Cancer patients' experiences with medicinal cannabis-related care

Experiences and Comfort of Young Cancer Patients Discussing Cannabis with Their Providers: Insights from a Survey at an NCI-Designated Cancer Center

Cannabis use among cancer patients for managing treatment-related symptoms is increasing, yet little is known about patterns in patient-provider communication. This study examines demographic differences in cannabis use communication at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. The analysis included cancer patients aged ≥ 18 years who self-reported current cannabis use (past 30 days) and had visited Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center within the past 5 years (N = 226). Data were collected via an anonymous electronic survey on REDCap. Responses on patients' disclosure of cannabis use to cancer doctor/care team and their comfort in discussing cannabis were analyzed. Chi-squared/Fisher's exact tests and t-tests were applied. Logistic regression estimated the associations between age and stage of cancer treatment with patients' comfort in discussing cannabis use with cancer doctor (oncologist). The sample was 51.8% male and 39.4% Hispanic (mean age, 45.9 years (SD = 15.1)); 41.1% were aged 20-39 years, 43.8% were undergoing treatment, and 35.4% were in follow-up/had finished treatment. Over half (50.4%) did not disclose cannabis use to their cancer doctor/care team. Non-disclosers were more often younger (20-39 years) than disclosers (52.6% vs. 29.5%, p < 0.01). Most patients (72.5%) felt comfortable discussing cannabis use with their oncologist; however, younger patients (20-39 years) were more often uncomfortable (40.8%). Logistic regression showed newly diagnosed patients had lower odds (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.12-0.98) of comfort discussing cannabis compared to those in follow-up/finished treatment. Younger patients (20-39 years) also had lower odds (aOR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03-0.40) of feeling comfortable discussing cannabis compared to older patients (≥ 60 years). Age and treatment stage significantly impact the cannabis use disclosure and comfort in discussing it with cancer doctor/care team. These findings underscore the importance of considering age-related factors and treatment status when addressing cannabis use discussions within oncology setting.

State of the Science: Health Care Provider Communication of Cannabis Use Among Adults Living with Cancer

Despite medicinal cannabis gaining popularity for managing symptoms in cancer patients, a knowledge gap exists in patient-provider communication crucial for monitoring outcomes, optimizing dosing, and educating healthcare providers to integrate cannabis into treatment plans. Our goal is to understand communication dynamics, identify gaps, and pave the way for effective cannabis communication for individuals living with cancer (PLWC). We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and EBSCO for articles published between 2013 and July 2023, capturing the key concepts of cannabis use in cancer patients and their communication with healthcare providers in oncology settings. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guided the review. Studies were appraised by applying the Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare Professionals. Of the 2384 articles reviewed, 14 met the inclusion criteria. Three were qualitative studies, and 11 were cross-sectional surveys. All studies were level III evidence. Studies captured patients' and providers' perspectives; five were conducted among cancer patients, and nine were among healthcare providers in oncology settings. Findings revealed variations in healthcare provider recommendations, patient-initiated discussions, and barriers to discussing medical cannabis (MC). The synthesis of this evidence highlights the complexities surrounding MC in oncology settings, including knowledge gaps among healthcare providers, patient-initiated discussions, and challenges in accessing and prescribing medicinal cannabis. This review contributes valuable insights into the current landscape of MC use in cancer care, emphasizing the need for improved communication, education, and support for both patients and healthcare providers.

Patient-provider communication about the use of medical cannabis for cancer symptoms: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

There has been limited study regarding patient-provider communication about medical cannabis for cancer symptom management. To address this gap, this study assesses the determinants and prevalence of patient-provider communication about the use of medical cannabis for cancer symptoms at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center.

METHODS

Individuals who completed cancer treatment from July 2017 to December 2019 were invited to participate in a survey regarding medical cannabis. An electronic survey was administered in English and Spanish from August to November 2021 and completed by 1592 individuals (response rate = 17.6%).

