A systematic review of substance use and substance use disorders in patients with cancer

Genetic influences and causal pathways shared between cannabis use disorder and other substance use traits

Cannabis use disorder (CanUD) has increased with the legalization of the use of cannabis. Around 20% of individuals using cannabis develop CanUD, and the number of users has grown with increasing ease of access. CanUD and other substance use disorders (SUDs) are associated phenotypically and genetically. We leveraged new CanUD genomics data to undertake genetically-informed analyses with unprecedented power, to investigate the genetic architecture and causal relationships between CanUD and lifetime cannabis use with risk for developing SUDs and substance use traits. Analyses included calculating local and global genetic correlations, genomic structural equation modeling (genomicSEM), and Mendelian Randomization (MR). Results from the genetic correlation and genomicSEM analyses demonstrated that CanUD and cannabis use differ in their relationships with SUDs and substance use traits. We found significant causal effects of CanUD influencing all the analyzed traits: opioid use disorder (OUD) (Inverse variant weighted, IVW β = 0.925 ± 0.082), problematic alcohol use (PAU) (IVW β = 0.443 ± 0.030), drinks per week (DPW) (IVW β = 0.182 ± 0.025), Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) (IVW β = 0.183 ± 0.052), cigarettes per day (IVW β = 0.150 ± 0.045), current versus former smokers (IVW β = 0.178 ± 0.052), and smoking initiation (IVW β = 0.405 ± 0.042). We also found evidence of bidirectionality showing that OUD, PAU, smoking initiation, smoking cessation, and DPW all increase risk of developing CanUD. For cannabis use, bidirectional relationships were inferred with PAU, smoking initiation, and DPW; cannabis use was also associated with a higher risk of developing OUD (IVW β = 0.785 ± 0.266). GenomicSEM confirmed that CanUD and cannabis use load onto different genetic factors. We conclude that CanUD and cannabis use can increase the risk of developing other SUDs. This has substantial public health implications; the move towards legalization of cannabis use may be expected to increase other kinds of problematic substance use. These harmful outcomes are in addition to the medical harms associated directly with CanUD.

Identifying provider, patient and practice factors that shape long-term opioid prescribing for cancer pain: a qualitative study of American and Australian providers

INTRODUCTION

Prescribing long-term opioid therapy is a nuanced clinical decision requiring careful consideration of risks versus benefits. Our goal is to understand patient, provider and context factors that impact the decision to prescribe opioids in patients with cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of the raw semistructured interview data gathered from 42 prescribers who participated in one of two aligned concurrent qualitative studies in the USA and Australia. We conducted a two-part analysis of the interview: first identifying all factors influencing long-term prescribing and second open coding-related content for themes.

RESULTS

Factors that influence long-term opioid prescribing for cancer-related pain clustered under three key domains (patient-related, provider-related and practice-related factors) each with several themes. Domain 1: Patient factors related to provider-patient continuity, patient personality, the patient's social context and patient characteristics including racial/ethnic identity, housing and socioeconomic status. Domain 2: Provider-related factors centred around provider 'personal experience and expertise', training and time availability. Domain 3: Practice-related factors included healthcare interventions to promote safer opioid practices and accessibility of quality alternative pain therapies.

CONCLUSION

Despite the differences in the contexts of the two countries, providers consider similar patient, provider and practice-related factors when long-term prescribing opioids for patients with cancer. Some of these factors may be categorised as cognitive biases that may intersect in an already disadvantaged patient and exacerbate disparities in the treatment of their pain. A more systematic understanding of these factors and how they impact the quality of care can inform appropriate interventions.

Substance Use Disorders Among US Adult Cancer Survivors

Importance

Some individuals are predisposed to cancer based on their substance use history, and others may use substances to manage cancer-related symptoms. Yet the intersection of substance use disorder (SUD) and cancer is understudied. Because SUD may affect and be affected by cancer care, it is important to identify cancer populations with a high prevalence of SUD, with the goal of guiding attention and resources toward groups and settings where interventions may be needed.

Objective

To describe the cancer type-specific prevalence of SUD among adult cancer survivors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used data from the annually administered National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) for 2015 through 2020 to identify adults with a history of solid tumor cancer. Substance use disorder was defined as meeting at least 1 of 4 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria for abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Per NSDUH guidelines, we made adjustments to analysis weights by dividing weights provided in the pooled NSDUH data sets by the number of years of combined data (eg, 6 for 2015-2020). The weighted prevalence and corresponding SEs (both expressed as percentages) of active SUD (ie, within the past 12 months) were calculated for respondents with any lifetime history of cancer and, in secondary analyses, respondents diagnosed with cancer within 12 months prior to taking the survey. Data were analyzed from July 2022 to June 2023.

Results

This study included data from 6101 adult cancer survivors (56.91% were aged 65 years or older and 61.63% were female). Among lifetime cancer survivors, the prevalence of active SUD was 3.83% (SE, 0.32%). Substance use disorder was most prevalent in survivors of head and neck cancer (including mouth, tongue, lip, throat, and pharyngeal cancers; 9.36% [SE, 2.47%]), esophageal and gastric cancer (9.42% [SE, 5.51%]), cervical cancer (6.24% [SE, 1.41%]), and melanoma (6.20% [SE, 1.34%]). Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD (2.78% [SE, 0.26%]) overall and in survivors of head and neck cancer, cervical cancer, and melanoma. In survivors of esophageal and gastric cancers, cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD (9.42% [SE, 5.51%]). Among respondents diagnosed with cancer in the past 12 months, the overall prevalence of active SUD was similar to that in the lifetime cancer survivor cohort (3.81% [SE, 0.74%]). However, active SUD prevalence was higher in head and neck (18.73% [SE, 10.56%]) and cervical cancer survivors (15.70% [SE, 5.35%]). The distribution of specific SUDs was different compared with that in the lifetime cancer survivor cohort. For example, in recently diagnosed head and neck cancer survivors, sedative use disorder was the most common SUD (9.81% [SE, 9.17%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings of this study suggest that SUD prevalence is higher among survivors of certain types of cancer; this information could be used to identify cancer survivors who may benefit from integrated cancer and SUD care. Future efforts to understand and address the needs of adult cancer survivors with comorbid SUD should prioritize cancer populations in which SUD prevalence is high.

