Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 409

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Recurrence of breast cancer after regional or general anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial

Sessler, Daniel I, Pei, Lijian, Huang, Yuguang, Fleischmann, Edith, Marhofer, Peter, Kurz, Andrea, Mayers, Douglas B, Meyer-Treschan, Tanja A, Grady, Martin, Tan, Ern Yu, Ayad, Sabry, Mascha, Edward J, Buggy, Donal J, Tan, Gang, Zhang, Zhiyong, Keane, Helen, Stokes, Maurice, Zotti, Oliver, Gnant, Michael, Perez-Protto, Silvia, Wu, Jiang, Parra-Sanchez, Ivan, Yang, Dongsheng, Hassan, Manal, Tey, John BL·2019·The Lancet

Abstract

BACKGROUND Three perioperative factors impair host defence against recurrence during cancer surgery: the surgical stress response, use of volatile anaesthetic, and opioids for analgesia. All factors are ameliorated by regional anaesthesia-analgesia. We tested the primary hypothesis that breast cancer recurrence after potentially curative surgery is lower with regional anaesthesia-analgesia using paravertebral blocks and the anaesthetic propofol than with general anaesthesia with the volatile anaesthetic sevoflurane and opioid analgesia. A second hypothesis was that regional anaesthesia-analgesia reduces persistent incisional pain. METHODS We did a randomised controlled trial at 13 hospitals in Argentina, Austria, China, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, and the USA. Women (age <85 years) having potentially curative primary breast cancer resections were randomised by computer to either regional anaesthesia-analgesia (paravertebral blocks and propofol) or general anaesthesia (sevoflurane) and opioid analgesia. The primary outcome was local or metastatic breast cancer recurrence. The secondary outcome was incisional pain at 6 months and 12 months. Primary analyses were done under intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00418457. The study was stopped after a preplanned futility boundary was crossed. FINDINGS Between Jan 30, 2007, and Jan 18, 2018, 2132 women were enrolled to the study, of whom 24 were excluded before surgery. 1043 were assigned to regional anaesthesia-analgesia and 1065 were allocated to general anaesthesia. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between study groups. Median follow-up was 36 (IQR 24-49) months. Among women assigned regional anaesthesia-analgesia, 102 (10%) recurrences were reported, compared with 111 (10%) recurrences among those allocated general anaesthesia (hazard ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·74-1·28; p=0·84). Incisional pain was reported by 442 (52%) of 856 patients assigned to regional anaesthesia-analgesia and 456 (52%) of 872 patients allocated to general anaesthesia at 6 months, and by 239 (28%) of 854 patients and 232 (27%) of 852 patients, respectively, at 12 months (overall interim-adjusted odds ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·85-1·17; p=0·99). Neuropathic breast pain did not differ by anaesthetic technique and was reported by 87 (10%) of 859 patients assigned to regional anaesthesia-analgesia and 89 (10%) of 870 patients allocated to general anaesthesia at 6 months, and by 57 (7%) of 857 patients and 57 (7%) of 854 patients, respectively, at 12 months. INTERPRETATION In our study population, regional anaesthesia-analgesia (paravertebral block and propofol) did not reduce breast cancer recurrence after potentially curative surgery compared with volatile anaesthesia (sevoflurane) and opioids. The frequency and severity of persistent incisional breast pain was unaffected by anaesthetic technique. Clinicians can use regional or general anaesthesia with respect to breast cancer recurrence and persistent incisional pain. FUNDING Sisk Healthcare Foundation (Ireland), Eccles Breast Cancer Research Fund, British Journal of Anaesthesia International, College of Anaesthetists of Ireland, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Science Fund for Junior Faculty 2016, Central Bank of Austria, and National Healthcare Group.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32313-x

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Cited by

See all 409

Metadata

Authors
Sessler, D. I., Pei, L., Huang, Y., Fleischmann, E., Marhofer, P., Kurz, A., Mayers, D. B., Meyer-Treschan, T. A., Grady, M., Tan, E. Y., Ayad, S., Mascha, E. J., Buggy, D. J., Tan, G., Zhang, Z., Keane, H., Stokes, M., Zotti, O., Gnant, M., Perez-Protto, S., Wu, J., Parra-Sanchez, I., Yang, D., Hassan, M., & Tey, J. B.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
394
Issue
10211
Pages
1807-1815
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2981214241
Cited by
409
References
28
FWCI
36.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Recurrence of breast cancer after regional or general anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32313-x
The paper
Sessler, D. I., Pei, L., Huang, Y., Fleischmann, E., Marhofer, P., Kurz, A., Mayers, D. B., Meyer-Treschan, T. A., Grady, M., Tan, E. Y., Ayad, S., Mascha, E. J., Buggy, D. J., Tan, G., Zhang, Z., Keane, H., Stokes, M., Zotti, O., Gnant, M., . . . Tey, J. B. (2019). Recurrence of breast cancer after regional or general anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32313-x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.