Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About the Ochsner Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • Ochsner Journal Blog

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Ochsner Journal
  • Other Publications
    • Ochsner Journal Blog
  • My alerts
  • Log in
Ochsner Journal

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About the Ochsner Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
Review ArticleReviews and Contemporary Updates

Stellate Ganglion Block for the Treatment of Hot Flashes in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Literature Review

Maged Guirguis, Joseph Abdelmalak, Eduardo Jusino, Matthew R. Hansen and George E. Girgis
Ochsner Journal June 2015, 15 (2) 162-169;
Maged Guirguis
1Department of Pain Management, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joseph Abdelmalak
2Department of Pain Management, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eduardo Jusino
2Department of Pain Management, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew R. Hansen
2Department of Pain Management, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
George E. Girgis
2Department of Pain Management, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Currently, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is the only US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for hot flashes, resulting in clinical improvement in 80%-90% of symptomatic women. However, HRT is not recommended for patients with breast cancer. Current data regarding the use of stellate ganglion block (SGB) for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms in symptomatic women with a diagnosis of breast cancer are promising.

Methods A PubMed search for recent articles on the effects of SGB for the treatment of hot flashes in patients with breast cancer identified 11 articles published between 2005-2014.

Results Five articles described the physiology of hot flashes and the hypothesis of why SGB would be a treatment option, and 6 were clinical articles.

Conclusion The available results of SGB efficacy are promising but demonstrate significant variability. A large prospective randomized controlled trial is required to determine the exact success of SGB on hot flashes and quality of life in breast cancer survivors.

Keywords
  • Breast neoplasms
  • hot flashes
  • postmenopause
  • stellate ganglion
  • vasomotor system

INTRODUCTION

An estimated 75% of postmenopausal women experience hot flashes.1 In addition, between 60%-80% of patients with breast cancer suffer from them as a result of chemotherapy.2 Currently, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is the only US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for hot flashes. Although HRT results in clinical improvement in 80%-90% of symptomatic women,3 it is not recommended following the diagnosis of breast cancer.4

Various pharmacologic agents have been used to treat hot flashes: clonidine, gabapentin, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. However, randomized controlled trials have produced mixed results.5

The pathophysiology of hot flashes is not entirely understood. Researchers suspect that the vasomotor symptoms occur in response to the rapidly diminishing production of estrogen.6,7 Current data regarding the use of stellate ganglion block (SGB) for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms in symptomatic women with a diagnosis of breast cancer are promising.2,8 We believe that SGB is a reasonable alternative to HRT for vasomotor symptoms secondary to breast cancer treatment, providing improved efficacy compared to pharmacologic and alternative treatments.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for recent articles on SGB used to treat hot flashes in patients with breast cancer, using the following keywords: stellate ganglion block, hot flashes, and breast cancer. We limited our review to English-language articles.

RESULTS

Eleven articles published between 2005-2014 met our search criteria (Figure 1). Five articles described the physiology of hot flashes and the hypothesis of why SGB would be a treatment option. Six were clinical articles.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Overview of literature review search and results.

Basic Science Articles

Table 1 provides an overview of the 5 articles1,5,9-11 that describe the physiology of hot flashes and the hypothesis of why SGB would be a treatment option.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Articles Reporting the Basic Science of Hot Flashes and Stellate Ganglion Block (SGB) Treatment

The 2007 article by Lipov et al described evidence of central sympathetic involvement in hot flashes and concluded that part of the effect of SGB may be centrally mediated.9

According to Freedman et al, the hypothalamus maintains core body temperature within a certain thermoneutral zone. Small temperature variations seen in diurnal human body temperature patterns trigger a hot flash with vessel dilatation and increased sweat if the upper limit of the thermoneutral zone is crossed or shivering if the lower limit is traversed.12-14 Women suffering from hot flashes show increases in core body temperature with significant increases in the plasma levels of a metabolite of brain norepinephrine but not of a peripheral metabolite, leading to the conclusion that hot flashes are driven by a central noradrenergic mechanism. Also, Freedman et al used functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to identify the regions of brain activation associated with hot flashes and found that the insula and anterior cingulate cortex showed significantly more activation than the hypothalamus.12-14

Westerhaus and Loewy used pseudorabies virus injections as an anatomical labeling technique to provide evidence of connections between the stellate ganglion and other brain nuclei.15 They found that the stellate ganglion interacts with several key structures known to modulate core body temperature, including the hypothalamus, amygdala, and regions of the prefrontal cortex, in particular the insular cortex. Westerhaus and Loewy's data correspond directly with the functional MRI results provided by Freedman et al.