RESULTS

About one-third (33.5%) of participants reported discussing medical cannabis for cancer symptom management with a health-care provider. Controlling for other factors, individuals with malnutrition and/or cachexia had higher odds (odds ratio [OR] = 2.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.50 to 3.53) of reporting patient-provider discussions compared with individuals without malnutrition and/or cachexia. Similarly, individuals with nausea had higher odds (OR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.44 to 2.61) of reporting patient-provider discussions compared with individuals without nausea. A smaller percentage (15.6%) of participants reported receiving a recommendation for medical cannabis for cancer symptom management. Among individuals who reported using cannabis, a little over one-third (36.1%) reported not receiving instructions from anyone on how to use cannabis or determine how much to take.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our study suggests that patient-provider communication about medical cannabis for cancer symptom management is limited. As interest and use of medical cannabis continues to grow among cancer patients, there is a need to ensure patients have access to high quality patient-provider communication.

'The wild west of medicine': A qualitative investigation of the factors influencing Australian health-care practitioners' delivery of medicinal cannabis

INTRODUCTION

Strong patient interest in the use of medicinal cannabis to treat various clinical indications has sparked global legislative changes. Practitioners are vital in implementing regulatory changes and facilitating patient access to medicinal cannabis, however, little is currently known about the factors influencing practitioners' uptake. Recent rapid increases in practitioner applications to prescribe medicinal cannabis in Australia provides a unique backdrop to examine the current factors influencing prescribing behaviours. This qualitative study examined Australian practitioners' perspectives on prescribing medicinal cannabis to provide a comprehensive exploration of the potential factors influencing uptake in clinical practice.

METHODS

Seventeen semi-structured interviews were conducted with Australian health-care practitioners. Transcripts were analysed using the Framework approach to thematic analysis and cross-mapped to appropriate domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework.

RESULTS

We identified four themes related to the barriers and facilitators to prescribing medicinal cannabis: (i) clinical capabilities needed to prescribe; (ii) prescribing an unapproved therapeutic good; (iii) negative attitudes towards prescribers in the medical community; and (iv) divergent beliefs about clinical utility.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Practitioners face multiple pervasive barriers to prescribing medicinal cannabis. Beliefs about clinical utility appear to be highly influential in shaping prescribing behaviours. Moreover, our findings suggest that a medicinal cannabis 'specialisation' has emerged within the Australian medical community. Findings demonstrate that a range of complex and multifaceted factors influence practitioners' medicinal cannabis prescribing behaviours. We highlight several considerations for policy and practice to support safe and appropriate patient access to medicinal cannabis in this emerging area of clinical practice.

Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Adults With Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To guide clinicians, adults with cancer, caregivers, researchers, and oncology institutions on the medical use of cannabis and cannabinoids, including synthetic cannabinoids and herbal cannabis derivatives; single, purified cannabinoids; combinations of cannabis ingredients; and full-spectrum cannabis.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and cohort studies on the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids when used by adults with cancer. Outcomes of interest included antineoplastic effects, cancer treatment toxicity, symptoms, and quality of life. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to January 27, 2023. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

The evidence base consisted of 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies (four RCTs and one cohort study). The certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Cannabis and/or cannabinoid access and use by adults with cancer has outpaced the science supporting their clinical use. This guideline provides strategies for open, nonjudgmental communication between clinicians and adults with cancer about the use of cannabis and/or cannabinoids. Clinicians should recommend against using cannabis or cannabinoids as a cancer-directed treatment unless within the context of a clinical trial. Cannabis and/or cannabinoids may improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens. Whether cannabis and/or cannabinoids can improve other supportive care outcomes remains uncertain. This guideline also highlights the critical need for more cannabis and/or cannabinoid research.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Stigma, risks, and benefits of medicinal cannabis use among Australians with cancer

PURPOSE

People with cancer who use medicinal cannabis do so despite risks associated with limited clinical evidence, legalities, and stigma. This study investigated how Australians with cancer rationalise their medicinal cannabis use despite its risks.

METHODS

Ten adults (5 males and 5 females; mean age of 53.3) who used cannabis medicinally for their cancer were interviewed in 2021-2022 about how they used and accessed the substance, attitudes and beliefs underpinning their use, and conversations with others about medicinal cannabis.

