
==== Front
Br J Cancer
Br J Cancer
British Journal of Cancer
0007-0920
1532-1827
Nature Publishing Group UK London

39060510
2802
10.1038/s41416-024-02802-8
Article
Prevalence of opioid misuse in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
http://orcid.org/0009-0008-0722-1072
Ako Tazha tazhaako@gmail.com

1
Ørnskov Mark Puch 23
Lykke Camilla 45
Sjøgren Per 4
Kurita Geana Paula geana.kurita@regionh.dk

234
1 https://ror.org/035b05819 grid.5254.6 0000 0001 0674 042X Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
2 https://ror.org/035b05819 grid.5254.6 0000 0001 0674 042X Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
3 grid.475435.4 Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Respiratory Support, Rigshospitalet Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
4 grid.475435.4 Section of Palliative Medicine, Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
5 grid.4973.9 0000 0004 0646 7373 Department of Oncology and Palliative Care, North Zealand Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark
26 7 2024
26 7 2024
5 10 2024
131 6 10141020
29 2 2024
18 6 2024
16 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Background/Objectives

Long-term consequences of opioid consumption, such as misuse, have been a major concern in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Potentially opioid misuse may also be a consequence in patients with cancer in opioid treatment which encouraged us to undertake this systematic review assessing the frequency of opioid misuse in this population.

Materials/Methods

The search strategy comprised words related to cancer, opioid misuse, and frequency. PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, and Cinahl were searched from inception to July 2023. Prospective studies were selected and analysed regarding frequency, study characteristics, and quality. A meta-analysis was possible to carry out for a sub-group (opioid misuse risk).

Results

From 585 abstracts screened, six articles were included. Only prevalence data were found. The prevalence of opioid misuse ranged from 5.7% to 84%, while the prevalence of opioid misuse risk varied from 2.4% to 35.4%. The pooled prevalence of opioid misuse risk was 12.3% (95% CI: 0.8–36.3; I2 = 98.4%, 95% CI: 97.2–99.1). The studies differed regarding, e.g., methods, misuse definitions, and assessment instruments.

Conclusions

Few studies were identified and large differences in prevalence for opioid misuse and opioid misuse risk were observed. Methodological disparities and the studies quality underscore the importance of improved studies in the future.

Subject terms

Cancer
Drug regulation
Pain
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Cancer is a complex and life-threatening disease, which according to estimates will affect 21.9 million people around the world in 2025 [1]. In patients with cancer and especially advanced disease, pain is one of the most frequent and distressing symptoms [2, 3]. It might be the result of the cancer disease itself and/or antineoplastic treatment. The clinical evidence supports the use of opioids as the gold standard in moderate to severe cancer-related pain [4]. In addition, opioids are a versatile pharmacological group with several advantages as superior efficacy, multiple routes of administration, ease of titration, no ceiling dose, among others. However, in the last two decades the use of opioid treatment in chronic non-cancer pain has produced an indiscriminate escalation of prescribed opioids and misuse problems, which recently have raised concerns about potential misuse in patients with cancer, mainly due to higher survival rates.

In the literature, there are many different terms with similar meanings and referring to types of opioid misuse. Examples are opioid dependence, opioid use disorder, opioid abuse, opioid addiction, opioid aberrant behaviour, non-medical opioid use, and chemical coping, among others. There are general diagnostic criteria for opioid dependence by the International Classification of Diseases—ICD 11 [5] and for opioid use disorder by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fifth edition—DSM-5 [6], which describe behaviour, psychological aspects, and physiologic symptoms. For patients with chronic pain, there are Portenoy’s criteria for characterising opioid addiction [7] and Chabal et al.’s criteria for identifying prescription opiate abuser [8], which are based on the general criteria mentioned above and describe behaviours and factors indicating a diagnosis. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (USA) opioid misuse can be defined as the use of prescription opioids in a manner other than as directed by a doctor (e.g., for other purpose than pain relief, in greater amounts, more frequently, longer, using someone else’s prescription) [9]. This definition comprises the concepts of opioid dependence, opioid abuse, opioid use disorder, opioid addiction, and aberrant opioid behaviour. Thus, the term opioid misuse and its operational definition above is preferred in this study.

Advances in diagnostics and antineoplastic treatments have improved prognosis and increased survival in patients with cancer. Population based analyses of high-income countries have indicated that 3 to 5-year relative survival has improved for most cancers [10]. A decrease in the American cancer death rate of 33% has been observed from 1991 to 2020, for instance [11, 12]. Survivors may suffer the consequences of the disease and treatment. Approximately 40–45% of the patients with cancer and 35% of the cancer survivors have chronic pain [2, 13]. Therefore, it is expected that many patients will be treated with opioids and may continue using it for long periods even after concluding cancer treatment.

Despite the legitimate medical use of opioids in cancer pain, there is concern about several potential consequences of their prolonged use as development of endocrine and immune systems suppression, neurotoxicity, tolerance, physical and psychological dependence including opioid misuse [14–17]. In particular, the lessons learned from the opioid crisis in the United States have raised an alert regarding increasing consumption of prescribed and illegal opioid drugs associated with overdoses and deaths. The American numbers of drug overdose deaths involving opioids have shown alarming increasing rates since 1999. In 2022, 3/4 of the drug overdose deaths (107,000) included an opioid [18].

