↓ Skip to main content

Implicating anaesthesia and the perioperative period in cancer recurrence and metastasis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical & Experimental Metastasis, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
Title
Implicating anaesthesia and the perioperative period in cancer recurrence and metastasis
Published in
Clinical & Experimental Metastasis, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10585-017-9862-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia A. Dubowitz, Erica K. Sloan, Bernhard J. Riedel

Abstract

Cancer, currently the leading cause of death in the population aged less than 85 years, poses a significant global disease burden and is anticipated to continue to increase in incidence in both developed and developing nations. A substantial proportion of cancers are amenable to surgery, with more than 60% of patients undergoing tumour resection. Up to 80% of patients will receive anaesthesia for diagnostic, therapeutic or palliative intervention. Alarmingly, retrospective studies have implicated surgical stress in disease progression that is predominantly characterised by metastatic disease-the primary cause of cancer-associated mortality. Our understanding of the mechanisms of surgical stress and impact of perioperative interventions is, however, far from complete. Accumulating evidence from preclinical studies suggests that adrenergic-inflammatory pathways may contribute to cancer progression. Importantly, these pathways are amenable to modulation by adapting surgical (e.g. minimally invasive surgery) and anaesthetic technique (e.g. general vs. neuraxial anaesthesia). Disturbingly, drugs used for general anaesthesia (e.g. inhalational vs. intravenous anaesthesia and potentially opioid analgesia) may also affect behaviour of tumour cells and immune cells, suggesting that choice of anaesthetic agent may also be linked to adverse long-term cancer outcomes. Critically, current clinical practice guidelines on the use of anaesthetic techniques, anaesthetic agents and perioperative adjuvants (e.g. anti-inflammatory drugs) during cancer surgery do not take into account their potential effect on cancer outcomes due to a lack of robust prospective data. To help address this gap, we provide an up-to-date review of current clinical evidence supporting or refuting the role of perioperative stress, anaesthetic techniques and anaesthetic agents in cancer progression and review pre-clinical studies that provide insights into biological mechanisms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Student > Master 8 8%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 34 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 41 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2017.
All research outputs
#14,495,952
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Clinical & Experimental Metastasis
#492
of 778 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,253
of 318,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical & Experimental Metastasis
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 778 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.