In 2009, Lipov et al published a theory linking the efficacy of SGB with the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome, hot flashes, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).10 Their theory involves an interaction between the effects of estrogen, nerve growth factor, and norepinephrine. Estrogen is known to regulate the production of nerve growth factor in sympathetic neurons.16 Estrogen decrease may lead to anxiety and depression similar to the symptoms of PTSD.17 It was also evident that nerve growth factor increases in pathologic states with chronic stress.18 Nerve growth factor has been shown to increase nerve growth and sprouting of uterine sympathetic fibers in the rat uterus, leading to increased norepinephrine secondary to increased sympathetic nerve density. It has also been shown that increased brain levels of norepinephrine lead to hot flashes in rats.19

Local anesthetics decrease nerve growth factor and sympathetic nerve sprouting.20 Lipov et al postulated that the decreased levels of estrogen in menopause allow for increased nerve growth factor and increased norepinephrine production in sympathetic neurons. Under sympathetic stimulation, this increase could lead to increased brain levels of norepinephrine, triggering the hot flash. The increase in brain norepinephrine in turn is affected by SGB, leading to a reduction of nerve growth factor and eventually a decrease in norepinephrine.10

In 2010, Pachman et al reviewed all the current treatment options for menopause-associated vasomotor symptoms.1 They reported that HRT is the most common and most effective treatment for hot flashes and is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. The HABITS (Hormonal Replacement Therapy After Breast Cancer—Is It Safe?) trial, a randomized study involving 434 women diagnosed with breast cancer, had to be abandoned because of the increased incidence of breast cancer events found in the HRT group.4 Farquhar et al stressed that HRT has been shown to be the most effective treatment but reported a significant increase in risk of breast cancer.21 Most pharmacologic drugs studied had significant side effects that frequently outweighed the benefits, leading many patients to discontinue the medications. Pachman et al reported that nonhormonal therapies (bellergal, clonidine, methyldopa, and veralipride) have significant adverse side effects with moderate efficacy and are not recommended for the treatment of hot flashes. Clonidine, gabapentin, various selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors have been tested in randomized trials with mixed results. The authors concluded that of all the treatments, venlafaxine and SGB showed enough promise to warrant further study.

Kontos et al concluded that non-HRT treatments with response rates <50% are no more beneficial than placebo but identified venlafaxine and SGB as promising treatments worth studying in breast cancer survivors.5 As Pachman et al, Kontos et al, and Loprinzi et al report, the most promising data on possible treatments for hot flashes in cancer survivors involve newer antidepressant agents such as venlafaxine that reduce hot flashes by about 60%.1,5,22 Currently, strong evidence to support complementary/alternative therapies (phytoestrogens, black cohosh, vitamin E, dehydroepiandrosterone, and other herbal remedies) and mind-body/behavior therapies (behavioral modifications, exercise, yoga, relaxation training, hypnosis, and acupuncture) is lacking because of limited effectiveness.1,23

The 2011 article by Lipov and Kelzenberg concentrated on the neurobiology underlying SGB.11 The authors summarized the results from previous trials, stating that the perimenopausal estrogen decrease causes increased concentrations of nerve growth factor that, in turn, lead to sympathetic nerve sprouting in the cortex and increased brain norepinephrine. SGB is known to reduce nerve growth factor, leading to the reversal of the process and thereby leading to symptom resolution of hot flashes. Lipov and Kelzenberg concluded that understanding the neurobiologic mechanism of action underlying the SGB effect may offer additional insight into the etiology and treatment of hot flashes.11

Clinical Articles

Four of the clinical trials and the one case series were not blinded and enrolled highly symptomatic subjects. The sixth article reported a randomized controlled clinical trial that included only moderately to severely symptomatic patients. Table 2 provides an overview of these clinical articles.8,24-28 The SGB techniques used were almost identical—blocking the anterolateral aspect of the C6 vertebra on the right side under fluoroscopy after confirmation of location with contrast dye (Figures 2, 3, and 4). Successful sympathetic blockade was confirmed by transient Horner syndrome and/or change in temperature in all of the subjects analyzed. No adverse events resulting from SGB were reported for any of the studies.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Clinical Articles Reporting Stellate Ganglion Block (SGB) Treatment for Hot Flashes

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Anatomy of stellate ganglion and surrounding structure. A, artery; M, musculus; N, nerve; V, vein. (Figure printed with permission, Cleveland Clinic Center for Medical Art & Photography © 2014. All Rights Reserved.)

