Park, Henry S

Abstract Background Opioid stewardship policies could adversely affect pain management for patients with cancer. Yet patients with cancer are also at risk for opioid‐related harms. This study sought to determine trends in opioid prescribing by clinical stratum and pain for patients with cancer from 2016 to 2020. Methods A retrospective study was conducted of opioid‐naive adults with newly diagnosed cancer from 2016 to 2020 ( N = 10,232) in a large Connecticut health system. Logistic regression was used to calculate changes in the predicted probability of opioid prescribing from 2016 to 2020. Two subpopulations were examined: patients treated surgically ( n = 4405) and patients with metastatic cancer ( n = 2158). Flowsheet pain scores for patients with metastatic cancer were used to stratify by no pain (all scores, 0) versus any pain. The main outcomes were new (≥1 prescription in the 0–6 months after diagnosis) and additional (0–6 and 7–9 months) opioid prescriptions. Results A decline was observed in the predicted probability of new (71.1% to 64.6%; p < .001) and additional prescribing (27.2% to 24.2%; p = .07 [not significant]) declined. Among surgical patients, the predicted probability of new opioid prescribing fell (96.0% to 88.6%; p < .001), whereas additional prescribing was stable (13%). For patients with metastatic cancer with pain, new opioid prescribing was stable (56%). For those reporting no pain, the predicted probability of new opioid prescribing declined from 61.6% to 36.1% ( p < .001). Conclusions In the context of widespread policy changes, this study showed a modest decline in new and additional opioid prescribing for patients with cancer. In metastatic cancer, prescribing remained stable for patients reporting pain and declined steeply for those reporting no pain.

Abstract Background The impact of ongoing efforts to decrease opioid use on patients with cancer remains undefined. Our objective was to determine trends in new and additional opioid use in patients with and without cancer. Methods This retrospective cohort study used data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program–Medicare for opioid-naive patients with solid tumor malignancies diagnosed from 2012 through 2017 and a random sample of patients without cancer. We identified 238 470 eligible patients with cancer and further focused on 4 clinical strata: patients without cancer, patients with metastatic cancer, patients with nonmetastatic cancer treated with surgery alone (“surgery alone”), and patients with nonmetastatic cancer treated with surgery plus chemotherapy or radiation therapy (“surgery+”). We identified new, early additional, and long-term additional opioid use and calculated the change in predicted probability of these outcomes from 2012 to 2017. Results New opioid use was higher in patients with cancer (46.4%) than in those without (6.9%) (P &lt; .001). From 2012 to 2017, the predicted probability of new opioid use was more stable in the cancer strata (relative declines: 0.1% surgery alone; 2.4% surgery+; 8.8% metastatic cancer), than in the noncancer stratum (20.0%) (P &lt; .001 for each cancer to noncancer comparison). Early additional use declined among surgery patients (‒14.9% and ‒17.5% for surgery alone and surgery+, respectively) but was stable among patients with metastatic disease (‒2.8%, P = .50). Conclusions Opioid prescribing declined over time at a slower rate in patients with cancer than in patients without cancer. Our study suggests important but tempered effects of the changing opioid climate on patients with cancer.

1592 Background: While ongoing efforts to decrease opioid use have dramatically altered the prescribing landscape, the impact on patients with cancer is not well understood. We examined trends in new and persistent opioid use in opioid-naïve older patients with and without cancer in the United States. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used SEER-Medicare linked data for patients with solid tumors malignancies diagnosed from 2012 through 2017, and a random sample of patients without cancer. We included patients who did not receive opioids for 3 months prior to the diagnosis or randomly assigned index date. We identified new opioid use (claim in 0-90 days after diagnosis/index date), early persistent opioid use (claims in days 0-90 and 91-180), and long-term persistent opioid use (claims in days 0-90 and 91-180 and months 13-15). Further analysis focused on 4 clinical strata: non-cancer, metastatic cancer, cancer treated with surgery alone, and cancer treated with surgery plus chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy ("surgery+"). We calculated relative changes in the predicted probability of opioid use from 2012 to 2017 based on a logit model adjusted for patient demographics. Results: We identified 238,470 eligible patients with cancer (mean age 76.3 years). Among patients with cancer, 46.4% had new opioid use; use was higher among those receiving surgery+ (70.6%), those treated with surgery alone (58.8%) and those with metastatic cancer (50.0%), compared to patients without cancer (6.9%). From 2012 to 2017, the predicted probability of new opioid use declined in all groups, with lower relative decline in the cancer subgroups (6.8% surgery+; 9.5% surgery alone; 10.2% metastatic cancer) compared to the non-cancer comparator (24.7%). For instance, in patients with metastatic cancer, predicted probability of new use decreased from 52.4 to 47.1% (10.2%) vs. 8.0 to 6.0% (24.7%) in patients without cancer. Relative decline in predicted probability of long-term persistent opioid use was lower in the surgical cancer strata (44.2% surgery+; 46.1% surgery alone) vs. the non-cancer comparator (54.0%). Conclusions: While opioid use remains common in patients with cancer, new and persistent opioid use declined over time in all patients, though with steeper relative declines in non-cancer compared to cancer populations. Our study suggests important but tempered effects of the changing opioid climate on patients with cancer.[Table: see text]

AbstractAlthough cancer is highly heterogeneous, all metastatic cancer is considered American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Stage IV disease. The purpose of this project was to redefine staging of metastatic cancer. Internal validation of nationally representative patient data from the National Cancer Database (n = 461 357; 2010‐2013), and external validation using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (n = 106 595; 2014‐2015) were assessed using the concordance index for evaluation of survival prediction. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for overall survival by considering identified phenotypes (latent classes) and other confounding variables. Latent class analysis was performed for phenotype identification, where Bayesian information criterion (BIC) and sample‐size‐adjusted BIC were used to select the optimal number of distinct clusters. Kappa coefficients assessed external cluster validation. Latent class analysis identified five metastatic phenotypes with differences in overall survival (P < .0001): (Stage IVA) nearly exclusive bone‐only metastases (n = 59 049, 12.8%; median survival 12.7 months; common in lung, breast and prostate cancers); (IVB) predominant lung metastases (n = 62 491, 13.5%; 11.4 months; common in breast, stomach, kidney, ovary, uterus, thyroid, cervix and soft tissue cancers); (IVC) predominant liver/lung metastases (n = 130 014, 28.2%; 7.0 months; common in colorectum, pancreatic, lung, esophagus and stomach cancers); (IVD) bone/liver/lung metastases predominant over brain (n = 61 004, 13.2%; 5.9 months; common in lung and breast cancers); and (IVE) brain/lung metastases predominant over bone/liver (n = 148 799, 32.3%; 5.7 months; lung cancer and melanoma). Long‐term survivors were identified, particularly in Stages IVA‐B. A pan‐cancer nomogram model to predict survival (STARS: site, tumor, age, race, sex) was created, validated and provides 13% better prognostication than AJCC: 1‐month concordance index of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66‐0.67) vs 0.61 (95% CI: 0.60‐0.61). STARS is simple, uses easily accessible variables, better prognosticates survival outcomes and provides a platform to develop novel metastasis‐directed clinical trials.