MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Survival among cancer patients undergoing opioid rotation to methadone as compared to other opioids.

2015· article· en· W2590020101 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Akhila Reddy, Sriram Yennu, Ulrich S. Schuler, Maxine Grace De la Cruz, Jimin Wu, Diane D. Liu, Éduardo Bruera

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMethadoneOpioidCancer painAnesthesiaCancerInternal medicineMorphineMethadone maintenance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

183 Background: Recent studies have reported that methadone has antineoplastic activity. Other studies have associated methadone with lower overall survival in patients with chronic pain. Methadone is the most frequent opioid chosen for purpose of opioid rotation (OR) in cancer patients experiencing refractory pain or opioid induced neurotoxicity. There is no data available on the association of methadone with overall survival in cancer patients. Our aim was to compare the characteristics and overall survival in cancer patients in methadone group with other strong opioid group. Methods: In this ad hoc analysis, we reviewed 2471 consecutive patient visits to the supportive care center of a tertiary cancer center in 2008 for ORs from strong opioids to methadone or other strong opioids with a follow-up visit within 6 weeks. Information regarding demographics, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were collected. Successful pain response was defined as 2-point or 30% reduction in pain score. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate survival. Results: Of the 102 eligible patients, 54 underwent OR to methadone and 48 to other strong opioids. The median age was 56 years, 56% were male, and 81% had advanced cancer. There were no significant differences between the methadone group and the other opioid group in patient characteristics, performance status, MEDD, and ESAS scores. Although both the groups showed significant pain response, methadone group (72%) had a significantly higher pain response as compared to the other opioid group (65%; P = 0.04). The Kaplan-Meier curves revealed no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between the methadone group and the other opioid group [median OS: 5.2 months (95% CI 3.64-7.41) vs. 5.9 months (95% CI 2.6-9.2); P = 0.89]. Conclusions: We observed no significant difference in overall survival in cancer patients in methadone group as compared to other opioids. Further validation studies in a larger sample are 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.165
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207