Opioid Risk Mitigation Practices of Interprofessional Oncology Personnel: Results From a Cross-Sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

This study explored the risk mitigation practices of multidisciplinary oncology health-care personnel for the nonmedical use of opioids in people with cancer.

METHODS

An anonymous, cross-sectional descriptive survey was administered via email to eligible providers over 4 weeks at The Ohio State University's Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital. The survey asked about experiences and knowledge related to opioid use disorders.

RESULTS

The final sample of 773 participants included 42 physicians, 213 advanced practice providers (APPs consisted of advanced practice nurses, physician assistants, and pharmacists), and 518 registered nurses. Approximately 40% of participants responded feeling "not confident" in addressing medication diversion. The most frequent risk reduction measure was "Checking the prescription drug monitoring program" when prescribing controlled medications, reported by physicians (n = 29, 78.4%) and APPs (n = 164, 88.6%).

CONCLUSION

People with cancer are not exempt from the opioid epidemic and may be at risk for nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) and substance use disorders. Implementing risk reduction strategies with every patient, with a harm reduction versus abstinence focus, minimizes harmful consequences and improves. This study highlights risk mitigation approaches for NMOU, representing an opportunity to improve awareness among oncology health-care providers. Multidisciplinary oncology teams are ideally positioned to navigate patients through complex oncology and health-care journeys.

Toward a Psychological Model of Chemical Coping with Opioids in Cancer Care

LEARNING OBJECTIVES AFTER PARTICIPATING IN THIS CME ACTIVITY, THE PSYCHIATRIST SHOULD BE BETTER ABLE TO

• Outline the risk factors involved with opioid accessibility in patients receiving treatment for cancer.• Identify factors to address in order to mitigate risk for opioid misuse during cancer care.

ABSTRACT

Most patients with advanced cancer receive treatment for related pain. Opioid accessibility, however, is a risk factor for misuse, which can present care challenges and quality-of-life concerns. There is a lack of consistent universal screening prior to initiation of opioid prescribing. One crucial issue in treating this population is adequately identifying and mitigating risk factors driving opioid misuse. Drawing on theory and research from addiction science, psychology, palliative care, and oncology, the presented conceptual framework suggests that risk factors for opioid misuse during cancer care can be stratified into historical, current, malleable, and unmalleable factors. The framework identifies necessary factors to address in order to mitigate risk for opioid misuse during cancer care, and offers key directions for future research.

Drug dependence epidemiology in palliative care medicinal cannabis trials

OBJECTIVES

Drug dependence is becoming increasingly common and meeting palliative care patients with substance use disorders is inevitable. However, data on substance use in these patients are lacking. This study aims to evaluate the prevalence of drug dependence in palliative care patients with advanced cancer and correlate with symptom distress and opioid use.

METHODS

Palliative care patients with advanced cancer interested in participation in a medicinal cannabis trial were required to complete Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and record of concomitant medications including baseline opioid use as part of the eligibility screen.

RESULTS

Of the 182 participants, 167 (92%) reported lifetime alcohol and 132/182 (73%) lifetime tobacco use. No participant reached the threshold criteria for high risk of drug dependence with majority being low risk. There was no correlation between ASSIST score, ESAS and oral morphine equivalent.

CONCLUSION

This study identified alcohol and tobacco as the main substances used in this group of patients and that most were of very low risk for drug dependence. This suggests routine drug screening for palliative care patient may not be justified, but the high possibility of questionnaire bias is acknowledged.

Healthcare Utilization Disparities of Adolescent and Young Adults Compared to the Older Lymphoma Population

BACKGROUND

Adolescent and Young Adults (AYAs) are an underserved, high-risk population. Identifying health care utilization patterns, and particularly acute care visits, is important as these are high-intensity, expensive services. We investigated whether differences exist in health care utilization between the AYA lymphoma population compared to their older adult counterparts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two correlated outcomes were used to measure health care utilization: 4 or more acute visits (emergency department or urgent care) and number of nonacute visits (office or telephone visits). We studied 442 patients with aggressive lymphoma patients 15 years or older at time of diagnosis managed at our cancer center within 2 years of their diagnosis. A multivariate generalized linear mixed model simultaneously estimated the effect of baseline predictors on 4 or more acute care visit with robust Poisson regression and nonacute visit counts with negative binomial regression allowing for a within-subject random effect.

RESULTS

AYAs had increased risk of having ≥4 acute visits (RR = 1.96; P = .047) compared to their older counterparts. Obesity (RR = 2.04, P = .015) and living less than 50 miles from the cancer center (RR = 3.48, P = .015) were independently associated with higher risk of acute care usage. Acute care visits for psychiatric or substance use related reasons were significantly higher (P = .0001) among AYA (10/114, 8.8%) vs. non-AYA (3/328, 0.9%).

CONCLUSION

Disease-targeted interventions to address high acute health care utilization is needed amongst AYAs. Additionally, early multidisciplinary involvement after cancer diagnosis particularly with psychiatric expertise amongst AYAs and palliative care involvement in both groups is needed.

Risks of alcohol and drug use disorders in prostate cancer survivors: a national cohort study

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PC) survivors may potentially use substances to cope with psychological distress or poorly controlled physical symptoms. Little is known, however, about the long-term risks of alcohol use disorder (AUD) or drug use disorders in men with PC.

