Psychedelic-Assisted Therapies for Psychosocial Symptoms in Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates (1) the effectiveness of psychedelic-assisted therapy (PAT) using psilocybin and ketamine for psychosocial symptoms in adults with cancer, (2) contextualizes findings with non-randomized and exploratory studies of other psychedelics, and (3) examines the role of therapeutic frameworks in shaping outcomes. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and EMBASE (2000–2024) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies investigating psychedelic agents in cancer populations. Meta-analyses pooled RCTs of psilocybin or ketamine using random-effects models. Non-randomized studies were synthesized narratively. Risk of bias and evidence certainty were assessed via Cochrane ROB 2.0, NIH Before–After tool, and GRADE. Eleven placebo-controlled RCTs and four single open-label studies were included. Meta-analysis of four ketamine RCTs (n = 354) showed large, rapid effects on depression/anxiety (Hedges’ g = −1.37, 95% CI: −2.66 to −0.08; I2 = 92%). Three psilocybin RCTs (n = 101) showed a large effect of psilocybin on alleviating depression (Hedges’ g = −3.13, 95% CI: −10.04 to 3.77; I2 = 95%). MDMA and LSD trials suggested promise but lacked rigor. PAT may offer meaningful relief for cancer-related distress, though effects vary by therapeutic model and context. Oncology-specific trials are needed to standardize and scale for implementation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".