MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Opioid use in long term cancer survivors.

2018· article· en· W2891920787 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Barbera, Rinku Sutradhar, Doris Howell, Deborah Dudgeon, Hsien Seow, Mary Ann O’Brien, Clare Atzema, Amna Husain, Craig C. Earle, Jonathan Sussman, Carlo DeAngelis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchMcMaster UniversityKingston General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesJuravinski Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOpioidNational Death IndexCancerRetrospective cohort studyCohortInternal medicineOxycodoneHazard ratioConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6520 Background: Our research team previously found that the rate of opioid use in cancer patients surviving at least 5 years beyond diagnosis was 1.2 times higher compared with age-sex matched controls without cancer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the factors associated with opioid use after 5 years of survival from cancer diagnosis. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked provincial administrative data. Patients were aged 24-70 and economically disadvantaged, making them eligible for government funded pharmacare. The index date was defined as the 5 year anniversary from the diagnosis date. Patients were accrued continuously between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2015 on their index date. Those with any evidence of recurrence (resuming anti-cancer therapy, palliative care) were excluded. Patients were observed until death, relapse or end of data accrual. The main outcome was opioid prescription rate after index date. The main exposures were opioid use prior to diagnosis date, opioid use between diagnosis date and index date (none, continuous, at diagnosis only, other), certain cancer surgeries (e.g. thoracotomy) and chemotherapy agents known to cause neuropathy. A negative binomial regression model was used to estimate the relative rates of opioid use after index date. Results: Our cohort included 7,431 individuals. The factors most strongly associated with a higher rate of opioid use after index date was continuous opioid use between diagnosis and index date. The RR was 63.4 (95% CI 39.4-102.1) for those with no pre-diagnosis opioid use and 76.6 (95% CI 40.7-144.0) for those with pre-diagnosis opioid use. The only group with no increased risk used opioids only at diagnosis and had no prior use. Surgery was not significant. Chemotherapy was not significant with the exception of those who used opioids initially. A history of depression, comorbidity and more than 2 years of diabetes were also associated with higher risk. Conclusions: Cancer patients who use opioids continuously after diagnosis are at increased risk of continued use after 5 years of survival. Further work is needed to understand the reasons for ongoing use after diagnosis. Increased attention is needed to ensure safe prescribing for this group to minimize issues with dependence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.340 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→