CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentPain Management and Opioid UseSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Predicting the risk for aberrant opioid use behavior in patients receiving outpatient supportive care consultation at a comprehensive cancer center

Open access
Yennurajalingam, Sriram, Edwards, Tonya, Arthur, Joseph A., Lu, Zhanni, Najera, John, Nguyen, Kristy, Manju, Joy, Kuriakose, Leela +5 more·2018·Cancer
DOI 10.1002/cncr.31670
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Opioid misuse is a growing crisis. Patients with cancer who are at risk of aberrant drug behaviors are frequently underdiagnosed. The primary objective of this study was to determine the frequency and factors predicting a risk for aberrant opioid and drug use behaviors (ADB) among patients who received an outpatient supportive care consultation at a comprehensive cancer center. In addition, the screening performance of the Cut Down-Annoyed-Guilty-Eye Opener (CAGE) questionnaire adapted to include drug use (CAGE-AID) was compared with that of the 14-item Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients With Pain (SOAPP-14) tool as instruments for identifying patients at risk for ADB. METHODS: In total, 751 consecutive patients with cancer who were referred to a supportive care clinic were reviewed. Patients were eligible if they had diagnosis of cancer and had received opioids for pain for at least 1 week. All patients were assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), the SOAPP-14, and the CAGE-AID. SOAPP scores ≥7 (SOAPP-positive) were used to identify patients who were at risk of ADB. RESULTS: Among the 729 of 751 (97%) evaluable consults, 143 (19.6%) were SOAPP-positive, and 73 (10.5%) were CAGE-AID-positive. Multivariate analysis revealed that the odds ratio of a positive SOAPP score was 2.3 for patients who had positive CAGE-AID scores (P < .0001), 2.08 for men (P = .0013), 1.10 per point for ESAS pain (P = .014), 1.13 per point for ESAS anxiety (P = .0015), and 1.09 per point for ESAS financial distress (P = .012). A CAGE-AID cutoff score of 1 in 4 had 43.3% sensitivity and 90.93% specificity for screening patients with a high risk of ADB. CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicate a high frequency of an elevated risk of ADB among patients with cancer. Men and patients who have anxiety, financial distress, and a prior history of alcoholism/illicit drug use are at increased risk of ADB.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.31670

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A study of 751 patients with cancer suggested that those with an anxiety disorder had an increased risk for aberrant medication behaviours.

    “For example, a study of 751 patients with cancer suggested that those with an anxiety disorder had an increased risk for aberrant medication behaviours.7”

    From Study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of a virtually delivered behavioural intervention (ACTION) for adults with cancer at risk for opioid use disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Results report 751 new consultations, of which 729 were evaluable, and an association between higher ESAS anxiety scores and screening positive for risk of aberrant opioid use. The Methods describe ESAS anxiety as a symptom-severity measure, not a diagnosis of anxiety disorder; the study assessed risk rather than observed medication behaviours. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Yennurajalingam, S., Edwards, T., Arthur, J. A., Lu, Z., Najera, J., Nguyen, K., Manju, J., Kuriakose, L., Wu, J., Liu, D., Williams, J. L., Reddy, S. K., & Bruera, E.
Affiliations
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Yennurajalingam, Sriram
ORCID
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-09-07
Volume
124
Issue
19
Pages
3942-3949
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
DOI
10.1002/cncr.31670
OpenAlex
W2891416276
Cited by
56
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2
FWCI
6.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
opioid misuse, cancer pain, opioid screening, risk factors, anxiety, financial distress, sex differences, symptom burden
MeSH terms
Cancer Pain, Aged, Ambulatory Care Facilities, Analgesics, Opioid, Cancer Care Facilities, Comprehensive Health Care, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Opioid-Related Disorders, Neoplasms, Outpatients, Pain Measurement, Palliative Care, Prognosis, Surveys and Questionnaires, Referral and Consultation, Risk Factors, Risk Assessment, Pain Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review