The prevalence of opioid misuse in patients with chronic non-cancer pain has been reported between 3.2 and 80.5% [19]. Obviously, there is also a question whether it would also be observed in patients with cancer in a changing environment. Previous systematic reviews about the theme in patients with cancer have also reported a varied prevalence between 2.0 and 90.0%, but the studies analysed had high heterogeneity regarding designs, mixed populations, type of substance use (not always specific for opioids), operational definitions for the opioid misuse, and included studies published until 2020 [20–22]. Thus, the need for an updated assessment of the literature regarding frequency of opioid misuse in the cancer population was deemed necessary. In summary, this systematic review aimed at assessing the frequency of opioid misuse and opioid misuse risk in patients with cancer in all stages. Hopefully, the information generated by this study can help to reduce the gap in knowledge on this subject and point directions for future studies. Through this endeavour, we hope to contribute to improved patient outcomes and enhance the overall quality of cancer care.

Materials and methods

This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—PRISMA guidelines [23] to answer the research question: ‘In adult patients with cancer, what is the frequency of opioid misuse?’ A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify studies that investigated the frequency of opioid misuse in patients with cancer, adhering to the predetermined research question, search strategy and inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Search strategy

To identify relevant studies on the prevalence of opioid misuse in patients with cancer, the databases PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, and PsycInfo were systematically searched from inception to 14 July 2023. The search terms were structured based on PICO framework, which focus on the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes [24, 25]. For this review, the search strategy included the elements cancer patients (population) and frequency of opioid misuse (outcomes), which were organised in three groups of words/terms. Search limits (filters) of the databases were used to optimise the search considering the identification of key words/terms in titles and abstracts. The final search strategy was organised as follow:

(((cancer[Title/Abstract] OR neoplasms[Title/Abstract]) AND (non-medical opioid use[Title/Abstract] OR opioid use disorder[Title/Abstract] OR opioid abuse[Title/Abstract] OR opioid addiction[Title/Abstract] OR opioid misuse[Title/Abstract] OR substance use disorder[Title/Abstract] OR opioid dependence[Title/Abstract] OR opioid aberrant behaviour[Title/Abstract] OR opioid aberrant behaviour[Title/Abstract] OR chemical coping[Title/Abstract] OR problematic opioid use[Title/Abstract])) AND (prevalence[Title/Abstract] OR frequency[Title/Abstract] OR occurrence[Title/Abstract] OR incidence[Title/Abstract])).

Selection criteria

The retrieved abstracts were read by two independent reviewers (TA and GPK). They selected potential articles to analysis, according to the pre-established criteria:

Inclusion criteria: studies involving adults (at least 18 years old) with cancer; prospective studies; studies focusing on opioid treatment for cancer-related pain management; studies reporting the frequency or risk of opioid misuse among patients with cancer; studies that employed a standardised assessment of opioid misuse; and articles written in English.

Exclusion criteria: studies with mixed populations without separate results for the individuals with cancer; abstracts of studies presented in scientific events; and study protocols.

Screening and extraction

Abstracts from each literature search in the different databases were imported into Covidence, which is a software for managing and streamlining systematic reviews (https://www.covidence.org/). Duplicated abstracts were excluded via the programme. Two individuals (TA and GPK) have individually screened the abstracts and read the full text of the selected ones. Disagreements between readers were resolved through discussion between them. No hand-search was performed. The same two individuals extracted the data independently and compared them together.

Analysis

The main outcome of this study was the frequency of opioid misuse and opioid misuse risk, according to definition described previously: any use of opioids not as prescribed by the physician. Observing that studies might have assessed diverse aspects of opioid misuse (e.g., risk for opioid misuse), they could be grouped according to similar outcomes described. The frequency information was collected in absolute and percentual numbers.

The quality assessment of the studies was performed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for studies reporting prevalence data [26]. The checklist includes nine questions regarding study features that could increase or reduce the consistency of the evidence. The possible answers for each item are yes, no, unclear, and not applicable. Considering the possibility that some studies could not present enough information according to the checklist, some items were adapted. A summarised description of the aspects considered essential for analysing the quality is given in the following. (1) Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population? Appropriateness of the sample frame to address the target population by looking at the broader characteristics, demographics, and medical history to avoid making inferences that might not represent the target population. (2) Were study participants sampled in an appropriate way? Appropriate sampling methods with consideration for the representativeness of the base population. Convenience samples do not provide a representative sample. (3) Was the sample size adequate? Information about sample size should be provided in the article to analyse the precision of the final estimate. (4) Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? Subjects and settings should be described enough to ensure comparability with the population of interest. (5) Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample? Adequate representation of all subgroups within the sample, adequate response rate. (6) Were valid methods used for the identification of the condition? Outcomes assessed based on existing definitions/diagnostic criteria. (7) Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants? Use of standardised and reliable measurement methods for assessment of the condition in all participants. (8) Was there appropriate statistical analysis? Enough information about proper analytical technique used and how variables of interest were measured. (9) Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately? Information about response rate, reasons for non-response, characteristics comparison between responders and non-responders.