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Ultrasound image of stellate ganglion with arrow trajectory for out-of-plane technique for stellate ganglion block. CA, carotid artery; C6, sixth cervical vertebra; M, musculus. (Figure courtesy of Dmitri Souzdalnitski, MD, PhD.)

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Ultrasound image of stellate ganglion with arrow trajectory for in-plane technique for stellate ganglion block. CA, carotid artery; C6, sixth cervical vertebra; IJV, internal jugular vein; M, musculus. (Figure courtesy of Dmitri Souzdalnitski, MD, PhD.)

A 2005 case series by Lipov et al included 6 women without breast cancer with severe hot flashes.24 All had complete relief of symptoms for 2-5 weeks after the first SGB. Five patients returned for a second SGB when their hot flash symptoms increased and received relief for 4-18 weeks. A third SGB was performed on 2 of these 5 patients who reported relief for 15-48 weeks.

In 2008, Lipov et al conducted a pilot study of 13 female survivors of breast cancer with severe hot flashes and night awakenings.8 Both hot flashes and night awakenings decreased immediately after the procedure. The decreases were significant when compared with baseline reports, a mean 90% and 93% reduction in hot flash frequency and night awakenings, respectively, up to week 12 among the 13 subjects, 8 of whom received a second SGB. Lipov et al published a 52-week follow-up report that demonstrated significant reductions in the frequency and intensity of hot flashes, as well as marked reductions in night awakenings.29

In 2011, Pachman et al published a pilot study evaluating 8 women with breast cancer who had bothersome hot flashes.25 They showed a 44% reduction in hot flash frequency from baseline to week 6 after patients received a single SGB.

An uncontrolled experimental study by Haest et al published in 2012 assessed 34 postmenopausal survivors of breast cancer with severe vasomotor symptoms and showed 64% and 47% reductions from baseline in a combined hot flash frequency and severity score from baseline after one or multiple SBGs in weeks 1 and 24, respectively.26 The odds of having better sleep quality were 3.36 and 4.26 times higher in week 1 and week 24, respectively, compared with baseline.

In 2013, van Gastel et al studied 19 postmenopausal women with severe hot flashes.27 They classified 9 women as responders to SGB with decreases in their flash score of 40%-90% and 10 women as nonresponders with decreases of 0%-11%. The mean combined flash frequency and severity score decreased by 34% 4 weeks after SGB. Quality of sleep significantly improved by a mean of 23% in 4 weeks.

In 2014, Walega et al published the largest and only randomized sham-controlled clinical trial.28 They randomized 40 moderately to severely symptomatic postmenopausal women to SGB vs sham injection and analyzed the patients' vasomotor symptoms subjectively and objectively for 6 months. The study showed a notable reduction in total subjective vasomotor symptoms between the SGB group and the sham control group, 34% vs 18%, respectively, in months 4-6. A significantly greater reduction in subjective moderate to very severe vasomotor symptoms from baseline to months 4-6 was reported for the SGB group compared to the sham control group, 52% to 4%, respectively. Also, SGB-treated subjects showed a significantly greater reduction in the reported intensity of vasomotor symptoms from baseline to 4-6 months, 38% vs 8%, respectively. The total number of objectively measured vasomotor symptoms was significantly reduced between the SGB group and the sham control group, 21% and 0%, respectively, from baseline to 3 months. Also, the SGB-treated group demonstrated improvement of depressive symptoms while the sham control group showed none. Neither group had improvement in sleep or quality of life from baseline to week 3 or month 3.28

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests that the most effective treatment for hot flashes is HRT, but HRT is not recommended for breast cancer survivors because of the increased rate of breast cancer recurrence. Nonhormonal therapies are associated with significant side effects and mild to moderate effectiveness and are not recommended for treating hot flashes. The available results of SGB efficacy are promising but demonstrate significant variability. A large prospective randomized controlled trial is required to determine the exact success of SGB on hot flashes and quality of life in breast cancer survivors.

This article meets the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties Maintenance of Certification competencies for Patient Care, Medical Knowledge, and Practice-Based Learning and Improvement.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors have no financial or proprietary interest in the subject matter of this article.

