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.

Postoperative pulmonary and non-pulmonary complications are common problems that increase morbidity and mortality in surgical patients, even though the incidence has decreased with the increased use of protective lung ventilation strategies. Previous trials have focused on standard strategies in the intraoperative or postoperative period, but without personalizing these strategies to suit the needs of each individual patient and without considering both these periods as a global perioperative lung-protective approach. The trial presented here aims at comparing postoperative complications when using an individualized ventilatory management strategy in the intraoperative and immediate postoperative periods with those when using a standard protective ventilation strategy in patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery. This is a comparative, prospective, multicenter, randomized, and controlled, four-arm trial that will include 1012 patients with an intermediate or high risk for postoperative pulmonary complications. The patients will be divided into four groups: (1) individualized perioperative group: intra- and postoperative individualized strategy; (2) intraoperative individualized strategy + postoperative continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP); (3) intraoperative standard ventilation + postoperative CPAP; (4) intra- and postoperative standard strategy (conventional strategy). The primary outcome is a composite analysis of postoperative complications. The Individualized Perioperative Open-lung Ventilatory Strategy (iPROVE) is the first multicenter, randomized, and controlled trial to investigate whether an individualized perioperative approach prevents postoperative pulmonary complications. Registered on 5 June 2014 with identification no. NCT02158923 .

Background: Guidelines do not provide clear recommendations with regard to the use of low intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) during laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the influence of low versus standard IAP during laparoscopic surgery on the key-outcomes in perioperative medicine as defined by the StEP-COMPAC consensus group. Materials and methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials comparing low IAP (<10 mmHg) with standard IAP (10 mmHg or higher) during laparoscopic surgery without time, language, or blinding restrictions. According to the PRISMA guidelines, two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. Risk ratio (RR), and mean difference (MD), with 95% CIs were calculated using random-effects models with RevMan5. Main outcomes were based on StEP-COMPAC recommendations, and included postoperative complications, postoperative pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) scores, and length of hospital stay. Results: Eighty-five studies in a wide range of laparoscopic procedures (7349 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The available evidence indicates that the use of low IAP (<10 mmHg) leads to a lower incidence of mild (Clavien–Dindo grade 1–2) postoperative complications (RR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.53–0.86), lower pain scores (MD=−0.68, 95% CI: −0.82 to 0.54) and PONV incidence (RR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.51–0.88), and a reduced length of hospital stay (MD=−0.29, 95% CI: −0.46 to 0.11). Low IAP did not increase the risk of intraoperative complications (RR=1.15, 95% CI: 0.77–1.73). Conclusions: Given the established safety and the reduced incidence of mild postoperative complications, lower pain scores, reduced incidence of PONV, and shorter length of stay, the available evidence supports a moderate to strong recommendation (1a level of evidence) in favor of low IAP during laparoscopic surgery.

Background It remains uncertain whether individualization of pneumoperitoneum pressures during laparoscopic surgery improves postoperative recovery. This study compared an individualized pneumoperitoneum pressure (IPP) strategy with a standard pneumoperitoneum pressure (SPP) strategy with respect to postoperative recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Methods This was a multicentre RCT. The IPP strategy comprised modified patient positioning, deep neuromuscular blockade, and abdominal wall prestretching targeting the lowest intra‐abdominal pressure (IAP) that maintained acceptable workspace. The SPP strategy comprised patient positioning according to the surgeon's preference, moderate neuromuscular blockade and a fixed IAP of 12 mmHg. The primary endpoint was physiological postoperative recovery, assessed by means of the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale. Secondary endpoints included recovery in other domains and overall recovery, the occurrence of intraoperative and postoperative complications, duration of hospital stay, and plasma markers of inflammation up to postoperative day 3. Results Of 166 patients, 85 received an IPP strategy and 81 an SPP strategy. The IPP strategy was associated with a higher probability of physiological recovery (odds ratio (OR) 2·77, 95 per cent c.i. 1·19 to 6·40, P = 0·017; risk ratio (RR) 1·82, 1·79 to 1·87, P = 0·049). The IPP strategy was also associated with a higher probability of emotional (P = 0·013) and overall (P = 0·011) recovery. Intraoperative adverse events were less frequent with the IPP strategy (P < 0·001) and the plasma neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio was lower (P = 0·029). Other endpoints were not affected. Conclusion In this cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery, an IPP strategy was associated with faster recovery, fewer intraoperative complications and less inflammation than an SPP strategy. Registration number: NCT02773173 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Aim: To summarize the literature on the long-term impact of perioperative opioids in colorectal cancer. Materials & methods: Combined results from two searching strategies in PubMed/MEDLINE (1950–2018), based on a PICO approach; P: Opioid influence on cancer-related long-term outcome in patient undergoing colorectal surgery; I: Opioid drugs administered in the perioperative period; C: Correlation between dose and/or type of opioid with long-term oncologic outcome; O: Disease-free survival and/or overall survival (OS). Results: Thirteen articles fulfilled the predetermined inclusion criteria. Due to the heterogeneity of the different studies, a quantitative meta-analysis to sum the evidence was deemed unfeasible. Conclusion: Our review indicates that there is no conclusive evidence to avoid the use of opioids with the goal of reducing the risk of recurrence in colorectal cancer.