Statistical analysis

Studies that have assessed the same outcomes related to opioid misuse with the same instrument were selected for meta-analysis. A random-effects model was applied due to the heterogeneity among studies and their individual effect sizes. Pooled prevalence of moderate and high risk of opioid misuse with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and heterogeneity (Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics) were analysed using MedCalc v.22.009 (MedCalc Software Ltd). I2 values range from 0 to 100% and larger values mean increasing heterogeneity. Attempt of cut-offs are 25% = low, 50% = moderate, and 75% = high [27].

Results

Search result

The database search comprised 816 studies. The number of duplicates removed was 231. Therefore, 585 abstracts were screened; out of them, 563 were excluded. Twenty-two articles were selected for full reading and inclusion and exclusion criteria were reapplied. Finally, six studies were included in the analysis. Reasons for studies exclusion after full reading can be observed in Fig. 1.Fig. 1 Flow diagram of screening process and study selection.

Characteristics of the selected studies

The six studies analysed reported prevalence and were divided in equal numbers in two groups according to the outcomes evaluated: prevalence of opioid misuse [28–30] or prevalence of opioid misuse risk [31–33]. Two studies were conducted in the United States [29, 31], the others were from Iran [28], Italy [32], Japan [30], and South Korea [33]. All of them had a cross-sectional design but differed regarding other characteristics (Table 1). Five studies were conducted in patients with cancer disease [28, 29, 31–33], one study analysed the general population with chronic pain, mixing cancer and non-cancer conditions [30].Table 1 Studies’ characteristics and opioid misuse prevalence.

Author, ref. country	Study design	Sample	N	Age in years mean/range	Duration opioid treatment	Dose opioida	Opioid misuse type	Prevalence n (%)	Assessment instrument	
Misuse	
 1. Tabei et al. [28]

Iran

	Cross-sectional	Gastric cancer patients	177	58.1/24–84	–	–	Opioid dependence	10 (5.7)	Interview based on DSM-IV criteria	
 2. Kwon et al. [29]

United States

	Cross-sectional	Advanced cancer patients	432	–/49–65	–	Median 100(38–225)	Chemical coping	76 (17.6)	Medical assessment	
 3. Takasusuki et al. [30]

Japan

	Cross-Sectional (internet survey)	General population with chronic pain (sub-group chronic cancer pain)	61	53.0/–	87% ≥3 months	–	Opioid misuse/abuse	51 (84.0)	Survey questions	
Moderate/severe misuse risk	
 4. Dannenberg et al. [31]

United States

	Cross-sectional	Solid or liquid tumours patients	226	63.7/28–80+	–	–	Opioid misuse risk	63 (28.0)	Opioid Risk Tool	
 5. Mercadante et al. [32]

Italy

	Cross-sectional	Advanced cancer patients	113	68/–	≥7 days	–	Opioid misuse risk

Aberrant opioid behaviour prediction

	14 (12.3)

40 (35.4)

	Opioid Risk Tool

Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain

	
 6. Oh et al. [33]

South Korea

	Cross-sectional	Cancer-related pain patients	946	63/–	≥7 days	Mean 93.1 ± 246.8	Opioid misuse risk	23 (2.4)	Opioid Risk Tool	
– no information, DSM-IV Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—4th edition.

aMorphine equivalent daily dose in mg.

The studies differed regarding sample size, definitions used to characterise opioid misuse, recruitment methods, assessment format and instruments of assessment (Table 1). In particular, the assessment of opioid misuse was made through pre-defined criteria as DSM-IV criteria [28] and operational definitions [29, 30]. All studies in the group of prevalence of opioid misuse risk applied instruments developed for assessment of chronic non-cancer pain patients. The instruments were the Opioid Risk Tool [31–33] and the Screened and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain [32] (Table 1). Only the second instrument has been validated for use in cancer patients.

Missing Information regarding accurate duration of opioid administration (3/6), daily opioid dose (4/6), and distribution of type of opioid used (6/6) was observed (Table 1).

Prevalence of opioid misuse and meta-analysis of moderate and high risk of opioid misuse

The prevalence of opioid misuse reported varied between 5.7 and 84% (Table 1), while the prevalence of opioid misuse risk varied between 2.4 and 35.4% (Table 1). One study assessed the prevalence through two different instruments, which resulted in contrasting percentages as 12.3 and 35.4% [32]. In addition, in the same study clinical staff was instructed to report any aberrant opioid behaviour as part of their clinical routine within a month from the assessment; 74% of the patients returned for follow-up and no opioid misuse was registered [32].

For the studies that applied the same questionnaire, the pooled prevalence of moderate and high risk of opioid misuse can be observed in Fig. 2. The pooled prevalence was 12.3% (95% CI: 0.8–36.3) and heterogeneity I2 = 98.4% (95% CI: 97.2–99.1).Fig. 2 Pooled prevalence of moderate and high risk of opioid misuse.

