ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Substance use monitoring in supportive oncology: surveillance is not a clinical outcome, and policing is not a therapeutic framework.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sousa and colleagues recently published a review of substance use in supportive oncology ostensibly addressing its impact on clinical outcomes. The paper is substantively a monitoring review; no clinical outcomes data are presented or analyzed. I identify 11 domains of concern: (1) the title's unmet promise of outcomes evidence; (2) the conflation of complex opioid dependence with addiction; (3) the absence of demonstrated benefit from opioid monitoring in cancer populations; (4) the poor diagnostic accuracy of risk screening instruments as quantified by likelihood ratio analysis; (5) regulatory and guideline prohibitions against opioid discontinuation or practice dismissal on the basis of aberrant urine drug screens; (6) the systematic inadequacy of clinician competence in urine drug screen interpretation; (7) an unfavorable cost-benefit ratio for universal surveillance in supportive oncology; (8) the stigmatizing effect of universal screening and its contribution to disparities in cancer pain management; (9) the failure to distinguish patients with advanced cancer from cancer survivors, populations with fundamentally different risk horizons and therapeutic priorities; (10) the risk that evidence-free monitoring recommendations will propagate into institutional policy and payer requirements, generating measurable financial toxicity without demonstrated clinical return; and (11) the absence of any management pathway for positive screening results - a logical incompleteness that renders the entire surveillance framework clinically inoperable, since neither dismissal from practice nor opioid discontinuation is appropriate in most circumstances, and an absent opioid on UDS does not constitute evidence of diversion in isolation. I argue that the dominant failure mode in oncology opioid management is undertreatment, not diversion, and that any framework proposing expanded surveillance must first demonstrate that it does not worsen this problem.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42412233What 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.