METHODS

A national cohort study was conducted in Sweden of 180 189 men diagnosed with PC between 1998 and 2017 and 1 801 890 age-matched population-based control men. AUD and drug use disorders were ascertained from nationwide records through 2018. Cox regression was used to compute hazard ratios (HRs) while adjusting for sociodemographic factors and prior psychiatric disorders. Subanalyses examined differences by PC treatment from 2005 to 2017.

RESULTS

Men with high-risk PC had increased risks of both AUD (adjusted HR = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 1.57) and drug use disorders (adjusted HR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.67 to 2.24). Their AUD risk was highest in the first year and was no longer significantly elevated 5 years after PC diagnosis, whereas their drug use disorders risk remained elevated 10 years after PC diagnosis (adjusted HR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.45 to 3.52), particularly opioid use disorder (adjusted HR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.61 to 5.84). Those treated only with androgen-deprivation therapy had the highest risks of AUD (adjusted HR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.62 to 2.25) and drug use disorders (adjusted HR = 2.23, 95% CI = 1.70 to 2.92). Low- or intermediate-risk PC was associated with modestly increased risks of AUD (adjusted HR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.30 to 1.46) and drug use disorders (adjusted HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.34).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large cohort, men with PC had significantly increased risks of both AUD and drug use disorders, especially those with high-risk PC and treated only with androgen-deprivation therapy. PC survivors need long-term psychosocial support and timely detection and treatment of AUD and drug use disorders.

"I Refused to Get Addicted to Opioids": Exploring Attitudes About Opioid Use Disorder in Patients With Advanced Cancer Pain and Their Support People

Patients with advanced cancer are commonly prescribed opioids, yet patient attitudes about opioid risks (eg, opioid use disorder, or OUD) are understudied. Our objective was to use in-depth qualitative interviews to understand perceptions of opioid prescribing and OUD in patients with advanced, solid-tumor cancers and their support people. We conducted a qualitative study using a rigorous inductive, qualitative descriptive approach to examine attitudes about OUD in patients with advanced cancer (n = 20) and support providers (n = 11). Patients with cancer hold 2 seemingly distinct views: prescription opioids are addictive, yet OUD cannot happen to me or my loved one. Participants described general concerns about the addictive nature of prescription opioids ("My biggest concern… would just be the risk of getting addicted to the medication or even like, overdosing it"), while separating cancer pain management from OUD when considering prescription opioid risks and benefits ("They need to make sure they get the right ones, when they're taking it away from you."). Finally, participants identified personal characteristics and behaviors that they felt were protective against developing OUD (commonly control, willpower, and responsibility). This rigorous qualitative study demonstrates that patients with advanced cancer and their support people simultaneously hold concerns about the addictive nature of prescription opioids, while distancing from perceptions of OUD risks when using opioids for cancer pain management. Given high rates of opioid exposure during advanced cancer treatment, it is important to explore opportunities to promote a balanced understanding of prescription opioid use and OUD risks in this population. PERSPECTIVE: Though prescription opioids carry risk of OUD, there is little data to help guide patients with advanced cancer. Findings suggest that there is a need to develop new, innovative strategies to promote effective pain management and minimize opioid risks in this complex population.

Safe Prescribing Practices: Clinicians' Views on Prescribing Opioids to Patients With Early-Stage Cancer

PURPOSE

Opioids are often necessary for patients experiencing high-intensity pain. However, side effects exist and some patients may misuse opioids. To better understand how opioids are prescribed to patients with early-stage cancer and how to enhance opioid safety, clinicians' views of opioid prescribing were explored.

METHODS

This was a qualitative inquiry including any Alberta clinician prescribing opioids to patients with early-stage cancer. Semistructured interviews were conducted with nurse practitioners (NP), medical oncologists (MO), radiation oncologists (RO), surgeons (S), primary care physicians (PCP), and palliative care physicians (PC) between June 2021 and March 2022. Interpretive description was used to analyze the data using two coders (C.C. and T.W.). Debriefing sessions were used to resolve and discrepancies.

RESULTS

Twenty-four clinicians were interviewed (NP [n = 5], MO [n = 4], RO [n = 4], S [n = 5], PCP [n = 3], and PC [n = 3]). The majority had been in practice at least 10 years. Prescribing practices were related to disciplinary perspective, goals of care, patient condition, and resource availability. Most clinicians did not see opioid misuse as a problem but were aware that specific patient risk factors are present and that long-term use can be problematic. Most clinicians undertake safe prescribing approaches tacitly (eg, screening for past opioid misuse and reviewing number of prescribers) and not all agreed they should be universally applied. Barriers (eg, procedural and time) and facilitators (eg, education) to safe prescribing approaches were identified.

CONCLUSION

To enhance uptake and cross-disciplinary consistency of safe prescribing approaches, clinician education regarding opioid misuse and benefits of safe prescribing practices, and addressing procedural barriers are necessary.

An acceptance and commitment therapy-based intervention for opioid use disorder risk in individuals with cancer: A treatment development study

This paper describes the iterative development of an evidence-based behavioral intervention for individuals with cancer at risk for opioid use disorder, using the National Institutes of Health Stage Model for Behavioral Intervention Development. Adult patients with cancer from an outpatient palliative care clinic at an academic cancer center, with moderate to high risk of opioid misuse, were enrolled in a treatment development study that aimed to increase psychological flexibility. In this intervention, psychological flexibility is the posited mechanism of change for reduction of opioid use disorder risk. Patients completed baseline (pre-intervention) assessments, a six-session behavioral intervention based in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, post-intervention assessments, and a semi-structured exit interview. Ten patients with moderate to high risk of opioid misuse completed the intervention. Patients rated the intervention as highly acceptable and were generally highly satisfied. Patients reported finding the coping skills helpful (e.g., mindfulness, cognitive defusion) and reported a preference for more sessions. These treatment development efforts have implications for the development and design of acceptance- and mindfulness-based, targeted interventions for individuals with cancer, receiving palliative care and at risk for opioid use disorder. Specifically, this six-session behavioral intervention to increase psychological flexibility was acceptable to patients and ready to be studied in a pilot RCT.