Quality assessment of included studies

One study contemplated all items of the quality checklist [29] and four studies contemplated more than 60% of the items [28, 30, 32, 33]. The items regarding recruitment (33.3%), sample size calculation (33.3%), and valid methods for condition identification (44.4%) were the ones which the authors failed to comply with (Table 2).Table 2 Quality of the evidence—Joanna Briggs Institute’s checklist.

Author	Sample frame	Recruitment	Sample size calculation	Subjects/setting description	Sample coverage	Valid methods	Standard measurement	Statistical analysis	Response rate	
Tabei et al. [28]	Unclear	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Kwon et al. [29]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Takasusuki et al. [30]	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Dannenberg et al. [31]	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	
Mercadante et al. [32]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Oh et al. [33]	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	

Discussion

This systematic review examined the literature regarding opioid misuse in adult patients with cancer and observed that the evidence is still limited. There are few prospective studies (n = 6), all cross-sectional designs with high variety of misuse definitions and methodologies applied. The results revealed a wide range of opioid misuse prevalence (5.7–84.0%) and opioid misuse risk (2.4–35.4%). The pooled prevalence for opioid misuse risk was 12.3% with high heterogeneity. The analysis of the studies’ quality revealed issues in most of them, especially regarding methods of assessment.

The risk of opioid misuse seems incipient and involves great variations in reputable organisations, which have published guidelines according to the management and use of opioids in cancer pain. The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) [34], European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) [35], and American Society of Medical Oncology (ASCO) [4] have focused on recommendations providing guidance on the use of different opioids to manage cancer—or treatment-related pain in adults. The risk of opioid misuse is sparsely described [4, 34, 35]. However, the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology has developed strategies to maintain patient safety and minimise the risk of opioid misuse by assessment and routinely monitoring of patients for risk factors associated with opioid misuse [36].

Previous review studies have identified enormous variability in the prevalence of opioid misuse. A narrative review reported opioid addiction prevalence among patients with cancer pain between 0 to 7.7% [37]. In addition, a meta-analysis described a pooled prevalence of 8% (1.0–20.0%) for opioid use disorder and of 23.5% (19.5–27.8%) for risk of use disorder in patients with cancer-related pain [20]. Further, a systematic review about substance use disorder in patients with cancer found a risk of substance use disorder associated with opioid use in between 18–21% in patients in palliative care [22]. In common, those reviews observed a high heterogeneity of study designs, definitions, and assessment methods. In contrast to the present study, the former reviews have included retrospectives studies and other types of articles, which may offer views from different angles, but also may increase information bias. Interestingly, retrospective studies in the last 5 years reported risk of opioid misuse between 19.6 and 39.1% [38–40], which is higher than the prevalence observed in this study, but still with some overlap.

Variation in opioid misuse prevalence can be attributed to different definitions of opioid misuse being used, variations in methodologies and assessment tools, and specific characteristics of the samples/populations studied. An example is the prevalence of opioid misuse risk, which yielded different estimates across studies using the same instrument [31–33] or when the same study compared two different instruments [32]. Likewise, one study concluded that they could not verify their findings on opioid misuse found by using an instrument followed by a clinical examination [32]. Another important aspect is the lack of reliable methods of assessment including the implementation of validated instruments. There seems to be a need for investigating the psychometric properties of the questionnaires and maybe there is a need of developing new tools.

Research in the frequency of opioid misuse in patients with cancer may not be an easy task and the challenges may comprise an array of complexities. Disease-related factors, including dropouts and refusals to participate due to compromised mental and physical conditions, may hinder accurate data collection. Moreover, the ambiguity surrounding the definition of ‘misuse’ and misuse not explicit as addiction require attention to signs and symptoms that are not so evident and trained health care professionals to identify those signs and symptoms may be needed. Systematic assessment and follow-ups on opioid management could help identifying potential misuse and sharpen the attention of the professionals. In cancer, higher age, comorbidities, cognitive impairment, and functional decline may even complicate recognition of substance misuse [41]. Furthermore, some patients wish to hide the misuse to maintain the access to the drug. Different regions and cultures may have different attitudes towards pain management and substance use, which might lead to variations in opioid misuse patterns and the reporting about them. Cultural norms regarding what is appropriate, accepted or even legal may interfere with patients trust in healthcare professionals [28].

Notably, the lack of standardised assessment instruments tailored to patients with cancer gives rise to challenges in comparing frequency rates across studies. To our knowledge only the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain is validated in cancer patients [39], however, the Opioid Risk Tool has also been recommended for this population observing its limitations [42]. The above-mentioned limitation was reflected in the quality assessment of the studies.