RESULTS

Participants had cancer of the bowel, skin, oesophagus, stomach, thyroid, breast, and Hodgkin lymphoma for which they were receiving treatment (n = 5) or under surveillance (n = 5), with most (n = 6) encountering metastatic disease. Cannabis was used to treat a variety of cancer-related symptoms such as pain, poor sleep, and low mood. Cannabis was perceived as natural and thus less risky than pharmaceuticals. Participants legitimised their medicinal cannabis use by emphasising its natural qualities and distancing themselves from problematic users or riskier substances. Cost barriers and a lack of healthcare professional communication impeded prescription access. Similarly, participants navigated medicinal cannabis use independently due to a lack of guidance from healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSION

Findings highlight the need for robust data regarding the harms and efficacy of medicinal cannabis and dissemination of such information among healthcare professionals and to patients who choose to use the substance. Ensuring healthcare professionals are equipped to provide non-judgmental and evidence-based guidance may mitigate potential safety and legal risks.

Self-reported knowledge of tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol concentration in cannabis products among cancer patients and survivors

PURPOSE

Cannabis use may introduce risks and/or benefits among people living with cancer, depending on product type, composition, and nature of its use. Patient knowledge of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol (CBD) concentration could provide information for providers about cannabis use during and after treatment that may aide in risk and benefit assessments. This study aimed to examine knowledge of THC or CBD concentration among patients living with cancer who consume cannabis, and factors associated with knowledge of cannabinoid concentrations.

METHODS

People living with cancer who consumed cannabis since their diagnosis (n = 343) completed an anonymous, mixed-mode survey. Questions assessed usual mode of delivery (MOD), knowledge of THC/CBD concentration, and how source of acquisition, current cannabis use, and source of instruction are associated with knowledge of THC/CBD concentration. Chi-square and separate binary logistic regression analyses were examined and weighted to reflect the Roswell Park patient population.

RESULTS

Less than 20% of people living with cancer had knowledge of THC and CBD concentration for the cannabis products they consumed across all MOD (smoking- combustible products, vaping- vaporized products (e-cigarettes), edibles-eating or drinking it, and oral- taking by mouth (pills)). Source of acquisition (smoking-AOR:4.6, p < 0.01, vaping-AOR:5.8, p < 0.00, edibles-AOR:2.6, p < 0.04), current cannabis use (edibles-AOR:5.4, p < 0.01, vaping-AOR: 11.2, p < 0.00, and oral-AOR:9.3, p < 0.00), and source of instruction (vaping only AOR:4.2, p < 0.05) were found to be variables associated with higher knowledge of THC concentration.

CONCLUSION

Self-reported knowledge of THC and CBD concentration statistically differed according to MOD, source of acquisition, source of instruction, and current cannabis use.

Cannabis consumption in young adults with cancer: descriptive study

OBJECTIVE

In the USA, the increase in state-sanctioned medical and recreational cannabis consumption means more young adults (YA) with cancer are using cannabis. Data and information are needed to characterise this use and frame much needed discussions about the role of cannabis in cancer care. To that end, this study's objective was to describe consumption of cannabis in YA with cancer.

METHODS

Four hundred seventy-six patients with cancer ages 18-39 years at a large comprehensive cancer centre responded to a survey about their cannabis consumption. The survey was administered online between July 2019 and June 2020, and respondents were anonymous.

RESULTS

Fifty-two per cent (n=247) of respondents endorsed use within the last year; of these, half reported using cannabis prior to their diagnosis. Consumption was about equally distributed between smoking/inhalation and eating/drinking cannabis products. Seventy-five per cent of consumers used cannabis at least weekly. Top five primary reasons for use were pain, anxiety, nausea, sleep and recreation. More frequent consumption was associated with greater perceived improvement in certain symptoms. Cannabis products tended to be sourced from friends and family and information from non-medical sources. Most YA reported being comfortable discussing their consumption with providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Many YA are using cannabis frequently to manage their cancer-related and treatment-related symptoms. Findings support the need for providers to consider cannabis use in treatment planning and symptom management with YA. Findings should help frame patient and provider discussions and herald much needed research on the effect of cannabis consumption on patient outcomes.

