ReviewWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2018
Methadone as anticancer treatment: hype, hope, or hazard? : A series of case reports and a short review of the current literature and recommendations of the societies.
Review in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anesthesia and cancer.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024Article
- Mapping the Evidence for Opioid-Mediated Changes in Malignancy and Chemotherapeutic Efficacy: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Anaesthesia as an influence in tumour progression.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Review
- Methadone does not potentiate the effect of doxorubicin in canine tumour cell lines.Veterinary medicine and science · 2020Article
- Against Repurposing Methadone for Glioblastoma Therapy.Biomolecules · 2020Review
- Time to initiate randomized controlled clinical trials with methadone in cancer patients.F1000Research · 2019Article
- Methadone in Cancer Pain.Indian journal of palliative careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, the use of methadone in cancer patients has increased due to in vitro studies indicating that methadone is capable of inducing cell death. However, thus far there are no relevant clinical studies indicating that the use of methadone can prolong survival in cancer patients. Based on low-quality evidence, methadone is a drug that has similar analgesic benefits to morphine and has a role in the management of cancer pain in adults. Other opioids such as morphine, hydromorphone, and fentanyl are easier to manage but may be more expensive than methadone in many economies. Methadone is an opioid that is only approved for replacement therapy in Austria. Methadone can be used as a second- or third-line agent for severe cancer-related pain, but its use should be restricted to experts. Here we report a series of cases of patients who developed problems when using methadone as an antitumor treatment, with a brief review on the role of methadone as a pain medication and the current lack of value as an anti-tumor therapy. Methadone is not approved or recommended as an anticancer treatment in Austria or Germany. The Austrian Association for Hemato-oncology (OeGHO), the Austrian Association for the Management of Pain (ÖSG), and the Austrian Association for Palliative Care (OPG) do not recommend the use of methadone as an anticancer treatment. Thus, from a medical and ethical point of view, the use of methadone as an antitumor therapy is to be rejected, based on the views of various Austrian (OeGHO, ÖSG, OPG) and German specialists. Unqualified use of methadone by nonexperienced pain therapists is dangerous and must also be rejected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.