Observing that there are no clear guidelines for diagnose of opioid misuse in oncology settings, lessons from chronic non-cancer pain area prevail demonstrating that it requires a comprehensive approach combining clinical examination and assessment tools/resources to enhance the diagnosis of opioid misuse [43]. It includes observation of the patient’s behaviour (e.g., frequent requests for opioids as dose increase and earlier prescriptions, signs of intoxication, and withdrawal symptoms) and attention to family report of the patient’s behaviour indicators of opioid misuse. Moreover, systematic assessment of risk factors for development of opioid misuse and of actual opioid misuse should be a recurrent systematic task during long-term opioid treatment. Some examples of assessment were given in the analysed studies [28–33], which included structured interviews, medical judgement, and instruments for assessment of opioid misuse risk (Opioid Risk Tool and Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain). However, other instruments may be suitable for patients in long-term opioid therapy as Pain Medication Questionnaire and Current Opioid Misuse Measure [43–45].

The present work was planned with focus on the frequency of opioid misuse in cancer with very demarcated inclusion/exclusion criteria to reduce bias, search in four important databases since inception, and analysis of study quality. However, some limitations must be acknowledged. First, we have excluded non-English written studies, which may have resulted in missing articles, especially from low- and middle-income countries. Second, only prospective studies with standardised assessment of opioid misuse were included due to fewer potential sources of bias and confounders, possibly resulting in exclusion of ‘real world/life’ studies. Third, the majority of the studies did not provide information regarding cancer stages, pain diagnoses, duration of opioid treatment, opioid daily doses, distribution of opioid drug types that could provide a more exploratory analysis. Whether these conditions may influence the frequency or risk of opioid misuse should be investigated in the future. Fourth, we could not investigate the timing of misuse start due to the study designs. Last, the quality analysis of prevalence studies has specific criteria, which may be difficult to follow in studies with convenience samples and incomplete information. We aimed to mitigate this limitation by transparently documenting procedures and adapting Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist guideline items.

Moving forward, a consensus on opioid misuse definition is recommended in this context, as well as improvement of assessment methods, and validation of instruments to qualify diagnosis and follow-up of patients with cancer. Having in mind the tight link between a cancer diagnosis and patient’s coping mechanism, the emotional distress, anxiety, and depression are undeniable underlying psychosocial factors that can potentially trigger opioid misuse. Collaborative efforts and longitudinal studies are imperatively required to provide more comprehensive information.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study revealed a wide prevalence of opioid misuse between 5.7 and 84.0%, as well as a pooled prevalence of 12.3% for risk of opioid misuse. Few studies with high diversity of characteristics and high heterogeneity were found. The varied forms of opioid misuse examined, the utilisation of distinct methodologies and assessment tools, collectively may have contributed to the percentage’s disparities observed. These discrepancies underscore the need for more studies with standardised definitions, validated assessment instruments, cohesive research strategies, and well-described guidelines to accurately quantify and address this issue within patients with cancer.

