Predicting Persistent Opioid Use, Abuse, and Toxicity Among Cancer Survivors.

BackgroundAlthough opioids play a critical role in the management of cancer pain, the ongoing opioid epidemic has raised concerns regarding their persistent use and abuse. We lack data-driven tools in oncology to understand the risk of adverse opioid-related outcomes. This project seeks to identify clinical risk factors and create a risk score to help identify patients at risk of persistent opioid use and abuse.MethodsWithin a cohort of 106 732 military veteran cancer survivors diagnosed between 2000 and 2015, we determined rates of persistent posttreatment opioid use, diagnoses of opioid abuse or dependence, and admissions for opioid toxicity. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify patient, cancer, and treatment risk factors associated with adverse opioid-related outcomes. Predictive risk models were developed and validated using a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression technique.ResultsThe rate of persistent opioid use in cancer survivors was 8.3% (95% CI = 8.1% to 8.4%); the rate of opioid abuse or dependence was 2.9% (95% CI = 2.8% to 3.0%); and the rate of opioid-related admissions was 2.1% (95% CI = 2.0% to 2.2%). On multivariable analysis, several patient, demographic, and cancer and treatment factors were associated with risk of persistent opioid use. Predictive models showed a high level of discrimination when identifying individuals at risk of adverse opioid-related outcomes including persistent opioid use (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.85), future diagnoses of opioid abuse or dependence (AUC = 0.87), and admission for opioid abuse or toxicity (AUC = 0.78).ConclusionThis study demonstrates the potential to predict adverse opioid-related outcomes among cancer survivors. With further validation, personalized risk-stratification approaches could guide management when prescribing opioids in cancer patients

Clinical Consensus Guideline on the Management of Phaeochromocytoma and Paraganglioma in Patients Harbouring Germline SDHD Pathogenic Variants

Patients with germline SDHD pathogenic variants (encoding succinate dehydrogenase subunit D; ie, paraganglioma 1 syndrome) are predominantly affected by head and neck paragangliomas, which, in almost 20% of patients, might coexist with paragangliomas arising from other locations (eg, adrenal medulla, para-aortic, cardiac or thoracic, and pelvic). Given the higher risk of tumour multifocality and bilaterality for phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas (PPGLs) because of SDHD pathogenic variants than for their sporadic and other genotypic counterparts, the management of patients with SDHD PPGLs is clinically complex in terms of imaging, treatment, and management options. Furthermore, locally aggressive disease can be discovered at a young age or late in the disease course, which presents challenges in balancing surgical intervention with various medical and radiotherapeutic approaches. The axiom-first, do no harm-should always be considered and an initial period of observation (ie, watchful waiting) is often appropriate to characterise tumour behaviour in patients with these pathogenic variants. These patients should be referred to specialised high-volume medical centres. This consensus guideline aims to help physicians with the clinical decision-making process when caring for patients with SDHD PPGLs

Generalized Competing Event Models Can Reduce Cost and Duration of Cancer Clinical Trials.

PurposeGeneralized competing event (GCE) models improve stratification of patients according to their risk of cancer events relative to competing causes of mortality. The potential impact of such methods on clinical trial power and cost, however, is uncertain. We sought to test the hypothesis that GCE models can reduce estimated clinical trial cost in elderly patients with cancer.MethodsPatients with nonmetastatic head and neck (n = 9,677), breast (n = 22,929), or prostate cancer (n = 51,713) were sampled from the SEER-Medicare database. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, we compared risk scores for all-cause mortality (ACM) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) with GCE-based risk scores for each disease. We applied a cost function to estimate the cost and duration of clinical trials with a primary end point of overall survival in each population and in high-risk subpopulations. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine model uncertainty.ResultsFor the purpose of enriching subpopulations, GCE models reduced estimated clinical trial cost compared with Cox models of ACM and CSM in all disease sites. The relative cost reductions with GCE models compared with ACM and CSM models, respectively, were -68.4% and -14.4% in prostate cancer, -38.8% and -18.3% in breast cancer, and -17.1% and -4.1% in head and neck cancer. Cost savings in breast and prostate cancers were on the order of millions of dollars. The GCE model also reduced relative clinical trial duration compared with CSM and ACM models for all disease sites. The optimal risk score cutoff for clinical trial enrollment occurred near the top tertile for all disease sites.ConclusionGCE models have significant potential to improve clinical trial efficiency and reduce cost, with a potentially large impact in prostate and breast cancers

Generalized Competing Event Models Can Reduce Cost and Duration of Cancer Clinical Trials.