Dispensary personnel's views and experiences regarding oncologic cannabis and the counsel they offer adults with cancer

BACKGROUND

A minority of oncologists feel qualified to advise adults with cancer on issues pertaining to medicinal cannabis. Adults with cancer frequently access medicinal cannabis information from non-medical sources such as cannabis dispensaries. We explored dispensary personnel's views and experiences regarding oncologic cannabis and the counsel they extend individuals with cancer.

METHODS

Snowball sampling in this qualitative study facilitated recruitment across 13 states (N = 26). Semi-structured phone interviews ceased with thematic saturation. A multi-stage thematic analysis combined inductive and deductive codes.

RESULTS

Of the 26 dispensary personnel interviewed, 54% identified as female and 19% as non-white. Median age was 40 years. A consensus emerged among participants concerning the botanical's efficacy for cancer-related symptoms; less so regarding its antineoplastic potential. Principles for serving those with cancer included provision of client-centered, symptom-based, and trial-and-error approaches. Non-inhalation modes of administration were generally recommended. No consensus was reached as to whether delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinal (THC)- or cannabidiol-predominant products were preferable in this population. Challenges in oncologic advising included successfully identifying individuals with cancer at the dispensary counter, financial toxicity, the special treatment required for the THC-naïve, and operating in the absence of standardized guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

These informed assertions suggest that members of the oncologic community should grapple with the extent to which they feel comfortable with both the nature and degree of counsel adults with cancer receive through dispensaries.

Use of Medical Cannabis by Patients With Cancer: Attitudes, Knowledge, and Practice

CONTEXT

Demand for medical cannabis (MC) is growing among Israeli patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES

The study sought to assess factors contributing to the demand for MC among patients with cancer.

METHODS

Patients applying for a permit to receive MC at a pain and palliative clinic of a university-affiliated cancer center in Israel in 2020-2021 were asked to complete self-report questionnaires assessing attitudes, knowledge, and expectations regarding MC use. Findings were compared between first-time and repeat applicants. Repeat applicants were asked to report their indications for requesting MC, patterns of use, and treatment effect.

RESULTS

The cohort included 146 patients: 63 first-time applicants and 83 repeat applicants. First-time applicants were more likely to consult sources other than their oncologist for MC-related information (P < 0.01) and expressed more concern about addiction (P < 0.001) and side effects (P < 0.05). They often erroneously assumed the treatment was subsidized (P < 0.001). Repeat applicants were younger (P < 0.05) and included more smokers (P < 0.05) and recreational cannabis users (P < 0.05); 56.6% were cancer survivors and 78% used high-potency MC. Most patients believed to some degree that MC is more effective than conventional medications for symptom control, and over half thought that MC helps to cure cancer.

CONCLUSION

Misconceptions regarding the effectiveness of MC for symptom management and treatment may explain the motivation of patients with cancer to apply for a permit. There seems to be an association of young age, cigarette smoking, and recreational cannabis use with ongoing use of MC among cancer survivors.

Cannabis use among cancer survivors in 22 states: Results from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2020

BACKGROUND

This study identified factors associated with recent cannabis use and cannabis use for medical purposes among cancer survivors relative to individuals without a history of cancer.

METHODS

Data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were analyzed for the 22 states completing the optional cannabis module in 2020. Weighted multiple logistic regression was performed to explore variables associated with past 30-day cannabis use and cannabis use for medical purposes, stratified by history of cancer. Covariates included state-level cannabis policy, sociodemographic characteristics, health status indicators, and substance use.

RESULTS

Cannabis use was lower among cancer survivors compared to individuals with no history of cancer (7.57% vs. 10.83%). However, a higher proportion of cancer survivors reported use for medical purposes (82.23% vs. 62.58%). After adjusting for state-level policy, biological sex, age, educational attainment, self-reported race/ethnicity, home ownership, mental health status and physical health status, current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 5.14 vs. 3.74) and binge drinking (OR, 2.71 vs. 2.69) were associated with cannabis use in both groups. Characteristics associated with medical cannabis use varied for the two groups; however, daily use (20-30 days; OR, 1.72 vs. 2.43) was associated with cannabis use for medical purposes in both groups after adjusting for other variables in the model.