  • © Academic Division of Ochsner Clinic Foundation

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Pachman DR,
    2. Jones JM,
    3. Loprinzi CL.
    (8 9, 2010) Management of menopause-associated vasomotor symptoms: current treatment options, challenges and future directions. Int J Women Health 2:123–135.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Gupta P,
    2. Sturdee DW,
    3. Palin SL,
    4. et al.
    (2, 2006) Menopausal symptoms in women treated for breast cancer: the prevalence and severity of symptoms and their perceived effects on quality of life. Climacteric 9(1):49–58, pmid:16428125.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Maclennan AH,
    2. Broadbent JL,
    3. Lester S,
    4. Moore V.
    (2004) Oral oestrogen and combined oestrogen/progestogen therapy versus placebo for hot flushes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD002978, pmid:15495039, Oct 18.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Holmberg L,
    2. Anderson H
    (2 7, 2004) HABITS steering and data monitoring committees. HABITS (hormonal replacement therapy after breast cancer—is it safe?), a randomized comparison: trial stopped. Lancet 363(9407):453–455, pmid:14962527.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Kontos M,
    2. Agbaje OF,
    3. Rymer J,
    4. Fentiman IS.
    (2, 2010) What can be done about hot flushes after treatment for breast cancer? Climacteric 13(1):4–21, pmid:20067430.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Casper RF,
    2. Yen SS.
    (3, 1985) Neuroendocrinology of menopausal flushes: a hypothesis of flush mechanism. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 22(3):293–312, pmid:3884189.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Sturdee DW.
    (5 20, 2008) The menopausal hot flush—anything new? Maturitas 60(1):42–49, pmid:18384981.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Lipov EG,
    2. Joshi JR,
    3. Sanders S,
    4. et al.
    (6, 2008) Effects of stellate-ganglion block on hot flushes and night awakenings in survivors of breast cancer: a pilot study. Lancet Oncol 9(6):523–532, pmid:18485819.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Lipov EG,
    2. Lipov S,
    3. Joshi JR,
    4. Santucci VD,
    5. Slavin KV,
    6. Beck Vigue SG.
    (2007) Stellate ganglion block may relieve hot flashes by interrupting the sympathetic nervous system. Med Hypotheses 69(4):758–763, pmid:17425958.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Lipov EG,
    2. Joshi JR,
    3. Sanders S,
    4. Slavin KV.
    (6, 2009) A unifying theory linking the prolonged efficacy of the stellate ganglion block for the treatment of chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS), hot flashes, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Med Hypotheses 72(6):657–661, pmid:19237252.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Lipov E,
    2. Kelzenberg BM.
    (6, 2011) Stellate ganglion block (SGB) to treat perimenopausal hot flashes: clinical evidence and neurobiology. Maturitas 69(2):95–96, pmid:21377301.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Freedman RR.
    (Jul-Aug 2001) Physiology of hot flashes. Am J Hum Biol 13(4):453–464, pmid:11400216.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Freedman RR,
    2. Krell W.
    (7, 1999) Reduced thermoregulatory null zone in postmenopausal women with hot flashes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181(1):66–70, pmid:10411797.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Freedman RR,
    2. Benton MD,
    3. Genik RJ 2nd.,
    4. Graydon FX.
    (3, 2006) Cortical activation during menopausal hot flashes. Fertil Steril 85(3):674–678, pmid:16500337.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Westerhaus MJ,
    2. Loewy AD.
    (6 8, 2001) Central representation of the sympathetic nervous system in the central cortex. Brain Res 903((1-2)):117–127, pmid:11382395.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Kaur G,
    2. Janik J,
    3. Isaacson LG,
    4. Callahan P.
    (3 30, 2007) Estrogen regulation of neurotrophin expression in sympathetic neurons and vascular targets. Brain Res 1139:6–14, pmid:17289002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Cagnacci A,
    2. Volpe A,
    3. Arangino S,
    4. et al.
    (1997) Depression and anxiety in climacteric women: role of hormone replacement therapy. Menopause 4(4):206–211.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Smith MA.
    (6, 1996) Hippocampal vulnerability to stress and aging: possible role of neurotrophic factors. Behav Brain Res 78(1):25–36, pmid:8793034.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Ting AY,
    2. Blacklock AD,
    3. Smith PG.
    (10, 2004) Estrogen regulates vaginal sensory and autonomic nerve density in the rat. Biol Reprod 71(4):1397–1404, pmid:15189832.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Takatori M,
    2. Kuroda Y,
    3. Hirose M.
    (2, 2006) Local anesthetics suppress nerve growth factor-mediated neurite outgrowth by inhibition of tyrosine kinase activity of TrkA. Anesth Analg 102(2):462–467, pmid:16428543.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Farquhar C,
