A comprehensive study published in the esteemed journal CANCER provides illuminating insights into the evolving landscape of opioid prescribing for adult cancer patients within a large health system in Connecticut. Covering the years 2016 through 2020, this research meticulously examines the nuanced trends related to how opioids are dispensed to patients newly diagnosed with cancer who had no prior history of opioid use. The analysis reveals a moderate yet significant decline in both initial and follow-up opioid prescriptions, underscoring the intricate balance clinicians must strike amidst the ongoing opioid epidemic and the imperative of effective cancer pain management.
The opioid crisis has precipitated robust public health responses designed to curtail inappropriate opioid use, aiming to mitigate risks such as opioid use disorder and overdose fatalities. However, policies implemented to address this national emergency may unintentionally hamper access to necessary analgesic therapies in vulnerable populations, particularly among cancer patients. Pain management in oncology remains a critical component of patient care, and any reduction in opioid availability carries the risk of suboptimal symptom control and decreased quality of life.
To parse out prescribing patterns in this complex clinical scenario, investigators utilized comprehensive healthcare data for over 10,000 adult patients, focusing on those without prior opioid prescriptions and newly diagnosed with cancer between 2016 and 2020. They operationally defined “new opioid prescriptions” as those issued within the first six months following cancer diagnosis. Additionally, “additional prescriptions” encompassed opioid orders issued both within the initial six months and between months seven to nine post-diagnosis, providing a longitudinal perspective on opioid use as patients progressed through various stages of cancer treatment.
Their findings documented a discernible decline in new opioid prescribing, decreasing from 71.1% in 2016 to 64.6% in 2020. Similarly, the proportion of patients receiving additional opioid prescriptions dropped modestly from 27.2% to 24.2% over the same period. Among the subset of patients undergoing cancer-directed surgery, initial opioid prescribing decreased more markedly, from a striking 96.0% to 88.6%, though additional opioid prescribing remained relatively stable at around 13%. These data points suggest a cautious yet judicious approach by clinicians in the immediate postoperative period and subsequent recovery phases.
The analysis further stratified patients with metastatic cancer according to their self-reported pain status, revealing critical distinctions in prescribing behavior. For metastatic patients reporting pain, new opioid prescribing remained constant at approximately 56%, indicating sustained attention to analgesia in symptomatic individuals. Conversely, new opioid prescribing steeply declined among metastatic patients who reported no pain, decreasing from 61.6% to 36.1%, reflecting an acute sensitivity to clinical context and patient-reported symptoms when making analgesic decisions.
This study’s lead author, Dr. Laura Van Metre Baum, MD, MPH, formerly affiliated with the Yale School of Medicine and currently at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, emphasized the delicate equilibrium clinicians must achieve. “The treatment of cancer-related pain amid the ongoing opioid epidemic is complicated,” Dr. Van Metre Baum remarked. The findings provide reassurance that observed declines in opioid prescribing largely mirror nuanced clinical judgment rather than indiscriminate reductions. Nonetheless, she highlighted continuing challenges in guaranteeing consistent and adequate pain control for all cancer patients, signaling an urgent need for refined strategies and guidelines.
From a clinical pharmacology perspective, this research underscores the relevance of individualized pain assessment and the integration of patient-reported outcomes in guiding opioid management. The differential prescribing trends based on pain reporting in metastatic disease highlight a paradigm where therapeutic decisions are increasingly tailored to objective and subjective illness parameters. Such an approach aligns with contemporary frameworks emphasizing precision medicine and risk-benefit optimization in analgesic stewardship.
Moreover, the decline in opioid prescribing also invites deeper exploration of alternative analgesic modalities and multimodal pain management strategies that may be gaining traction as adjuncts or substitutes in oncology care. Non-opioid pharmacotherapies, interventional techniques, and integrative practices may be contributing to these evolving trends, although the study’s scope primarily centers on opioid utilization metrics rather than the broader analgesic armamentarium.
The potential consequences of these shifts resonate beyond pharmacologic quantities; under-treatment of cancer-related pain can precipitate profound detriments in functional status, psychological well-being, and treatment adherence. Maintaining access to effective pain relief while minimizing risks of opioid misuse remains a formidable clinical and societal challenge, demanding ongoing surveillance and adaptive policy frameworks responsive to emerging evidence.
This research also spotlights the broader implications of health policy intersecting with clinical practice. As regulatory bodies and health institutions establish parameters to reduce opioid prescribing, continuous evaluation of these policies’ impacts on specific patient cohorts — like those with cancer — becomes essential. The data advocate for policies that maintain flexibility, enabling clinicians to exercise informed discretion grounded in comprehensive patient assessments.
In summary, this study delivers pivotal, evidence-based insights into opioid prescribing trends among adult cancer patients, illustrating a gradual but thoughtful reduction in opioid use aligned with patient-reported pain levels and clinical contexts. It confirms that reductions in opioid prescriptions are not uniform but instead reflect tailored clinical decision-making, a crucial consideration in minimizing harm while preserving compassionate cancer pain management.
The publication of these findings in CANCER journal, a peer-reviewed outlet of the American Cancer Society, furthers the discourse on optimizing cancer pain therapies in a multidimensional healthcare environment shaped by both public health imperatives and individualized patient needs. Future research will be critical to delineate best practices, integrate novel therapeutics, and balance patient safety with quality of life in cancer care.
Subject of Research: Trends in opioid prescribing and pain assessment among adult cancer patients
Article Title: Opioid prescribing trends and pain scores among adult patients with cancer in a large health system
News Publication Date: 22-Sep-2025
Web References:
https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.70027
https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10970142
References:
Van Metre Baum L, Soulos PR, KC M, Jeffery MM, Ruddy KJ, Lerro CC, Lee H, Graham DJ, Rivera DR, Liberatore M, Leapman MS, Jairam V, Dinan MA, Gross CP, Park HS. Opioid prescribing trends and pain scores among adult patients with cancer in a large health system. CANCER. Published online September 22, 2025. doi:10.1002/cncr.70027
Keywords: Opioids, Cancer, Pain management, Opioid prescribing trends, Cancer-related pain, Metastatic cancer, Cancer surgery, Public health policy, Opioid epidemic, Clinical pharmacology, Pain assessment, Analgesic stewardship
Tags: balancing pain management and opioid safetycancer pain management strategieseffective pain relief for cancer patientshealthcare data analysis in oncologyopioid crisis impact on cancer careopioid management in oncologyopioid policy implications for cancer treatmentopioid prescribing trends in cancer patientsopioid use disorder in cancer patientspatient care challenges in opioid prescribingpublic health response to opioid epidemictrends in analgesic prescriptions
