Secondary Analysis of the <scp>CAN</scp> ‐Study, a Randomised Controlled Trial – Local Anaesthesia and Overall Survival

ABSTRACT Introduction This study investigates long‐term survival in the Cancer and Anaesthesia (CAN) study, focusing on the potential impact of local anaesthetic infiltration during breast cancer surgery. A positive effect from peritumoral infiltration has recently been suggested. We conducted an exploratory data analysis to examine a possible association between uncontrolled exposure to local anaesthetics during breast cancer surgery and long‐term survival. Methods Breast cancer patients were recruited to compare long‐term survival according to whether anaesthesia was maintained with inhaled sevoflurane or intravenous propofol. Other aspects of anaesthesia, such as the use of local‐ or regional anaesthesia, were carried out pragmatically according to local institutional guidelines. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to compare survival between those who received local anaesthetics or not. Results Among 1670 analysed patients, 803 (48.1%) received local anaesthetic infiltration, 67 (4.0%) received a paravertebral block, 75 (4.5%) received both, and 725 (43.4%) received neither. Over a median follow‐up of 76.8 months, no significant differences in overall survival were observed – either between the pooled group of patients who received any local or regional anaesthesia ( n = 945) and those who received neither ( n = 725; p = 0.54), or among all four groups ( p = 0.89). Conclusion We found no association with local‐anaesthetic skin infiltration or regional anaesthesia and long‐term survival in this non‐preplanned secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Editorial Comment In this secondary analysis of an observational follow‐up study for anaesthetic exposure and cancer outcomes, regional or localized local anaesthetic treatments were not associated with a survival advantage. How regional anaesthesia or local anaesthetics might interact with clinical cancer natural history in patients is still not clear, though the results here do not support a large effect. Trial Registration : EudraCT number: 2013‐002380‐25; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01975064

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
Published
2026-05-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.70268
Primary Topic
Cancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Secondary Analysis of the CAN ‐Study, a Randomised Controlled Trial – Local Anaesthesia and Overall Survival

Leif Bergkvist, the CAN‐Study‐Group, Anders Berglund, Mats Enlund
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
Cancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
article

Secondary Analysis of the CAN ‐Study, a Randomised Controlled Trial – Local Anaesthesia and Overall Survival

Leif Bergkvist, the CAN‐Study‐Group, Anders Berglund, Mats Enlund
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction This study investigates long‐term survival in the Cancer and Anaesthesia (CAN) study, focusing on the potential impact of local anaesthetic infiltration during breast cancer surgery. A positive effect from peritumoral infiltration has recently been suggested. We conducted an exploratory data analysis to examine a possible association between uncontrolled exposure to local anaesthetics during breast cancer surgery and long‐term survival. Methods Breast cancer patients were recruited to compare long‐term survival according to whether anaesthesia was maintained with inhaled sevoflurane or intravenous propofol. Other aspects of anaesthesia, such as the use of local‐ or regional anaesthesia, were carried out pragmatically according to local institutional guidelines. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to compare survival between those who received local anaesthetics or not. Results Among 1670 analysed patients, 803 (48.1%) received local anaesthetic infiltration, 67 (4.0%) received a paravertebral block, 75 (4.5%) received both, and 725 (43.4%) received neither. Over a median follow‐up of 76.8 months, no significant differences in overall survival were observed – either between the pooled group of patients who received any local or regional anaesthesia ( n = 945) and those who received neither ( n = 725; p = 0.54), or among all four groups ( p = 0.89). Conclusion We found no association with local‐anaesthetic skin infiltration or regional anaesthesia and long‐term survival in this non‐preplanned secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Editorial Comment In this secondary analysis of an observational follow‐up study for anaesthetic exposure and cancer outcomes, regional or localized local anaesthetic treatments were not associated with a survival advantage. How regional anaesthesia or local anaesthetics might interact with clinical cancer natural history in patients is still not clear, though the results here do not support a large effect. Trial Registration : EudraCT number: 2013‐002380‐25; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01975064

Acta Anaesthesiologica ScandinavicaVol. 70(6)
Uppsala University (SE), Uppsala University Hospital (SE), European Society of Anaesthesiology (BE), Västmanlands sjukhus Västerås (SE)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Cancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.