| Title |
The effect of anesthetic technique on µ-opioid receptor expression and immune cell infiltration in breast cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Anesthesia, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00540-018-2554-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kirk J. Levins, S. Prendeville, S. Conlon, D. J. Buggy |
| Abstract |
Clinical histological studies demonstrate that the distribution of natural killer (NK) cells, other immune cells and μ-opioid receptors (MOR) within cancer tissue can predict cancer prognosis. No clinical study has evaluated whether anesthetic technique influences immune cell and MOR expression within human breast cancer. Excised preoperative biopsies and intraoperative breast cancer specimens from 20 patients randomly chosen from patients previously enrolled in an ongoing, prospective, randomized trial (NCT00418457) investigating the effect of anesthetic technique on long-term breast cancer outcome were immunohistochemically stained and microscopically examined by two independent investigators, masked to randomization, to quantify MOR and immune cell infiltration: CD56, CD57 (NK cells), CD4 (T helper cells), CD8 (cytotoxic T cells) and CD68 (macrophages). Patients had been randomized to receive either a propofol-paravertebral anesthetic with continuing analgesia (PPA, n = 10) or balanced general anesthetic with opioid analgesia (GA, n = 10). There were no differences between the groups in staining intensity in preoperative biopsy specimens. Expression intensity values (median 25-75%) for MOR in intraoperative resected biopsy were higher in GA 8.5 (3-17) versus PPA 1 (0-10), p = 0.04. The numbers of MOR-positive cells were also higher in GA patients. Expression and absolute numbers of CD56, CD57, CD4 and CD68 were similar in resected tumor in both groups. General anesthesia with opioid analgesia increased resected tumor MOR expression compared with propofol-paravertebral anesthetic technique, but the anesthetic technique did not significantly influence the expression of immune cell markers. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 16% |
| Researcher | 8 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 26 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 24% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 31 | 49% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 October 2019.
All research outputs
#18,649,666
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Anesthesia
#586
of 827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,075
of 341,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Anesthesia
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 827 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 341,703 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.