. METHODS: We used a murine model of malignant melanoma in male, adult C57BL/6 mice (n = 92), induced by the subcutaneous injection of B16-F10 cells. We either exposed the melanoma cells to sevoflurane before implantation or subjected the animals to single or double anaesthesia with either volatile or injection drugs. After a maximum follow-up of 4 weeks, leucocytes within the tumour microenvironment (TME) were comprehensively analysed by flow cytometry with focus on tumor-associated macrophages (TAM). RESULTS: We found that exposure of melanoma cells to sevoflurane before implantation induced long-lasting transcriptome changes and aggravated tumour growth, without extensive changes of the TME. Contrastingly, both a single and double anaesthesia with sevoflurane led to a significant reduction of TAMs (injection vs. sevoflurane: 2,0 vs. 0.3% and 1.2 vs. 0.6%, respectively), whilst increasing PD-L1 expression on the remaining cells (mean fluorescent intensity injection vs. sevoflurane: 3,804 vs. 7,143 and 9,090 vs. 32,228, respectively). No changes in tumour growth were observed in these groups. CONCLUSION: In sharp contrast to the detrimental impact of sevoflurane on patients' outcome reported in retrospective clinical studies, we propose here that sevoflurane might actually exert a beneficial effect by decreasing TAMs within the TME, rendering the tumour again susceptible for cytotoxic T cells and immunotherapies. Further research is warranted to delineate, how these results translate into the clinic.

Plasma Drug Concentrations in Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension on Combination Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with the phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE-5i) sildenafil or tadalafil and the endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA) bosentan, ambrisentan, or macitentan may cause mutual pharmacokinetic interactions in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze plasma drug concentrations in PAH patients receiving different combination treatments. METHODS: PAH patients receiving a stable combination treatment with ERA and PDE-5i with targeted dosage for at least 1 month were routinely assessed, including clinical parameters and plasma drug concentrations. Concentrations were normalized considering dose and time from last medication intake and presented as multiples of the expected mean (MoM) of the respective monotherapies. RESULTS: A total of 125 PAH patients (84 female, 41 male, 57% idiopathic/heritable) were included. Sildenafil and tadalafil concentrations were lowest in combination with bosentan (MoM 0.44 ± 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.57, and MoM 0.89 ± 0.53, 95% CI 0.50-1.28, respectively) compared to the combination with ambrisentan (MoM 1.3 ± 0.97, 95% CI 0.86-1.73, and MoM 1.67 ± 0.63, 95% CI 1.40-1.94, respectively) and macitentan (MoM 1.16 ± 0.87, 95% CI 0.86-1.46, and MoM 1.59 ± 0.99, 95% CI 0.80-2.38, respectively). The combination of sildenafil and bosentan led to more than twice the expected bosentan concentrations in 53.8%. Patients switching from sildenafil-bosentan to macitentan showed a significant increase in sildenafil concentrations (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Only the combination with macitentan or ambrisentan led to targeted mean PDE-5i plasma concentrations and should therefore be preferred to combination with bosentan. Sildenafil-bosentan showed the strongest interaction, with low sildenafil and high bosentan concentrations. The study was not powered to analyze whether lower PDE-5i concentrations cause unsatisfying clinical response. However, plasma concentrations within a targeted range are desirable and may become of increasing importance.