    2. Majoribanks J,
    3. Lethaby A,
    4. Suckling JA,
    5. Lamberts Q.
    (2009) (2012) Long term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7(2):CD004143, CD004143, Apr 15, Update in, Jul 11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Loprinzi CL,
    2. Pisansky TM,
    3. Fonseca R,
    4. et al.
    (7, 1998) Pilot evaluation of venlafaxine hydrochloride for the therapy of hot flashes in cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol 16(7):2377–2381, pmid:9667254.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  22. ↵
    1. Pinkerton JV,
    2. Stovall DW,
    3. Kightlinger RS.
    (7, 2009) Advances in the treatment of menopausal symptoms. Womens Health (Lond Engl) 5(4):361–384, 383–384, pmid:19586429, quiz.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Lipov E,
    2. Lipov S,
    3. Stark JT.
    (10, 2005) Stellate ganglion blockade provides relief from menopausal hot flashes: a case report series. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 14(8):737–741, pmid:16232106.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Pachman DR,
    2. Barton D,
    3. Carns PE,
    4. et al.
    (7, 2011) Pilot evaluation of a stellate ganglion block for the treatment of hot flashes. Support Care Cancer 19(7):941–947, pmid:20496155.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Haest K,
    2. Kumar A,
    3. Van Calster B,
    4. et al.
    (6, 2012) Stellate ganglion block for the management of hot flashes and sleep disturbances in breast cancer survivors: an uncontrolled experimental study with 24 weeks of follow-up. Ann Oncol 23(6):1449–1454, pmid:22039079.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. van Gastel P,
    2. Kallewaard JW,
    3. van der Zanden M,
    4. de Boer H.
    (2, 2013) Stellate-ganglion block as a treatment for severe postmenopausal flushing. Climacteric 16(1):41–47, pmid:23017097.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Walega DR,
    2. Rubin LH,
    3. Banuvar S,
    4. Shulman LP,
    5. Maki PM.
    (8, 2014) Effects of stellate ganglion block on vasomotor symptoms: findings from a randomized controlled clinical trial in postmenopausal women. Menopause 21(8):807–814, pmid:24496086.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Lipov EG,
    2. Joshi JR,
    3. Xie H,
    4. Slavin KV.
    (9, 2008) Updated findings on the effects of stellate-ganglion block on hot flushes and night awakenings. Lancet Oncol 9(9):819–820, pmid:18760240.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Ochsner Journal
Vol. 15, Issue 2
Jun 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign up with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Ochsner Journal.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Stellate Ganglion Block for the Treatment of Hot Flashes in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Literature Review
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Ochsner Journal
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Ochsner Journal web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Stellate Ganglion Block for the Treatment of Hot Flashes in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Literature Review
Maged Guirguis, Joseph Abdelmalak, Eduardo Jusino, Matthew R. Hansen, George E. Girgis
Ochsner Journal Jun 2015, 15 (2) 162-169;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Stellate Ganglion Block for the Treatment of Hot Flashes in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Literature Review
Maged Guirguis, Joseph Abdelmalak, Eduardo Jusino, Matthew R. Hansen, George E. Girgis
Ochsner Journal Jun 2015, 15 (2) 162-169;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • CONCLUSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A Modern History of Informed Consent and the Role of Key Information
  • Nitrous Oxide for Labor Analgesia: What We Know to Date
  • Circulating Placental Extracellular Vesicles and Their Potential Roles During Pregnancy
Show more REVIEWS AND CONTEMPORARY UPDATES

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Breast neoplasms
  • hot flashes
  • postmenopause
  • stellate ganglion
  • vasomotor system

Current Post at the Blog

Author Misconduct With Images: A Threat to Research Integrity

Our Content

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Featured Contributors
  • Ochsner Journal Blog
  • Archive at PubMed Central

Information & Forms

  • Instructions for Authors
  • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Submission Checklist
  • FAQ
  • License for Publishing-Author Attestation
  • Patient Consent Form
  • Submit a Manuscript

Services & Contacts

  • Permissions
  • Sign up for our electronic table of contents
  • Feedback Form
  • Contact Us

About Us

  • Editorial Board
  • About the Ochsner Journal
  • Ochsner Health
  • University of Queensland-Ochsner Clinical School
  • Alliance of Independent Academic Medical Centers

© 2021 Ochsner Clinic Foundation

Powered by HighWire