Author contributions

GPK and TA conceptualised the study. TA, GPK, and MPØ were involved in acquired data, interpreted the results, and reviewed literature. TA, GPK, MPØ, PS, and CL contributed to the writing, revised the manuscript, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Copenhagen University.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests. GPK has received grants to other projects from Novo Nordisk Foundation, European Commission, and the Danish Cancer Society.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. International Agency for Research on Cancer World Health Organization. Global cancer observatory: cancer tomorrow. 2023. https://gco.iarc.fr/tomorrow/en.
2. Snijders RAH Brom L Theunissen M van den Beuken-van Everdingen MHJ Update on prevalence of pain in patients with cancer 2022: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis Cancers 2023 15 591 10.3390/cancers15030591 36765547
Snijders RAH, Brom L, Theunissen M, van den Beuken-van Everdingen MHJ. Update on prevalence of pain in patients with cancer 2022: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Cancers. 2023;15:591.36765547 10.3390/cancers15030591
3. Sørensen J Sjøgren P Clemmensen SN Sørensen TV Heinecke K Kurita GP Improvement of pain management in a comprehensive cancer center: a comparison of two cross-sectional studies 8 years apart Support Care Cancer 2022 30 2037 45 10.1007/s00520-021-06614-x 34652549
Sørensen J, Sjøgren P, Clemmensen SN, Sørensen TV, Heinecke K, Kurita GP. Improvement of pain management in a comprehensive cancer center: a comparison of two cross-sectional studies 8 years apart. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30:2037–45.34652549 10.1007/s00520-021-06614-x
4. Paice JA Bohlke K Barton D Craig DS El-Jawahri A Hershman DL Use of opioids for adults with pain from cancer or cancer treatment: ASCO guideline J Clin Oncol 2023 41 914 30 10.1200/JCO.22.02198 36469839
Paice JA, Bohlke K, Barton D, Craig DS, El-Jawahri A, Hershman DL, et al. Use of opioids for adults with pain from cancer or cancer treatment: ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:914–30.36469839 10.1200/JCO.22.02198
5. World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases Eleventh Revision (ICD-11). 2022. https://www.who.int/news/item/11-02-2022-icd-11-2022-release.
6. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR). 2023. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm.
7. Portenoy RK Chronic opioid therapy in nonmalignant pain J Pain Symptom Manag 1990 5 S46 62
Portenoy RK. Chronic opioid therapy in nonmalignant pain. J Pain Symptom Manag. 1990;5:S46–62.
8. Chabal C Erjavec MK Jacobson L Mariano A Chaney E Prescription opiate abuse in chronic pain patients: clinical criteria, incidence, and predictors Clin J Pain 1997 13 150 5 10.1097/00002508-199706000-00009 9186022
Chabal C, Erjavec MK, Jacobson L, Mariano A, Chaney E. Prescription opiate abuse in chronic pain patients: clinical criteria, incidence, and predictors. Clin J Pain. 1997;13:150–5.9186022 10.1097/00002508-199706000-00009
9. National Institute on Drug Abuse; National Institutes of Health; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Prescription opioids drugfacts. 2023. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/prescription-opioids.
10. Miller KD Nogueira L Devasia T Mariotto AB Yabroff KR Jemal A Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2022 CA Cancer J Clin 2022 72 409 36 10.3322/caac.21731 35736631
Miller KD, Nogueira L, Devasia T, Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Jemal A, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:409–36.35736631 10.3322/caac.21731
11. Siegel RL Miller KD Fuchs HE Jemal A Cancer statistics, 2022 CA Cancer J Clin 2022 72 7 33 10.3322/caac.21708 35020204
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:7–33.35020204 10.3322/caac.21708
12. Arnold M Rutherford MJ Bardot A Ferlay J Andersson TM Myklebust TÅ Progress in cancer survival, mortality, and incidence in seven high-income countries 1995-2014 (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population-based study Lancet Oncol 2019 20 1493 505 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30456-5 31521509
Arnold M, Rutherford MJ, Bardot A, Ferlay J, Andersson TM, Myklebust TÅ, et al. Progress in cancer survival, mortality, and incidence in seven high-income countries 1995-2014 (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1493–505.31521509 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30456-5
13. Evenepoel M Haenen V De Baerdemaecker T Meeus M Devoogdt N Dams L Pain prevalence during cancer treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Pain Symptom Manag 2022 63 e317 35 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.09.011
Evenepoel M, Haenen V, De Baerdemaecker T, Meeus M, Devoogdt N, Dams L, et al. Pain prevalence during cancer treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2022;63:e317–35.10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.09.011
14. Diasso PDK Abou-Kassem D Nielsen SD Main KM Sjøgren P Kurita GP Long-term opioid treatment and endocrine measures in chronic non-cancer pain patients Eur J Pain 2023 27 940 51 10.1002/ejp.2136 37243401
Diasso PDK, Abou-Kassem D, Nielsen SD, Main KM, Sjøgren P, Kurita GP. Long-term opioid treatment and endocrine measures in chronic non-cancer pain patients. Eur J Pain. 2023;27:940–51.37243401 10.1002/ejp.2136
15. Kurita GP Sjøgren P Management of cancer pain: challenging the evidence of the recent guidelines for opioid use in palliative care Pol Arch Intern Med 2021 131 16136 34775742
Kurita GP, Sjøgren P. Management of cancer pain: challenging the evidence of the recent guidelines for opioid use in palliative care. Pol Arch Intern Med. 2021;131:16136.34775742
16. Diasso PDK Birke H Nielsen SD Main KM Højsted J Sjøgren P The effects of long-term opioid treatment on the immune system in chronic non-cancer pain patients: a systematic review Eur J Pain 2020 24 481 96 10.1002/ejp.1506 31705699
Diasso PDK, Birke H, Nielsen SD, Main KM, Højsted J, Sjøgren P, et al. The effects of long-term opioid treatment on the immune system in chronic non-cancer pain patients: a systematic review. Eur J Pain. 2020;24:481–96.31705699 10.1002/ejp.1506