The impact of substance use on health care utilization, treatment, and outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Mortality from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has improved with screening and novel treatments. The substance use epidemic has threatened health outcomes in a variety of diseases, but little is known about how it is associated with NSCLC outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 211 patients with NSCLC treated at a safety-net hospital. Sociodemographic data and clinical outcomes were extracted via review of electronic medical records. Patients were stratified based on substance use status. Comparative and multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate baseline characteristics and lung cancer outcomes including survival.

RESULTS

Among 193 patients (91.5%) with information available on substance use, 24.9% reported substance use; specifically, alcohol, marijuana, and illicit substances. Patients with substance use were more likely to have increased health care utilization and poor social determinants of health, including safe housing, stable employment, and social support. There were no significant differences in treatment adherence. Only 6.3% of patients with substance use did not receive guideline concordant care (GCC) compared to 24.8% of patients without substance use; due to poor performance status, increased comorbidities, or loss to follow up. On univariable analysis, patients with substance use experienced inferior median overall survival (OS) if they had metastatic disease (0.40 vs. 1.03 years, P=0.01). However, in the multivariable analysis, substance use did not predict for survival. Independent predictors of mortality were sex (male HR, 1.67; 95% CI: 1.04-2.68; P=0.04), smoking status (current smoking HR, 2.63; 95% CI: 1.14-6.08; P=0.02), and stage (stage IV HR, 14.96; 95% CI: 6.28-35.63; P=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Substance use is associated with poor social determinants of health and increased health care utilization. On multivariable analysis, substance use was not independently associated with OS once guideline-concordant care was used. Future studies should focus on improving our understanding of these associations, delineating potential mechanisms, and developing evidence-based strategies to reduce health care utilization and overcome challenges related to poor social determinants of health.

Psychological Aspects of Care in Cancer Patients in the Last Weeks/Days of Life

Palliative care is comprised of an interdisciplinary team (IDT) approach with members from different disciplines who collaboratively work together to reduce multidimensional components of pain and suffering and improve quality of life for patients coping with a terminal illness. Psychosocial team members are integral to the palliative care IDT and provide expertise in assessment and empirically validated interventions to address psychological distress. The following paper will provide a review of different facets of psychological distress experienced by advanced cancer patients such as psychological disorders, existential distress, spiritual distress, caregiver distress, parental distress, and grief. Finally, an overview of commonly used screening and assessment tools as well as psychological interventions relevant for the palliative care population is presented.

Rural-Urban Differences in Common Mental Disorders, Functional Limitation and Social Support among Adults with Cancer: A Population-Based Study in Spain

The psychological, physical and social well-being components may differ for cancer patients living in urban vs. rural zones. This study aimed to examine the common mental disorders (CMDs), functional limitation (FL) and perceived social support (PSS) of rural and urban Spanish cancer patients from 2006 to 2017, to compare sociodemographic variables, health-related determinants and use of healthcare resources and to identify which sociodemographic and health-related factors were related to CMDs, FL and PSS. We performed a cross-sectional study among cancer patients using data from the Spanish National Health Surveys (2006, 2011 and 2017). A total of 698 of the subjects resided in rural areas and 1824 in urban areas. Binary logistic and multiple linear regressions were performed to determine the factors related to CMDs, FL and PSS. Rural residents visited their general practitioners more frequently than the city dwellers (61.03% vs. 56.63%, p = 0.04). A decreased prevalence of CMDs was observed among urban individuals over time (2006: 39.13%, 2011: 38.87%, 2017: 34.30%; p for trend = 0.04). Among rural residents, FL was associated with age, educational level and self-perceived health status, while among city dwellers, PSS was linked to marital status, nationality, having chronic conditions and self-perceived health status.

Interprofessional Oncology Providers' Experiences and Knowledge of Opioid Use Disorders in Patients With Cancer

OBJECTIVES

To determine oncology providers' experiences and knowledge of opioid use disorders (OUDs) in patients with cancer.

SAMPLE & SETTING

The final sample of 773 participants included 42 physicians, 213 advanced practice providers (APPs), and 518 nurses at a large comprehensive cancer center.

METHODS & VARIABLES

This study used a cross-sectional descriptive survey to describe providers' experiences and knowledge of OUDs.

RESULTS

Nurses and APPs reported personal experiences with addiction and encountering issues with OUDs in patients more often compared to physicians. Knowledge deficits were identified regarding addiction, including evidence-based treatment for OUDs. Overall, OUDs are a topic of concern that the majority of oncology providers are interested in learning more about.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

The opioid epidemic presents an opportunity to improve the knowledge of interprofessional oncology providers addressing OUDs. Nurses and APPs are ideally positioned for the prevention and early recognition of patients with an OUD and cancer.

Investigating documentation of alcohol and non-medical substance use in oncology treatment: an electronic health record review

PURPOSE

Little is known about non-tobacco substance use (SU) and its treatment in cancer patients. National guidelines address tobacco only, and assessment of SU in cancer patients is not standardized. It is not clear how oncology clinicians assess, document, and follow-up on SU.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic health record review of patients enrolled in a smoking cessation trial at one large hospital site (N = 176). Chart review of oncology treatment notes assessed whether SU assessment was documented, the content of the documentation/assessment (e.g., frequency of use), and details about documentation (e.g., where/who documented).