CONCLUSIONS

A high proportion of individuals report cannabis use for medical purposes with higher rates among cancer survivors. Findings support the urgent need for ongoing cannabis research to better understand and inform its use for medical purposes, as well as the development of high-quality standardized education materials and clinical practice guidelines.

Cannabis use in gynecologic cancer patients in a Canadian cancer center

Objective

The primary objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of cannabis use in patients with gynecologic malignancies and to describe patterns of cannabis use. Secondary objectives included identifying sources of cannabis information used by patients.

Methods

This is a single institution cross sectional survey conducted in Calgary, Alberta. Patients with a current or prior gynecologic cancer diagnosis were considered for inclusion. Planned analysis included descriptive statistics of patient demographics, and the patterns of cannabis use were described using frequencies and proportions.

Results

Forty-six patients participated in the survey. The most common disease sites were ovarian cancer and uterine cancer, with the majority of patients receiving chemotherapy as part of their treatment (n = 35). Seventeen participants were current cannabis users (37%). The most common symptoms participants used cannabis for were pain (9/17), anxiety (9/17), and insomnia (9/17).Most patients using cannabis did not have a prescription and obtained their cannabis from a recreational dispensary (11/17). Many participants using cannabis had not talked to their doctor about cannabis (9/17). Instead, the most common sources of information about cannabis were cannabis retailers (20/46), and friends/family (20/46). Over 50% of patients would be interested in discussing cannabis if their physician broached the subject (26/46).

Conclusions

The results from this survey indicate that patients would like to talk to their oncologist about cannabis. Further research is needed to inform physician training and direct patient education to ensure that patients have access to unbiased, evidence-based information to make decisions about cannabis use.

Cannabidiol and Cannabis Sativa as a potential treatment in vitro prostate cancer cells silenced with RBBp6 and PC3 xenograft

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the second most frequently occurring carcinoma in males worldwide and one of the leading causes of death in men around the world. Recent studies estimate that over 1.4 million males are diagnosed with prostate cancer on an annual basis, with approximately 375,000 succumbing to the disease annually. With current treatments continuing to show severe side effects, there is a need for new treatments. In this study we looked at the effect of cannabis sativa extract, cannabidiol and cisplatin on prostate cancer cells, PC3.

METHODS

In addressing the above questions, we employed the MTT assay to measure the antiproliferative effect on PC3 cells following treatment with varying concentrations of Cannabis sativa extract, cisplatin and cannabidiol. xCELLigence was also used to confirm the IC50 activity in which cells were grown in a 16 well plate coated with gold and monitor cell attachment. Caspase 3/7 activity was also measured using 96 well-plate following treatment. Western-blot and qRT-PCR was also used to measure the gene expression of tumour suppressor genes, p53, Bax and Bcl2. Animal studies were employed to measure the growth of PC3-mouse derived cancer to evaluate the effect of compounds in vivo.

RESULTS

From the treatment with varying concentrations of Cannabis sativa extract, cannabidiol and cisplatin, we have observed that the three compounds induced antiproliferation of PC3 cancer cell lines through the activation of caspase 3/7 activity. We also observed induction of apoptosis in these cells following silencing of retinoblastoma binding protein 6 (RBBP6), with upregulation of p53 and bax mRNA expression, and a reduction in Bcl2 gene expression. The growth of tumours in the mouse models were reduced following treatment with cisplatin and cannabidiol.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that cannabidiol is a viable therapy to treat prostate cancer cells, in combination with silencing of RBBP6. This suggests that cannabidiol rather Cannabis sativa extract may play an important role in reducing cancer progression.

Using Social Media Data to Investigate Public Perceptions of Cannabis as a Medicine: Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

The use and acceptance of medicinal cannabis is on the rise across the globe. To support the interests of public health, evidence relating to its use, effects, and safety is required to match this community demand. Web-based user-generated data are often used by researchers and public health organizations for the investigation of consumer perceptions, market forces, population behaviors, and for pharmacoepidemiology.

