Methadone initiation and rotation in the outpatient setting for patients with cancer pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Methadone is an effective and inexpensive opioid for cancer pain treatment. It has been reported as difficult to use in the outpatient setting because of its variable relative potency and long half-life. The purpose of this study was to determine the outcome of methadone initiation or rotation for cancer pain treatment in outpatient settings. METHODS: Chart review was done of 189 consecutive patients who underwent methadone initiation or rotation at the authors' palliative care outpatient center. Data were collected regarding demographic and clinical characteristics, symptoms, and opioid side effects at baseline and for 2 follow-up visits (F1, F2). Failure was defined as methadone discontinuation by the palliative care physician or patient's hospitalization for uncontrolled pain or methadone-related side effects at F1. RESULTS: One hundred (53%) initiations and 89 (47%) rotations were conducted. Success rates for methadone initiation and rotation were 82 of 89 (92%) and 85 of 100 (84%), respectively. Mean (standard deviation) age was 60 (11) years. One hundred (53%) patients were women, 138 (73%) were white, and 182 (96%) had solid cancers. The main reason for rotation was pain (65 of 89 patients, 47%). Median (interquartile range, IQR) pain scores (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale/0-10) were 6 (5-8), 4 (3-6), and 3 (2-5) at baseline, F1, and F2, respectively (P < .0001). Median (IQR) daily methadone dose for initiation and rotation was 10 (5-15) mg and 15 (10-30) mg at F1 (P < .0001) and 10 (8-15) mg and 18 (10-30) mg at F2 (P < .0001), respectively. Constipation and nausea improved (P < .005) after initiation/rotation to methadone. Frequency of sedation, hallucinations, myoclonus, and delirium did not increase after initiation/rotation to methadone. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient methadone initiation and rotation for cancer pain treatment were safe, with high success rates and low side effect profiles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".