RESULTS

Sixty-nine percent (121/176) of cancer patients had SU documented. Many patients (42%, 74/176) had only one substance documented; 66% (116/176) had alcohol use documented. For a substantial minority of patients (43/176; 24%), the provider did not specify the substance assessed (e.g., "drug use," "illicits"). SU was primarily documented by physicians (84%, 102/121), in routine progress notes (56%, 68/121), in the "social history" section of the note (84%, 102/121). Only 4 patients had a documented SU follow-up plan. When examining the subset of patients who reported problematic alcohol use (N = 27), the content of documentation was inconsistent (e.g., number of drinks/day vs. qualitative descriptors of use).

CONCLUSIONS

About 1/3 of oncology patients did not have SU assessment documented. SU other than alcohol use was infrequently documented, many clinicians documented SU but did not specify substance type, and few clinicians documented a follow-up plan for problematic SU. Oncology settings should utilize standardized assessment and referral for SU treatment.

Depression and Long-Term Prescription Opioid Use and Opioid Use Disorder: Implications for Pain Management in Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Preventing depression in cancer patients on long-term opioid therapy should begin with depression screening before opioid initiation and repeated screening during treatment. In weighing the high morbidity of depression and opioid use disorder in patients with chronic cancer pain against a dearth of evidence-based therapies studied in this population, patients and clinicians are left to choose among imperfect but necessary treatment options. When possible, we advise engaging psychiatric and pain/palliative specialists through collaborative care models and recommending mindfulness and psychotherapy to all patients with significant depression alongside cancer pain. Medications for depression should be reserved for moderate to severe symptoms. We recommend escitalopram/citalopram or sertraline among selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), or the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine if patients have a significant component of neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) (consider nortriptyline or desipramine, which have better anticholinergic profiles) should be considered for patients who do not respond to or tolerate SSRI/SNRIs. Existing evidence is inadequate to definitively recommend methylphenidate or novel agents, such as ketamine or psilocybin, as adjunctive treatments for cancer-related depression and pain. Physicians who treat patients with cancer pain should utilize universal precautions to limit the risk of non-medical opioid use (non-medical opioid use). Patients should be screened for non-medical opioid use behaviors at initial consultation and at regular intervals during treatment using a non-judgmental approach that reduces stigma. Co-management with an addiction specialist may be indicated for patients at high risk of non-medical opioid use and opioid use disorder. Buprenorphine and methadone are indicated for the treatment of opioid use disorder, and while they have not been systematically studied for treatment of opioid use disorder in patients with cancer pain, they do provide analgesia for cancer pain. While an interdisciplinary team approach to manage psychological stress may be beneficial, this may not be possible for patients treated outside of comprehensive cancer centers.

A systematic review of assessment approaches to predict opioid misuse in people with cancer

Context

Cancer prevalence is increasing, with many patients requiring opioid analgesia. Clinicians need to ensure patients receive adequate pain relief. However, opioid misuse is widespread, and cancer patients are at risk.

Objectives

This study aims (1) to identify screening approaches that have been used to assess and monitor risk of opioid misuse in patients with cancer; (2) to compare the prevalence of risk estimated by each of these screening approaches; and (3) to compare risk factors among demographic and clinical variables associated with a positive screen on each of the approaches.

Methods

Medline, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase databases were searched for articles reporting opioid misuse screening in cancer patients, along with handsearching the reference list of included articles. Bias was assessed using tools from the Joanna Briggs Suite.

Results

Eighteen studies met the eligibility criteria, evaluating seven approaches: Urine Drug Test (UDT) (n = 8); the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP) and two variants, Revised and Short Form (n = 6); the Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener (CAGE) tool and one variant, Adapted to Include Drugs (n = 6); the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) (n = 4); Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP) (n = 3); the Screen for Opioid-Associated Aberrant Behavior Risk (SOABR) (n = 1); and structured/specialist interviews (n = 1). Eight studies compared two or more approaches. The rates of risk of opioid misuse in the studied populations ranged from 6 to 65%, acknowledging that estimates are likely to have varied partly because of how specific to opioids the screening approaches were and whether a single or multi-step approach was used. UDT prompted by an intervention or observation of aberrant opioid behaviors (AOB) were conclusive of actual opioid misuse found to be 6.5–24%. Younger age, found in 8/10 studies; personal or family history of anxiety or other mental ill health, found in 6/8 studies; and history of illicit drug use, found in 4/6 studies, showed an increased risk of misuse.

Conclusions

Younger age, personal or familial mental health history, and history of illicit drug use consistently showed an increased risk of opioid misuse. Clinical suspicion of opioid misuse may be raised by data from PMP or any of the standardized list of AOBs. Clinicians may use SOAPP-R, CAGE-AID, or ORT to screen for increased risk and may use UDT to confirm suspicion of opioid misuse or monitor adherence. More research into this important area is required.

Significance of results

This systematic review summarized the literature on the use of opioid misuse risk approaches in people with cancer. The rates of reported risk range from 6 to 65%; however, true rate may be closer to 6.5–24%. Younger age, personal or familial mental health history, and history of illicit drug use consistently showed an increased risk of opioid misuse. Clinicians may choose from several approaches. Limited data are available on feasibility and patient experience.

PROSPERO registration number.

CRD42020163385.

Has Declining Opioid Dispensing to Cancer Patients Been Tailored to Risk of Opioid Harms?

CONTEXT

Opioid prescribing to cancer patients is declining, but it is unknown whether reductions have been tailored to those at highest risk of opioid-related harms.

OBJECTIVES

Examine whether declines in opioid dispensing to patients receiving active cancer treatment are sharper in patients with substance use disorder (SUD) or mental health diagnoses.