OBJECTIVE

In this review, we aimed to summarize the findings of studies that have used user-generated text as a data source to study medicinal cannabis or the use of cannabis as medicine. Our objectives were to categorize the insights provided by social media research on cannabis as medicine and describe the role of social media for consumers using medicinal cannabis.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria for this review were primary research studies and reviews that reported on the analysis of web-based user-generated content on cannabis as medicine. The MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched from January 1974 to April 2022.

RESULTS

We examined 42 studies published in English and found that consumers value their ability to exchange experiences on the web and tend to rely on web-based information sources. Cannabis discussions have portrayed the substance as a safe and natural medicine to help with many health conditions including cancer, sleep disorders, chronic pain, opioid use disorders, headaches, asthma, bowel disease, anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. These discussions provide a rich resource for researchers to investigate medicinal cannabis-related consumer sentiment and experiences, including the opportunity to monitor cannabis effects and adverse events, given the anecdotal and often biased nature of the information is properly accounted for.

CONCLUSIONS

The extensive web-based presence of the cannabis industry coupled with the conversational nature of social media discourse results in rich but potentially biased information that is often not well-supported by scientific evidence. This review summarizes what social media is saying about the medicinal use of cannabis and discusses the challenges faced by health governance agencies and professionals to make use of web-based resources to both learn from medicinal cannabis users and provide factual, timely, and reliable evidence-based health information to consumers.

Medical cannabis-related stigma: cancer survivors’ perspectives

Background

Although the vast majority of medical cannabis laws in the USA includes cancer as a qualifying condition and medical cannabis-related stigma influences decision-making regarding the botanical, few studies have explored the phenomenon in oncology. Early findings indicated oncologic cannabis-related stigma to be quite widespread.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with 24 adults with cancer histories using medical cannabis were analyzed using the Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework.

Results

Sixteen out of 24 participants discussed medical cannabis-related stigma in some depth. The phenomena emerged as more pervasive in medical than personal/professional domains and was internalized as well as experienced directly. It led some participants, but not others, to practice partial or complete secrecy.

Discussion

Taken together, our findings suggest that, while medical cannabis-related stigma remains widespread and led some study participants to alter behavior, an early shift in ethos towards greater medical cannabis acceptance could be underway. If so, this transition may be occurring more rapidly in non-medical than in clinical settings.

Conclusion

Cancer survivors may experience heightened medical cannabis-related stigma in the clinic as compared to their personal/professional lives. Healthcare providers who depend on patient transparency when gathering medical histories and devising care plans may wish to neutralize perceptions of medical cannabis-related stigma.

Oncology Fellows' Clinical Discussions, Perceived Knowledge, and Formal Training Regarding Medical Cannabis Use: A National Survey Study

PURPOSE

Evidence suggests that patients with cancer frequently use cannabis with medicinal intent and desire clinical guidance from providers. We aimed to determine whether oncology training adequately prepares fellows to discuss medical cannabis.

METHODS

A national survey study was conducted from January to March 2021. A questionnaire assessing oncology fellows' practices regarding cannabis recommendations in cancer care and their knowledge of its effectiveness and risks compared with conventional care for cancer-related symptoms was developed and sent to 155 US-based oncology training programs to distribute to trainees.

RESULTS

Forty programs from 25 states participated; of the 462 trainees across these programs, 189 responded (response rate of 40%). Of the participants, 52% were female; 52% were White, 33% Asian, and 5% Hispanic. Fifty-seven percent reported that they discussed medical cannabis with more than five patients in the preceding year; however, only 13% felt sufficiently informed to issue cannabis-related clinical recommendations. Twenty-four percent reported having received formal training regarding medical cannabis. Oncology fellows who reported having received prior training in medical cannabis were significantly more likely to discuss cannabis with patients (risk ratio: 1.37, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.75; P = .002) and feel sufficiently informed to discuss cannabis recommendations (risk ratio: 5.06; 95% CI, 2.33 to 10.99; P < .001). Many viewed the botanical as a useful adjunctive therapy that was at least as effective as conventional treatments for anorexia/cachexia (72%), nausea/vomiting (45%), and pain (41%).

