Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39014134›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2024

Survival benefits of propofol-based versus inhalational anesthesia in non-metastatic breast cancer patients: a comprehensive meta-analysis.

Yingjun Zhang, Ping Yu, Lei Bian, Wanwei Huang, Na Li, Feng Ye

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Yingjun Zhang *Department of Anesthesiology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cance, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Ping Yu *Department of Anesthesiology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cance, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Lei Bian *Department of Breast Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Wanwei HuangDepartment of Breast Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Na LiDepartment of Breast Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Feng YeDepartment of Breast Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. yefeng@sysucc.org.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whether the anesthesia technique, inhalational general anesthesia (IGA) or propofol-based anesthesia (PBA), influences the long-term survival of non-metastatic breast cancer (eBC) remain unclear and controversial. We carried out a literature search on 16thJuly, 2022 for studies comparing IGA and PBA in eBC undergoing standard surgery, according to PRISMA 2020. The major endpoint in our study was overall survival (OS). Seventeen studies including four randomized clinical trials and thirteen retrospective cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. Ten studies provided data for crude OS in unweighted eBC patients (imbalance in baseline characteristics). The summarized estimate HRs of the PBA group versus the IGA group (ten studies, N = 127,774, IGA group: 92,592, PBA group: 35,182.) was 0.83 (95%CI: 0.78-0.89). Compared with IGA, PBA was associated with both better 1-year OS (two studies, N = 104,083, IGA group: 84,074, PBA group: 20,009. Pooled HR = 0.80, 0.73-0.89) and 5-year OS (six studies, N = 121,580, IGA group: 89,472, PBA group: 32,108. HR = 0.80, 0.74-0.87). Ten studies applied PSM method to balance the baseline characteristics. In these weighted patients, PBA still showed a better OS (ten studies, N = 105,459, IGA group: 79,095, PBA group: 26,364. HR = 0.93, 0.87-1.00), a better 1-year OS (two studies, N = 83,007, IGA group: 67,609, PBA group: 15,398. HR = 0.88, 0.78-0.98) and a trend towards a better 5-year OS (nine studies, N = 121,580, IGA group: 76,797, PBA group: 24,066. HR = 0.95, 0.88-1.03). Loco-regional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) was also better in PBA group (HR = 0.73, 0.61-0.86). The present study is the first comprehensive meta-analysis to demonstrate that propofol-based anesthesia could significantly improve OS and LRRFS in non-metastatic breast cancer patients, compared with inhalational anesthesia.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, InhalationBreast NeoplasmsPropofolAnesthesia, GeneralAnesthetics, IntravenousFemaleHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnesthetics, IntravenousPropofolBreast cancerComprehensive meta-analysisInhalational anesthesiaPropofol-based anesthesiaSurvival

Identifiers

PMID39014134
PMCPMC11252424

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.