METHODS

We used 2008-2018 national, commercial healthcare claims data to examine adjusted and unadjusted trends in opioid dispensing (receipt of ≥1 fill; average daily dosage; receipt of high-dose opioids; receipt of concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines) to patients ages ≥18 receiving treatment for one of four cancer types (breast; colorectal; head and neck; sarcoma; N = 324,789 patients). To compare declines across subgroups with varying risk of opioid-related harms, we stratified by SUD and mental health diagnosis. To address potential confounding, we estimated subgroup-specific trends using generalized estimating equations, adjusting for covariates.

RESULTS

Across groups, rate of ≥1 opioid fill per quarter fell 32.5% (95% CI: 31.8%-33.2%) from 2008 to 2018; daily dose among those receiving opioids fell 37.6% (95% CI: 36.7%-38.6%). In most cases, these declines were not sharper in subgroups at greater risk of opioid-related harms. For example, patients with opioid use disorder experienced the smallest declines in dispensing frequency, and there was no evidence that declines were sharper in patients with mental health diagnoses.

CONCLUSION

Sharp declines in opioid prescribing during the drug overdose crisis have affected a wide range of patients undergoing cancer treatment and may not have been sufficiently tailored to patient characteristics. Research on implications for opioid-related harms and pain management is needed.

Prospective Study of a Novel Risk Stratification Process for Opioid-Related Harm Reduction in Cancer Patients Seen in an Outpatient Palliative Care Clinic

Background: Oncologists and palliative specialists prescribe opioids for millions of cancer patients despite limited research on effective screening and mitigation strategies to reduce risk of opioid-related harm in that population. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a novel opioid risk stratification process for predicting significant aberrant behaviors (SABs) related to prescribed opioid medications. Design and Setting/Subjects: This is a prospective, longitudinal study of 319 consecutive patients referred to an outpatient palliative care clinic between 2010 and 2012, a period during which prescription opioid-related deaths began to increase in the United States. Measures: Patients completed a psychodiagnostic/substance use risk assessment with a licensed clinical psychologist or social worker at the initial palliative clinic visit. Patients were assigned to Low-, Moderate-, or High-Risk groups based on predetermined stratification criteria and were managed via an opioid harm reduction approach. The primary dependent measure was the presence of at least one SAB after the initial visit. Results: Eighteen percent of patients (n = 56) demonstrated at least one major aberrant behavior. Odds of future aberrant behavior was 15 times greater in the High-Risk versus the Low-Risk category. Five risk factors significantly enhanced our risk model: age 18 to 45 years, job instability, history of bipolar diagnosis, history of substance abuse, and theft. Conclusion: Our risk stratification process provides a useful model for predicting those at greatest risk of future aberrant behaviors and most in need of comanagement. We recommend additional studies to test our proposed streamlined risk stratification tool.

Addiction in Patients With Cancer: Challenges and Opportunities

Addiction is complex and multifactorial. Recognition provides the opportunity to provide potentially life-saving treatment. Oncology patients are not excluded from substance use disorders (SUDs) and the opioid epidemic. Patients with current or past SUDs may develop cancer, and an SUD may also develop during cancer treatment. Therefore, this unique subset of patients potentially has two fatal diseases: cancer and an SUD. Most oncology advanced practitioners (APs) are unprepared to care for SUDs in patients with cancer. Pain is one of the most common symptoms in the cancer population, and cancer-related pain is often treated with opioids. Opioid exposure increases the risk of developing an opioid use disorder (OUD). In addition, a cancer diagnosis can have a significant impact on mental health and wellness, and patients may use substances to cope with psychological distress. Drug and alcohol use exists on a continuum and while not all use is problematic, it may have adverse consequences. A cancer diagnosis provides another possibility for patients to engage in services and treatment for their unsafe use and/or addiction. The case study in this article of a patient with cancer and an SUD is an example of the challenges associated with the chronic and relapsing nature of addiction. Oncology advanced practitioners have the opportunity to positively influence outcomes through the assessment of substance use and adoption of harm reduction techniques in all patients with cancer.

Primary Addiction Medicine Skills for Hospice and Palliative Medicine Physicians: A Modified Delphi Study

CONTEXT

Hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) physicians frequently care for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), but there is no consensus on which primary addiction medicine (AM) skills are essential.

OBJECTIVES

Identify key primary AM skills that physicians should acquire during an ACGME-accredited HPM fellowship program.

METHODS

A modified Delphi study consisting of 18 experts on SUD in HPM and medical education. A literature review and expert input identified initial AM skills. In three Delphi rounds, participants rated each skill on a nine-point scale from "not at all important to include" to "crucial to include." We calculated medians (IQRs), analyzed panelists' comments, and grouped skills using the RAND / UCLA appropriateness method.

RESULTS

Among 62 proposed AM skills, 53 skills were rated as appropriate to include (38 of which achieved agreement), and nine skills were rated as uncertain. AM skills most relevant to HPM included 1) defining chemical coping, median 8.5 (IQR 2); 2) balancing life expectancy with risks of opioid use for patients with SUD, 9 (IQR 0); 3) explaining best practices to dispose unused opioids postmortem, 8 (IQR 2); 4) managing pain for hospice patients with SUD, 9 (IQR 0.75); and 5) partnering with hospice to manage patients on methadone and buprenorphine, 9 (IQR 2). Experts did not achieve consensus on whether HPM physicians should be encouraged to learn to prescribe buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder, 6 (IQR 3).

CONCLUSION

HPM fellowships should consider incorporating the primary AM skills identified in this study in their curricula.

Implicit Bias Training: Improving Outcomes for Patients With Cancer Who Have Substance Use Disorders

Being mindful of one's implicit bias in the treatment of patients with cancer who have substance use disorders is fundamental to quality of care and good patient outcomes. Implicit bias held by healthcare professionals could negatively affect patient assessment, diagnosis and treatment decisions, and follow-ups at discharge.