17. Højsted J Kurita GP Kendall S Lundorff L de Mattos Pimenta CA Sjøgren P Non-analgesic effects of opioids: the cognitive effects of opioids in chronic pain of malignant and non-malignant origin. An update Curr Pharm Des 2012 18 6116 22 10.2174/138161212803582522 22747540
Højsted J, Kurita GP, Kendall S, Lundorff L, de Mattos Pimenta CA, Sjøgren P. Non-analgesic effects of opioids: the cognitive effects of opioids in chronic pain of malignant and non-malignant origin. An update. Curr Pharm Des. 2012;18: 6116–22.22747540 10.2174/138161212803582522
18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Understanding the opioid overdose epidemic. 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/about/understanding-the-opioid-overdose-epidemic.html.
19. Jantarada C Silva C Guimarães-Pereira L Prevalence of problematic use of opioids in patients with chronic noncancer pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis Pain Pr 2021 21 715 29 10.1111/papr.13001
Jantarada C, Silva C, Guimarães-Pereira L. Prevalence of problematic use of opioids in patients with chronic noncancer pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Pain Pr. 2021;21:715–29.10.1111/papr.13001
20. Preux C Bertin M Tarot A Authier N Pinol N Brugnon D Prevalence of opioid use disorder among patients with cancer-related pain: a systematic review J Clin Med 2022 11 1594 10.3390/jcm11061594 35329919
Preux C, Bertin M, Tarot A, Authier N, Pinol N, Brugnon D, et al. Prevalence of opioid use disorder among patients with cancer-related pain: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2022;11:1594.35329919 10.3390/jcm11061594
21. Beauchemin M Dorritie R Hershman DL Opioid use and misuse in children, adolescents, and young adults with cancer: a systematic review of the literature Support Care Cancer 2021 29 4521 7 10.1007/s00520-020-05980-2 33462726
Beauchemin M, Dorritie R, Hershman DL. Opioid use and misuse in children, adolescents, and young adults with cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29:4521–7.33462726 10.1007/s00520-020-05980-2
22. Yusufov M Braun IM Pirl WF A systematic review of substance use and substance use disorders in patients with cancer Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2019 60 128 36 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2019.04.016 31104826
Yusufov M, Braun IM, Pirl WF. A systematic review of substance use and substance use disorders in patients with cancer. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2019;60:128–36.31104826 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2019.04.016
23. Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM Boutron I Hoffmann TC Mulrow CD The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 2021 372 n71 10.1136/bmj.n71 33782057
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.33782057 10.1136/bmj.n71
24. Davies KS Formulating the evidence based practice question: a review of the frameworks Evid Based Libr Inf Pr 2011 6 75 80
Davies KS. Formulating the evidence based practice question: a review of the frameworks. Evid Based Libr Inf Pr. 2011;6:75–80.
25. Richardson WS Wilson MC Nishikawa JHR The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions ACP J Club 1995 123 A12 3 10.7326/ACPJC-1995-123-3-A12 7582737
Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa JHR. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123:A12–3.7582737 10.7326/ACPJC-1995-123-3-A12
26. Munn Z Moola S Lisy K Riitano D Tufanaru C Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and incidence data Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015 13 147 53 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000054 26317388
Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and incidence data. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:147–53.26317388 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000054
27. Higgins JPT Thompson SG Deeks JJ Altman DG Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses BMJ 2003 327 557 60 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 12958120
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.12958120 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
28. Tabei S Heydari S Mehrabani D Shamsina S Ahmadi J Firouzi S Current substance use in patients with gastric cancer in Southern Iran J Cancer Res Ther 2006 2 182 5 10.4103/0973-1482.29828 17998701
Tabei S, Heydari S, Mehrabani D, Shamsina S, Ahmadi J, Firouzi S. Current substance use in patients with gastric cancer in Southern Iran. J Cancer Res Ther. 2006;2:182–5.17998701 10.4103/0973-1482.29828
29. Kwon JH Tanco K Park JC Wong A Seo L Liu D Frequency, predictors, and medical record documentation of chemical coping among advanced cancer patients Oncologist 2015 20 692 7 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0012 25933929
Kwon JH, Tanco K, Park JC, Wong A, Seo L, Liu D, et al. Frequency, predictors, and medical record documentation of chemical coping among advanced cancer patients. Oncologist. 2015;20:692–7.25933929 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0012
30. Takasusuki T Hayashi S Koretaka Y Yamaguchi S Prevalence of and risk factors for prescription opioid misuse, abuse, diversion and doctor shopping in Japan: a survey study Pain Ther 2022 11 987 1009 10.1007/s40122-022-00409-6 35790601
Takasusuki T, Hayashi S, Koretaka Y, Yamaguchi S. Prevalence of and risk factors for prescription opioid misuse, abuse, diversion and doctor shopping in Japan: a survey study. Pain Ther. 2022;11:987–1009.35790601 10.1007/s40122-022-00409-6
31. Dannenberg MD Bruce ML Barr PJ Broglio K Prevalence of opioid misuse risk in patients with cancer Clin J Oncol Nurs 2022 26 261 7 10.1188/22.CJON.261-267 35604731
Dannenberg MD, Bruce ML, Barr PJ, Broglio K. Prevalence of opioid misuse risk in patients with cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2022;26:261–7.35604731 10.1188/22.CJON.261-267
32. Mercadante S Adile C Tirelli W Ferrera P Penco I Casuccio A Aberrant opioid use behaviour in advanced cancer BMJ Support Palliat Care 2022 12 107 13 10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002606 33355216