CONCLUSION

Most oncology trainees not only reported engaging in discussions regarding medical cannabis with patients but also considered themselves insufficiently informed to make cannabis-related clinical recommendations. The discrepancy between the frequency of cannabis inquiries/discussions at the patient level and comfort/knowledge at the trainee provider level represents an unmet curricular need with implications for both graduate medical education and patient care.

Backgrounds and Trainings in Cannabis Therapeutics of Dispensary Personnel

PURPOSE

A growing body of scientific research indicates that oncology teams tend to offer individuals with cancer little clinical advice regarding medicinal cannabis (MC) and that individuals with cancer instead turn to cannabis dispensaries for MC guidance. Our objective was to investigate dispensary personnel's backgrounds and trainings in MC advising.

METHODS

The study design was semistructured interviews across 13 states with cannabis dispensary personnel in managerial or client-facing positions. Of 38 recruited, 26 (68%) completed interview. The primary outcome was training in MC advising. Researchers targeted thematic saturation and adhered to Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research.

RESULTS

Of 26 participants, 54% were female, with an average age of 40 (range: 22-64) years. Half worked in client-facing roles; half worked in managerial ones. Study participants endorsed passionate commitment to their profession, often motivated by personal experience with MC therapeutics. Cannabis dispensaries often privileged sales skills over cannabis therapeutics knowledge when hiring, resulting in uneven baseline levels of cannabis therapeutics expertise among staff. Most participants reported workplace cannabis therapeutics training to be unstandardized and weak. They described dispensary personnel as resourceful in pursuing cannabis knowledge, self-financing learning in off-hours, sampling dispensary products, and exchanging knowledge. Nearly half the participants called for quality, standardized cannabis therapeutics training for dispensary personnel.

CONCLUSION

The many oncology teams who defer to dispensary personnel regarding MC advising rely on a workforce who views themselves as unevenly trained. Further research should include a national survey of cannabis dispensary personnel to learn whether these findings hold true in a larger sample. If so, the oncology community must determine the best approach to clinically advising individuals with cancer about MC.

Description and Disposition of Patients With Cancer Accessing a Novel, Pharmacist-Led Cannabis Consultation Service

PURPOSE

The Cannabis Consultation Service (CCS) is an innovative pharmacist-led resource at the Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre. Its mandate is to provide education and guide patients through access and appropriate use of high-quality plant-derived cannabinoids (PDCs). Our objective was to describe the CCS, explain its processes, and characterize patient disposition with respect to use of PDCs.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients referred to the CCS from July 13, 2020, to March 05, 2021. We used descriptive statistics to report on the patient population and service metrics.

RESULTS

During the 34-week period, 96 patients accessed the CCS (median age, 61 years). The top reasons for CCS consultation were management of cancer pain, insomnia, and general interest. Medical cannabis was supported as an option in 44/96 patients. Reasons for not supporting PDC use included lack of indication, potential drug interaction/contraindication, or requiring treatment with first-line therapy. Of the 40 patients requiring a medical document, 22 initiated therapy. The most common product used was a 2:50 THC:CBD (Tetrahydrocannabinol:Cannabidiol) cannabis oil. At the date of last contact, few patients remained on therapy because of lack of benefit, patient choice, and/or hesitancy.

CONCLUSION

Despite patients with cancer having interest in seeking PDCs for symptom management, only a few initiated and continued therapy. Pharmacists have an opportunity to advise patients and the oncology team on the risks and benefits of PDCs. These results can be used to support the development of medical cannabis programs by oncology centers and focus future research priorities.

Cannabinoid consumption among cancer patients receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment in the Netherlands

PURPOSE

Despite the inconclusiveness regarding health effects of cannabinoids among cancer patients, studies from non-European countries suggest that the medical-intended consumption of such products by this patient group is significant. The current study analyses cannabinoid usage among oncology patients receiving systemic treatment in the Netherlands.