PurposeGeneralized competing event (GCE) models improve stratification of patients according to their risk of cancer events relative to competing causes of mortality. The potential impact of such methods on clinical trial power and cost, however, is uncertain. We sought to test the hypothesis that GCE models can reduce estimated clinical trial cost in elderly patients with cancer.MethodsPatients with nonmetastatic head and neck (n = 9,677), breast (n = 22,929), or prostate cancer (n = 51,713) were sampled from the SEER-Medicare database. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, we compared risk scores for all-cause mortality (ACM) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) with GCE-based risk scores for each disease. We applied a cost function to estimate the cost and duration of clinical trials with a primary end point of overall survival in each population and in high-risk subpopulations. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine model uncertainty.ResultsFor the purpose of enriching subpopulations, GCE models reduced estimated clinical trial cost compared with Cox models of ACM and CSM in all disease sites. The relative cost reductions with GCE models compared with ACM and CSM models, respectively, were -68.4% and -14.4% in prostate cancer, -38.8% and -18.3% in breast cancer, and -17.1% and -4.1% in head and neck cancer. Cost savings in breast and prostate cancers were on the order of millions of dollars. The GCE model also reduced relative clinical trial duration compared with CSM and ACM models for all disease sites. The optimal risk score cutoff for clinical trial enrollment occurred near the top tertile for all disease sites.ConclusionGCE models have significant potential to improve clinical trial efficiency and reduce cost, with a potentially large impact in prostate and breast cancers

Impacts of an Opioid Safety Initiative on US Veterans Undergoing Cancer Treatment.

There is limited research on how the opioid epidemic and consequent risk reduction policies have affected pain management among cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to analyze how the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) implemented at the Veterans Health Administration affected opioid prescribing patterns and opioid-related toxicity. We performed an interrupted time series analysis of 42 064 opioid-naïve patients treated at the Veterans Health Administration for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer from 2011 to 2016. Segmented regression was used to evaluate the impact of the OSI on the incidence of any new opioid prescriptions, high-risk prescriptions, persistent use, and pain-related emergency department (ED) visits. We compared the cumulative incidence of adverse opioid events including an opioid-related admission or diagnosis of misuse before and after the OSI. All statistical tests were 2-sided. The incidence of new opioid prescriptions was 26.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25.0% to 28.4%) in 2011 and increased to 50.6% (95% CI = 48.3% to 53.0%) by 2013 before OSI implementation (monthly rate of change: +3.3%, 95% CI = 1.3% to 4.2%, P < .001). After the OSI, there was a decrease in the monthly rate of change for new prescriptions (-3.4%, 95% CI = -3.9 to -2.9%, P < .001). The implementation of the OSI was associated with a decrease in the monthly rate of change of concomitant benzodiazepines and opioid prescriptions (-2.5%, 95% CI = -3.2% to -1.8%, P < .001), no statistically significant change in high-dose opioids (-1.2%, 95% CI = -3.2% to 0.9%, P = .26), a decrease in persistent opioid use (-5.7%, 95% CI = -6.8% to -4.7%, P < .001), and an increase in pain-related ED visits (+3.0%, 95% CI = 1.0% to 5.0%, P = .003). The OSI was associated with a decreased incidence of opioid-related admissions (3-year cumulative incidence: 0.9% [95% CI = 0.7% to 1.0%] vs 0.5% [95% CI = 0.4% to 0.6%], P < .001) and no statistically significant change in the incidence of opioid misuse (3-year cumulative incidence: 1.2% [95% CI = 1.0% to 1.3%] vs 1.2% [95% CI = 1.1% to 1.4%], P = .77). The OSI was associated with a relative decline in the rate of new, persistent, and certain high-risk opioid prescribing as well as a slight increase in the rate of pain-related ED visits. Further research on patient-centered outcomes is required to optimize opioid prescribing policies for patients with cancer