Urine Drug Testing at an Ambulatory Pain Clinic in Patients Receiving Opioids for Cancer Pain

Importance: Urine drug test (UDT) can help screen and monitor aberrant controlled substance use among patients requiring opioid therapy for cancer pain. However, data on UDT utilization in patients with cancer pain remains limited. Objective: To determine the rate of UDT ordering and the factors associated with UDT order placement and the frequency and type of abnormal UDT findings. Methods: This retrospective study included adults (≥18 yrs) with a cancer diagnosis receiving prescription opioids for pain in an ambulatory pain clinic from November 2017 through April 2018. Descriptive statistics summarized patient characteristics and UDT findings. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with UDT ordering. Results: Five hundred fifty-eight patients were included in the study; the median age was 61 years, 52% were female, 74% were White, and 93% had active cancer. One hundred forty-one patients (25%) had UDT orders. On multivariate analysis, UDT ordering was associated with SOAPP-14 score ≥ 7 (OR, 2.03 95% CI 1.19–3.47 p = 0.009) and a history of substance use disorder (OR, 2.87 95% CI: 1.39–5.75 p = 0.004). Among those tested, 49 (35%) had abnormal results. A total of 80 abnormalities were identified, with some UDTs showing multiple findings; the most common was the absence of prescribed opioids (48%). Conclusions: Only one in four patients receiving opioids in an ambulatory cancer pain clinic received a UDT order, suggesting a more selective rather than routine use. UDT ordering was more common among patients with a SOAPP-14 score ≥ 7 and a history of substance use disorder. Among patients who underwent UDT, approximately one-third had abnormal results, with the absence of prescribed opioids or their expected metabolites being the most common finding. These findings suggest that UDT may provide important clinically relevant information as a component of comprehensive opioid monitoring. Further research is needed to establish evidence-based approaches to UDT implementation that promote consistent opioid safety practices.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancers
Published
2026-09-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18193068
Primary Topic
Pain Management and Opioid Use
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Urine Drug Testing at an Ambulatory Pain Clinic in Patients Receiving Opioids for Cancer Pain

Akhila Sunkepally Reddy, Min Ji Kim, Sriram Yennu, Eduardo D Bruera et al.
Cancers
Pain Management and Opioid Use
article

Urine Drug Testing at an Ambulatory Pain Clinic in Patients Receiving Opioids for Cancer Pain

Akhila Sunkepally Reddy, Min Ji Kim, Sriram Yennu, Eduardo D Bruera, Jaya Amaram‐Davila, Joseph Anthony Arthur, Varsha Pawate, Sonal Admane, Reaundra McCullough‐Roach, Dhanalakshmi Koyyalagunta, Rosheni Kandaswamy, Lei Feng, Ali Mehdi Rizvi, Larry Driver
article en

Abstract

Importance: Urine drug test (UDT) can help screen and monitor aberrant controlled substance use among patients requiring opioid therapy for cancer pain. However, data on UDT utilization in patients with cancer pain remains limited. Objective: To determine the rate of UDT ordering and the factors associated with UDT order placement and the frequency and type of abnormal UDT findings. Methods: This retrospective study included adults (≥18 yrs) with a cancer diagnosis receiving prescription opioids for pain in an ambulatory pain clinic from November 2017 through April 2018. Descriptive statistics summarized patient characteristics and UDT findings. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with UDT ordering. Results: Five hundred fifty-eight patients were included in the study; the median age was 61 years, 52% were female, 74% were White, and 93% had active cancer. One hundred forty-one patients (25%) had UDT orders. On multivariate analysis, UDT ordering was associated with SOAPP-14 score ≥ 7 (OR, 2.03 95% CI 1.19–3.47 p = 0.009) and a history of substance use disorder (OR, 2.87 95% CI: 1.39–5.75 p = 0.004). Among those tested, 49 (35%) had abnormal results. A total of 80 abnormalities were identified, with some UDTs showing multiple findings; the most common was the absence of prescribed opioids (48%). Conclusions: Only one in four patients receiving opioids in an ambulatory cancer pain clinic received a UDT order, suggesting a more selective rather than routine use. UDT ordering was more common among patients with a SOAPP-14 score ≥ 7 and a history of substance use disorder. Among patients who underwent UDT, approximately one-third had abnormal results, with the absence of prescribed opioids or their expected metabolites being the most common finding. These findings suggest that UDT may provide important clinically relevant information as a component of comprehensive opioid monitoring. Further research is needed to establish evidence-based approaches to UDT implementation that promote consistent opioid safety practices.

CancersVol. 18(19)
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US), University of California, Davis (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Pain Management and Opioid Use
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.