Outcomes and Healthcare Utilization Among New Persistent Opioid Users and Nonopioid Users After Curative-intent Surgery for Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the health outcomes and resource use of cancer patients who were new persistent opioid users with those who were not, after undergoing curative intent surgery for cancer. BACKGROUND: Little is known about long-term health outcomes (overdose, mortality) and resource utilization of new persistent opioid users among cancer patients undergoing curative-intent surgery. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all adults with a diagnosis of solid cancers who underwent curative-intent surgery during the study period (2011-2015) in Alberta, Canada and were opioid-naïve before surgery, with a follow-up period until December 31, 2019. The key exposure, "new persistent opioid user," was defined as a patient who was opioid-naive before surgery and subsequently filled at least 1 opioid prescription between 60 and 180 days after surgery. The primary outcome was opioid overdose that occurred within 3 years of surgery. All-cause death, noncancer caused death, and department visit (yes vs. no), and hospitalization (yes vs. no) in the follow-up periods were also included as outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 19,219 patients underwent curative intent surgery with a median follow-up of 47 months, of whom 1530 (8.0%) were identified as postoperative new persistent opioid users. In total, 101 (0.5%) patients experienced opioid overdose within 3 years of surgery. Compared with nonopioid users, new persistent opioid users experienced a higher rate of opioid overdose (OR = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.44-3.9) within 3 years of surgery. New persistent opioid use was also associated with a greater likelihood of being hospitalized (OR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.76-2.33) and visiting an emergency room (OR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.62-2.06) in the first year after surgery, and a higher overall (HR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.1-1.49) and noncancer caused mortality (HR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.12-1.58), when compared with nonopioid users. CONCLUSION: Postoperative new persistent opioid use among cancer patients undergoing curative-intent surgery is associated with subsequent opioid overdose, worse survival, and more health resource utilization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".