Ketamine Analgesic Effect by Continuous Intravenous Infusion in Refractory Cancer Pain: Considerations about the Clinical Research in Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The literature has described the use of ketamine as an adjuvant treatment for opioid-refractory cancer pain. None of these studies have used the drug in a palliative care patient population. AIMS: The primary objective of the study was to assess the efficacy of continuous intravenous infusion of ketamine in patients suffering from cancer pain refractory to opiates who had been admitted to palliative care units. Secondary objectives were to assess patients' satisfaction with and tolerance of ketamine. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was designed, and the study setting included seven French adult palliative care units. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, and cancer pain refractory to standard opiates. Evaluations were conducted at randomization (baseline), at ketamine or placebo introduction time (T0), and at 2 hours (T1), 24 hours (T2), and 48 hours (T3) after T0. The primary evaluation criterion was pain efficacy assessed using a patient self-rated Numeric Pain Intensity Scale (NPIS) at T1. The main secondary evaluation criteria were daily morphine dose, symptom evaluation (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS]), and patient satisfaction (Pain Treatment Satisfaction Scale [PTSS]). RESULTS: Twenty patients were analyzed (11 received ketamine and 9 received placebo). Self-reported pain did not differ between the two groups, as the symptoms continued to evolve during the study period. The tolerance for ketamine was satisfactory. CONCLUSION: The present study did not confirm the efficacy of the ketamine-morphine combination in refractory cancer pain. The results suggest that specific populations could be "good responders" for this therapeutic approach. Further studies should be performed that take into account the difficulties of conducting clinical research in the palliative care context.
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 | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".