Symptomatic hypogonadism in male survivors of cancer with chronic exposure to opioids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Profound hypogonadism has been noted in patients receiving intrathecal opioids. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether chronic consumption of oral opioids by male survivors of cancer also would lead to central hypogonadism and whether this hypogonadism was associated with symptoms of sexual dysfunction, fatigue, anxiety, and depression. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX), in which 20 patients who were chronically consuming opioids were compared with 20 matched controls. Patients completed the Sexual Desire Inventory (SDI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy with general and fatigue subscales (FACT-G/FACIT-F), and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) questionnaires. Serum samples were collected for testosterone, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and luteinizing hormone (LH). RESULTS: Comparing the opioid group with the control group, 18 of the 20 patients (90%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 65-98%) exhibited hypogonadism, compared with 8 of the 20 control patients (40%; 95% CI, 19-64%). The median testosterone level was 145 ng/dL versus 399.5 ng/dL (5.0 nmol/L vs. 13.9 nmol/L; P < 0.0001), the median FSH level was 2.85 milli-International Units (mIU)/mL versus 5.3 mIU/mL (P = 0.08), the median LH level was 1.8 mIU/mL versus 4.2 mIU/mL (P = 0.0014), the median SDI-dyadic score was 18.5 versus 40 (P = 0.01), the median SDI-solitary score was 0 versus 5 (P = 0.007), the HADS (anxiety) score was 8.5 versus 5.5 (P = 0.053), the HADS (depression) score was 7.5 versus 1.5 (P = 0.0002), the FACT-G score was 64 versus 96.3 (P = 0.0001), and the FACIT-F score was 24 versus 46 (P = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of cancer who chronically consumed opioids experienced symptomatic hypogonadism with significantly higher levels of depression, fatigue, and sexual dysfunction. With the increasing use of opioids among patients with cancer, further research in improving quality-of-life outcomes is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".