Use of corticosteroids for pain control in cancer patients with bone metastases: a comprehensive literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite a limited understanding of the exact mechanism, corticosteroids are commonly employed for pain control in patients with bone metastases. The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of corticosteroid-mediated pain control in patients with bone metastases associated with solid cancers. RECENT FINDINGS: A literature search was conducted using OVID MEDLINE and Embase databases (from 1946 up to July 19, 2016). Studies involving patients with bone metastases receiving corticosteroids as the primary means of pain control were included. Screening and data extraction were conducted by paired reviewers, with consensus established by discussion, or a third adjudicator. A total of 12 studies were included. Rates of pain relief achieved with corticosteroid use varied from 30 to 70%, but generally reflected moderate pain control. Corticosteroid use significantly reduced the incidence of pain flare alongside radiotherapy, reportedly by almost half of baseline pain severity. Adverse events were not documented consistently across studies, though grade two to three hyperglycemia was noted in approximately 2% of patients by some studies. SUMMARY: Recent evidence suggests that short-term corticosteroid use may provide moderate pain and pain flare control with radiotherapy for patients with bone metastases. The risk of developing adverse effects should be carefully considered prior to therapy initiation on a case-by-case basis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".