Surgical excision of the primary tumor represents the most frequent and curative procedure for solid malignancies. Compelling evidence suggests that, despite its beneficial effects, surgery may impair immunosurveillance by triggering an immunosuppressive inflammatory stress response and favor recurrence by stimulating minimal residual disease. In addition, many factors interfere with the immune effectors before and after cancer procedures, such as malnutrition, anemia, or subsequent transfusion. Thus, the perioperative period plays a key role in determining oncological outcomes and represents a short phase to circumvent anesthetic and surgical deleterious factors by supporting the immune system through the use of synergistic pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. In line with this, accumulating studies indicate that anesthetic agents could drive both protumor or antitumor signaling pathways during or after cancer surgery. While preclinical investigations focusing on anesthetics’ impact on the behavior of cancer cells are quite convincing, limited clinical trials studying the consequences on survival and recurrences remain inconclusive. Herein, we highlight the main factors occurring during the perioperative period of cancer surgery and their potential impact on immunomodulation and cancer progression. We also discuss patient management prior to and during surgery, taking into consideration the latest advances in the literature.

The question of whether anesthetic, analgesic or other perioperative intervention during cancer resection surgery might influence long-term oncologic outcomes has generated much attention over the past 13 years. A wealth of experimental and observational clinical data have been published, but the results of prospective, randomized clinical trials are awaited. The European Union supports a pan-European network of researchers, clinicians and industry partners engaged in this question (COST Action 15204: Euro-Periscope). In this narrative review, members of the Euro-Periscope network briefly summarize the current state of evidence pertaining to the potential effects of the most commonly deployed anesthetic and analgesic techniques and other non-surgical interventions during cancer resection surgery on tumor recurrence or metastasis.

Background: There are only a few studies involving the use of melatonin for premedication for anaesthesia. The goal of our study was to compare the effects of melatonin and midazolam administered as premedication for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: This double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 53 patients (ASA I, II) undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia. The patients were divided into three groups: group 1 (n = 18) included patients receiving 3 mg melatonin the night before and as premedication; group 2 (n = 17) included the patients receiving 3,75 mg midazolam (1/2 of a 7,5 mg tablet) by the same protocol as for melatonin; and group 3 (n = 18) included patients receiving placebo tablets. Preoperatively, the anxiety and sedation scores, as well as the quality of preanaesthetic sleep, were evaluated. Postoperatively, the anxiety and sedation scores and the number of remembered pictures were evaluated at 15 and 60 minutes and 6, 12 and 24 hours respectively. The intra-anaesthetic opioid requirements were also evaluated. Results: Preoperatively the lowest anxiety score was registered in the midazolam group; also the difference between the melatonin and midazolam groups was not significant. In the placebo group the anxiety score was significantly higher as compared with melatonin or midazolam. Postoperatively anxiety scores were lowest in the melatonin group at every time interval. The scores for the remembered pictures were consistently better in the melatonin group. The sedation score was lower in the melatonin group as compared with midazolam, as were the intra-anaesthetic opioid requirements. Conclusions: Melatonin (3 mg) can be successfully used as premedication for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, especially for day case surgery. Advantages over midazolam and placebo include better perioperative anxiolysis, and a better recovery profile as assessed by sedation and memory.

Background/Objectives: Sepsis and septic shock remain significant contributors to high early mortality rates among patients admitted to the emergency department (ED). The objective of this study was to identify among newer biomarkers those with the highest sensitivity in early mortality prediction. Methods: This prospective, unicentric, observational study enrolled 47 adult patients admitted to the ED between November 2020 and December 2022. This study monitored the kinetics of the older and newer biomarkers, including azurocidin (AZU1), soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells (sTREM), soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), procalcitonin (PCT), and interleukin-6 (IL-6), and their capacity in predicting mortality. Results: SuPAR showed the most significant predictive utility for early prognosis of mortality in the ED, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.813 (95% CI: 0.672 to 0.912), a cutoff value > 8168 ng/mL, sensitivity of 75%, and specificity of 81.48% (p < 0.001). IL-6 and PCT showed comparable prognostic accuracy, whereas hsCRP and AZU1 demonstrated lower predictive performance. Conclusions: In our study, suPAR, IL-6, and PCT showed good predictive value for short-term mortality in sepsis and septic shock patients.