Substance Use and Misuse: A Pilot Study to Improve Screening and Interventions at a Comprehensive Cancer Hospital

Mounting evidence suggests patients diagnosed with cancer may be at increased risk for opioid misuse and diversion. Substance use disorders (SUDs), involving prescription medications and/or illegal substances, may significantly compromise the ability of healthcare professionals to deliver high-quality cancer care. A substance use screening pilot was conducted in ambulatory oncology clinics at a large cancer hospital in the midwestern United States. In this article, the authors present results from this quality improvement project. Future directions involve innovative methods to deliver addiction-specific knowledge to oncology healthcare providers and should focus on discussing screening results, as well as providing tailored recommendations using shared decision-making with patients and caregivers.

Stigma, depression, and anxiety among patients with head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) are vulnerable to psychiatric comorbidities, particularly anxiety and depression, and also suffer from cancer stigma. This study aimed to comprehensively compare HNC patients' stigma, depression, and anxiety, and elucidate the underlying relationships among them.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study recruited inpatients with HNC from a medical center. Measurements included a psychiatric diagnostic interview, the Shame and Stigma Scale (SSS), the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), the Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue (EMIC), and stressors of HNC patients. Structural equation modeling was used to establish models of potential mechanisms.

RESULTS

Those patients having stressors of worry about health (t = 5.21, p < 0.001), worry about job (t = 2.73, p = 0.007), worry about family (t = 2.25, p = 0.026), or worry about economic problems (t = 2.09, p = 0.038) showed significantly higher SSS score than those having no such stressor. The SSS total score was significantly correlated with HAM-A (r = 0.509, p < 0.001), HAM-D (r = 0.521, p < 0.001), and EMIC (r = 0.532, p < 0.001) scores. Structural equation modeling was used to propose the possible effect of stigma on anxiety (β = 0.51, p < 0.001), and then the possible effect of anxiety on depression (β = 0.90, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Stigma is significantly correlated with anxiety and depression and might in HNC patients. Proper identification of comorbidities and a reduction of stigma should be advised in mental health efforts among patients with HNC.

Depression, Anxiety, and Other Mental Disorders in Patients With Cancer in Low- and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cancer is a growing public health issue in low- and lower-middle–income countries (LLMICs), but the mental health consequences in this setting have not been well-characterized. We aimed to systematically evaluate the available literature on the prevalence, associates, and treatment of mental disorders in patients with cancer in LLMICs.

Substance use, substance use disorders, and treatment in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors-Results from a national survey

BACKGROUND

Substance use can exacerbate cancer-related morbidity and mortality in adolescent/young adult (AYA) cancer survivors and place them at increased risk for adverse health outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess substance use, misuse, and substance use disorders [SUDs], as well as receipt of treatment for SUDs, among AYA cancer survivors.

METHODS

The authors used data from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (2015-2018) to identify a nationally representative sample of AYAs aged 12 to 34 years. Outcomes assessed past-year tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, and illicit drug use; misuse of prescription opioids; SUDs; and SUD treatment. Multiple logistic regression was estimated to compare outcomes between 832 AYAs who reported a cancer history (survivors) and 140,826 AYAs who did not, adjusting sequentially for sociodemographic characteristics and health status.

RESULTS

In regressions adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, survivors were more likely than a noncancer comparison group of peers to use alcohol (6% relative increase; P = .048) and illicit drugs (34% relative increase; P = .012), to misuse prescription opioids (59% relative increase; P < .001), and to have a marijuana (67% relative increase; P = .011), illicit drug (77% relative increase; P < .001), or prescription opioid (67% relative increase; P = .048) SUD. When further adjusting for health status, survivors were still 41% more likely (P < .001) to misuse prescription opioids than noncancer peers. Among those with SUDs, survivors were more likely than peers to receive treatment (unadjusted, 21.5% vs 8.0%; adjusted, P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

AYA survivors were as likely as or more likely than noncancer peers to report substance use problems. These findings underscore the importance of interventions to reduce substance use and improve SUD treatment among AYA cancer survivors.

LAY SUMMARY

The authors assessed substance use, misuse, and substance use disorders, as well as the receipt of treatment for substance use disorders, among adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors. In a nationally representative AYA sample, cancer survivors, despite their increased risk for morbidity and early mortality, were as likely as or more likely than peers without cancer to experience substance use problems. In particular, survivors had a significantly higher rate of prescription opioid misuse than peers. However, only 1 in 5 AYA survivors who experienced substance use disorders received treatment. These findings underscore the importance of interventions toward reducing substance use and improving access to treatment among AYA survivors.

Suicidal Ideation and Depression Among Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Patients

Purpose: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients (aged 18-39 years) represent a unique population within oncology. The developmental and mental health challenges that can co-occur with a diagnosis of cancer during this age range make AYAs a high-risk group for mental health problems, including depression and suicidal ideation. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the differences in rates of suicidal ideation and depression between AYAs and older adults (OAs; aged 40+ years) within an outpatient cancer support clinic. Methods: Depression screening data from routine clinical care were gathered and analyzed for adult patients receiving support services at an outpatient academic cancer clinic. The general mental health screening protocol included the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9, which was used as a measure of depression symptoms, including suicidal ideation. Results: Five hundred cancer survivors were included in the initial data analysis, with 21 (40.38%) of the AYAs and 143 (31.92%) of the OAs scoring ≥5 on the PHQ-9. Statistical analysis of groups at this cutoff score reflected no significant difference in depression between AYA and OA groups. However, a chi-square analysis revealed significantly higher suicidal ideation endorsement by AYAs versus OAs in this sample (χ² [1, N = 500] = 3.98, p = 0.046). Conclusion: Results from routinely collected clinical data reveal a higher rate of suicidal ideation in AYAs compared with OA cancer patients, which supports the need for additional research on AYA cancer patient suicidal ideation in different settings and the implementation of mental health programs specifically for AYA patients.

