MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402325519 · doi:10.1136/spcare-2024-anzspm.76

P-28 Opioid requirements and palliative pain management in young adult cancer patients at the end of life: a retrospective review at an Australian comprehensive cancer hospital

2024· review· en· W4402325519 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yanni Loh, Kasia Chmiel, Sarah Bishop Browne

Bibliographic record

VenuePoster presentations · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancerPain managementOpioidMedicineCancer painPalliative careRetrospective cohort studyNursingAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> Young Adult cancer patients, aged 18–39 years, represent a unique demographic. Evidence from a limited body of international research indicates that these patients tend to experience a high symptom burden, particularly pain, during their final month of life1. In Australia, there is limited knowledge regarding their end-of-life symptoms and management strategies. <h3>Objective</h3> This study aimed to identify the prevalence, severity, mechanisms and the specialist palliative management of pain in young adult patients who received end-of-life care and died at the Chris O’Brien Lifehouse, an Australian comprehensive cancer hospital. Methods A retrospective design analysed the case notes of 72 eligible patients, aged 18–39 years at diagnosis, who died in the hospital between January 2017 and May 2024. Quantitative analysis was performed on the collected data. <h3>Results</h3> All patients had solid organ metastatic disease with the most common types being sarcoma (33%), lung (15%), and gynaecological cancer (10%). All patients received specialist palliative care input. The median length of hospitalisation to time of death was 17 days (SD 18.6 range 0–122). All patients experienced pain and received opioids. 87% of patient scored their pain on admission as moderate-severe on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). The mean Oral Morphine Equivalent Dose (oMEDD) was 275 mg (SD 403.7, range 20- 2250) with 30 patients (41%) receiving more than 300 mg of OMEDD. 25 (35%) patients received methadone, 15 (20%) patients received infusion ketamine, 6 (8%) patients received infusion lignocaine and 7 (9%) patients underwent interventional pain procedure. 64 patients (89%) received benzodiazepine for agitation and/or anxiety. 4 patients (5%) had severe refractory pain requiring palliative sedation with levomepromazine and/or phenobarbitone. <h3>Discussion and Conclusion</h3> Our findings showed that complex pain is highly prevalent in young adult cancer patients at the end of life requiring opioids, adjuncts and interventional pain strategies for management. This may be explained by age specific tumour types and predilection for bone and pelvic pain syndromes. Our data offer important information to the limited existing information in this area. In comparison standard palliative care cohort, our data showed that a large proportion of young adult patients require high doses of opioids for analgesia defined as OMEDD of more 300 mg2. Despite this pain remained poorly controlled in some patients requiring benzodiazepine or palliative sedation at the end of life, suggestive of total pain phenomenon, similarly reflected in several case reports1. When required, these patients require high doses of sedatives. Future research is needed to identify tailored treatment regimens for young adults with cancer-related pain, focusing on psychological symptom profile encompassing total pain. <h3>References</h3> Abdelaal, <i>et al .</i> Palliative care for adolescents and young adults with advanced illness: a scoping review.<i> Palliative Medicine</i> 2023;<b>37</b>(1):88–107. Bercovitch, <i>et al.</i> High dose morphine use in the hospice setting. <i>Cancer</i> 2000;<b>86</b>(5):735–903.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoster presentationsSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207