Mercadante S, Adile C, Tirelli W, Ferrera P, Penco I, Casuccio A. Aberrant opioid use behaviour in advanced cancer. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2022;12:107–13.33355216 10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002606
33. Oh SY Park K Koh SJ Kang JH Chang MH Lee KH Survey of Opioid Risk Tool among cancer patients receiving opioid analgesics J Korean Med Sci 2022 37 e185 10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e185 35698838
Oh SY, Park K, Koh SJ, Kang JH, Chang MH, Lee KH. Survey of Opioid Risk Tool among cancer patients receiving opioid analgesics. J Korean Med Sci. 2022;37:e185.35698838 10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e185
34. Caraceni A Hanks G Kaasa S Bennett MI Brunelli C Cherny N European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC); European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC). Use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of cancer pain: evidence-based recommendations from the EAPC Lancet Oncol 2012 13 e58 68 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70040-2 22300860
Caraceni A, Hanks G, Kaasa S, Bennett MI, Brunelli C, Cherny N, et al. European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC); European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC). Use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of cancer pain: evidence-based recommendations from the EAPC. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:e58–68.22300860 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70040-2
35. Fallon M Giusti R Aielli F Hoskin P Rolke R Sharma M Management of cancer pain in adult patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines Ann Oncol 2018 29 iv166 91 10.1093/annonc/mdy152 30052758
Fallon M, Giusti R, Aielli F, Hoskin P, Rolke R, Sharma M, et al. Management of cancer pain in adult patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:iv166–91.30052758 10.1093/annonc/mdy152
36. Swarm RA Paice JA Anghelescu DL Are M Bruce JY Buga S Adult cancer pain, version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019 17 977 1007 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0038 31390582
Swarm RA, Paice JA, Anghelescu DL, Are M, Bruce JY, Buga S, et al. Adult cancer pain, version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17:977–1007.31390582 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0038
37. Højsted J Sjøgren P Addiction to opioids in chronic pain patients: a literature review Eur J Pain 2007 11 490 518 10.1016/j.ejpain.2006.08.004 17070082
Højsted J, Sjøgren P. Addiction to opioids in chronic pain patients: a literature review. Eur J Pain. 2007;11:490–518.17070082 10.1016/j.ejpain.2006.08.004
38. Yennurajalingam S Edwards T Arthur JA Lu Z Najera J Nguyen K Predicting the risk for aberrant opioid use behavior in patients receiving outpatient supportive care consultation at a comprehensive cancer center Cancer 2018 124 3942 9 10.1002/cncr.31670 30192372
Yennurajalingam S, Edwards T, Arthur JA, Lu Z, Najera J, Nguyen K, et al. Predicting the risk for aberrant opioid use behavior in patients receiving outpatient supportive care consultation at a comprehensive cancer center. Cancer. 2018;124:3942–9.30192372 10.1002/cncr.31670
39. Yasin JT Leader AE Petok A Garber G Stephens B Worster B Validity of the screener and opioid assessment for patients with pain-revised (SOAPP-R) in patients with cancer J Opioid Manag 2019 15 272 4 10.5055//jom.2019.0512 31637679
Yasin JT, Leader AE, Petok A, Garber G, Stephens B, Worster B. Validity of the screener and opioid assessment for patients with pain-revised (SOAPP-R) in patients with cancer. J Opioid Manag. 2019;15:272–4.31637679 10.5055//jom.2019.0512
40. Yennurajalingam S Edwards T Arthur J Lu Z Erdogan E Malik JS The development of a nomogram to determine the frequency of elevated risk for non-medical opioid use in cancer patients Palliat Support Care 2021 19 93 102 10.1017/S1478951520000322 32410719
Yennurajalingam S, Edwards T, Arthur J, Lu Z, Erdogan E, Malik JS, et al. The development of a nomogram to determine the frequency of elevated risk for non-medical opioid use in cancer patients. Palliat Support Care. 2021;19:93–102.32410719 10.1017/S1478951520000322
41. Seim L Vijapura P Pagali S Burton MC Common substance use disorders in older adults Hosp Pr 2020 48 48 55 10.1080/21548331.2020.1733287
Seim L, Vijapura P, Pagali S, Burton MC. Common substance use disorders in older adults. Hosp Pr. 2020;48:48–55.10.1080/21548331.2020.1733287
42. Dowell D Ragan KR Jones CM Baldwin GT Chou R CDC clinical practice guideline for prescribing opioids for pain—United States, 2022 MMWR Recomm Rep 2022 71 1 95 10.15585/mmwr.rr7103a1 36327391
Dowell D, Ragan KR, Jones CM, Baldwin GT, Chou R. CDC clinical practice guideline for prescribing opioids for pain—United States, 2022. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2022;71:1–95.36327391 10.15585/mmwr.rr7103a1
43. Ducharme J Moore S Opioid use disorder assessment tools and drug screening Mo Med 2019 116 318 24 31527982
Ducharme J, Moore S. Opioid use disorder assessment tools and drug screening. Mo Med. 2019;116:318–24.31527982
44. Adams LL Gatchel RJ Robinson RC Polatin P Gajraj N Deschner M Development of a self-report screening instrument for assessing potential opioid medication misuse in chronic pain patients J Pain Symptom Manag 2004 27 440 59 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2003.10.009
Adams LL, Gatchel RJ, Robinson RC, Polatin P, Gajraj N, Deschner M, et al. Development of a self-report screening instrument for assessing potential opioid medication misuse in chronic pain patients. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2004;27:440–59.10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2003.10.009
45. Butler SF Budman SH Fernandez KC Houle B Benoit C Katz N Development and validation of the current opioid misuse measure Pain 2007 130 144 56 10.1016/j.pain.2007.01.014 17493754
Butler SF, Budman SH, Fernandez KC, Houle B, Benoit C, Katz N, et al. Development and validation of the current opioid misuse measure. Pain. 2007;130: 144–56.17493754 10.1016/j.pain.2007.01.014