Mental Health and Chemical Dependency Services at US Cancer Centers

BACKGROUND

It is standard of care and an accreditation requirement to screen for and address distress and psychosocial needs in patients with cancer. This study assessed the availability of mental health (MH) and chemical dependency (CD) services at US cancer centers.

METHODS

The 2017-2018 American Hospital Association (AHA) survey, Area Health Resource File, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare databases were used to assess availability of services and associations with hospital-level and health services area (HSA)-level characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 1,144 cancer centers surveyed, 85.4% offered MH services and 45.5% offered CD services; only 44.1% provided both. Factors associated with increased adjusted odds of offering MH services were teaching status (odds ratio [OR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.18-2.62), being a member of a hospital system (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.31-3.07), and having more beds (OR, 1.04 per 10-bed increase; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05). Higher population estimate (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99), higher percentage uninsured (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95), and higher Mental Health Professional Shortage Area level in the HSA (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00) were associated with decreased odds of offering MH services. Government-run (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.30-6.22) and nonprofit centers (OR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.78-6.79) showed increased odds of offering CD services compared with for-profit centers. Those that were members of hospital systems (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.14-2.29) and had more beds (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03) also showed increased odds of offering these services. A higher percentage of uninsured patients in the HSA (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97) was associated with decreased odds of offering CD services.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' ability to pay, membership in a hospital system, and organization size may be drivers of decisions to co-locate services within cancer centers. Larger organizations may be better able to financially support offering these services despite poor reimbursement rates. Innovations in specialty payment models highlight opportunities to drive transformation in delivering MH and CD services for high-need patients with cancer.

Association of Cigarette Use and Substance Use Disorders among US Adults with and without a Recent Diagnosis of Cancer

Background: Few studies have examined substance use disorders (SUDs) in cancer patients and it is unclear whether SUDs differentially impact cigarette smoking in patients with vs. without cancer. This study used epidemiological data to estimate current cigarette smoking prevalence and quit ratios among US adults with and without SUDs by cancer status. Methods: Data were drawn from the 2015–2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (n = 170,111). Weighted current smoking prevalence and quit ratios were estimated across survey years by SUDs (with vs. without) and by cancer status (with vs. without). Results: Among those with cancer, current smoking prevalence was higher for those with vs. without SUDs (47% vs. 13%, p < 0.001) and quit ratios lower for those with vs. without SUDs (45% vs. 71%, p = 0.002). A similar pattern was observed in adults without cancer, with higher smoking prevalence (56% vs. 21%, p < 0.001) and lower quit ratios (23% vs. 51%, p < 0.001) observed for those with vs. without SUDs, respectively. In adjusted logistic regressions, the SUD × cancer status interaction was not significant for smoking prevalence or quit ratios (AOR = 1.2; 95% CI: 0.7, 2.1, p = 0.56; AOR = 1.0; 95% CI: 0.5, 2.0, p = 0.91, respectively), though smoking prevalence was lower and quit ratios higher for adults with vs. without cancer (ps < 0.05). Conclusions: Among US adults with and without cancer, individuals with SUDs evidenced higher cigarette smoking and lower quit ratios than those without SUDs. Addressing SUDs and their impact on smoking cessation is critical in cancer patients with implications for improving health and treatment outcomes.

The Benefits of Olanzapine in Palliating Symptoms

OPINION STATEMENT

Olanzapine has become a major drug in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting as a prophylactic agent. In addition, a recent randomized trial has demonstrated its benefits in treating nausea and vomiting associated with advanced cancer. The added benefit to olanzapine is that it also stimulates appetite. As a result, since it treats multiple symptoms associated with advanced cancer, it is likely to become the antiemetic of choice in palliative care at least in the USA. The added benefit of treating insomnia and the avoidance of benzodiazepines should place olanzapine in at the top of the list of drugs to use for patients who do complain of insomnia. There is no good evidence that it potentiates the respiratory depression of opioids unlike benzodiazepines. The evidence is weak that olanzapine in as an adjuvant analgesic. Hopefully, future trials will explore this in greater depth. The benefits of adding olanzapine to potent opioids are that it may reduce craving, drug cues, and opioid misuse. Other symptoms like anxiety and depression may be addressed by the addition of olanzapine to standard antidepressants.

Use of Exemplars: Identification of Best Practices in Cancer Prevention and Screening

BACKGROUND

Prevention strategies help to teach what individuals can do to potentially offset cancer risks. Screenings can detect cancer at earlier stages, allowing for earlier treatments and better outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

This article seeks to identify best practices in cancer prevention and screening.

METHODS

This article presents exemplars in oncology nursing that illustrate implementation of best practices for cancer prevention and screening.

FINDINGS

Oncology nurses are well situated to not only provide education about prevention activities, but also to encourage participation in recommended screenings. Implementation of evidence-based practice, along with the nurses' clinical knowledge and patient preferences, allows for the best outcomes for patients. The use of exemplars is an ideal way of telling nurses' stories to share their experiences and how they affected patient outcomes.

Substance Use Screening Protocol: Implementation of a System for Patients With Cancer

BACKGROUND

Substance use by patients with a cancer diagnosis may have a detrimental effect on short- and long-term outcomes. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) has been recommended for all patients in primary care and emergency medicine.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this quality improvement project was to train clinical providers and to implement an effective SBIRT program in a radiation oncology clinic in a comprehensive cancer center.

METHODS

An interprofessional task force developed a staff training protocol that incorporated oncology-specific content. The team then piloted an SBIRT program in the outpatient clinic.

FINDINGS

Staff training results were mixed, with only a few evaluation items showing significant improvement. Despite these results, staff training and the implementation of an SBIRT may be valuable in improving substance use screening in this vulnerable population.