METHODS

The current study included adult patients receiving intravenous systemic therapy at Maastricht Comprehensive Cancer Centre, for a solid malignancy. Participants were asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire including questions on demographic variables, clinical variables and cannabinoid consumption.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients with solid cancer were included in this study. Almost 25% reported usage of cannabinoids for medical purposes, with 15% of the patients currently using the substance. Additionally, 18% of non-users considered future medical usage. In 48% of the cases, consumption was reported by the oncologist. The proposed anti-cancer effect was reported by 46% of the users as motivation for consumption. Current users were mainly palliative patients and 54% of the users were undergoing immunotherapy. Intention of treatment and type of therapy were predictive factors for consumption. Cannabinoid-oil was the most frequently used way of consumption.

CONCLUSION

This study underlines the high number of cannabinoid users among oncology patients in the Netherlands in presumed absence of clinical guidance. It highlights the essence of a pro-active role of the clinician, assessing cannabinoid usage and educating the patients on the most recent evidence regarding its potential benefits and risks. Further studies on clinical decision making and efficacy of cannabinoids are recommended, to improve clinical guidance.

Cancer Patients' Experiences with and Perspectives on the Medicinal Cannabis "High"

Background: Patients with cancer employ medicinal cannabis for poly-symptom management and as cancer-directed therapy. Little is known about their perspectives on the medicinal cannabis "high." Methods: Qualitative interviews across eight states with medicinal cannabis users with physician-verified cancer diagnoses (n = 24). Results: Every participant referenced and 15 spoke in depth about the medicinal cannabis "high." Antitheticals characterized it: sleepiness versus heightened attention; calm versus "agitation." The intensity of the "high" served as a proxy metric by which participant's judged medicinal cannabis' cancer-directed therapy and symptom management efficacies. Overall, however, study participants viewed the "high" as a barrier to medicinal cannabis use and worked to avoid experiencing for prolonged periods. Conclusions: The "high" is central to the manner with which patients with cancer experience medicinal cannabis. Clinicians should be aware that patients may struggle to fine-tune medicinal cannabis dosing in the setting of the "high," and this challenge should be included in clinical discussions regarding oncological medicinal cannabis use.

Routes of administration, reasons for use, and approved indications of medical cannabis in oncology: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Some patients diagnosed with cancer use medical cannabis to self-manage undesirable symptoms, including nausea and pain. To improve patient safety and oncological care quality, the routes of administration for use of medical cannabis, patients' reasons, and prescribed indications must be better understood.

METHODS

Based on the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines, a scoping review was conducted to map the current evidence regarding the use of medical cannabis in oncological settings based on the experiences of patients diagnosed with cancer and their healthcare providers. A search strategy was developed with a scientific librarian which included five databases (CINAHL, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO) and two grey literature sources (Google Scholar and ProQuest). The inclusion criteria were: 1) population: adults aged 18 and over diagnosed with cancer; 2) phenomena of interest: reasons for cannabis use and/or the prescribed indications for medical cannabis; 3) context: oncological setting. French- or English-language primary empirical studies, knowledge syntheses, and grey literature published between 2000 and 2021 were included. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and subjected to a thematic analysis. A narrative description approach was used to synthesize and present the findings.

RESULTS

We identified 5,283 publications, of which 163 met the eligibility criteria. Two main reasons for medical cannabis use emerged from the thematic analysis: limiting the impacts of cancer and its side effects; and staying connected to others. Our results also indicated that medical cannabis is mostly used for three approved indications: to manage refractory nausea and vomiting, to complement pain management, and to improve appetite and food intake. We highlighted 11 routes of administration for medical cannabis, with oils and oral solutions the most frequently reported.

CONCLUSION

Future studies should consider the multiple routes of administration for medical cannabis, such as inhalation and edibles. Our review highlights that learning opportunities would support the development of healthcare providers' knowledge and skills in assessing the needs and preferences of patients diagnosed with cancer who use medical cannabis.

Cannabis, Cannabinoids and Cannabis-Based Medicines in Cancer Care

As medical cannabis becomes legal in more states, cancer patients are increasingly interested in the potential utility of the ancient botanical in their treatment regimen. Although eager to discuss cannabis use with their oncologist, patients often find that their provider reports that they do not have adequate information to be helpful. Oncologists, so dependent on evidence-based data to guide their treatment plans, are dismayed by the lack of published literature on the benefits of medical cannabis. This results largely from the significant barriers that have existed to effectively thwart the ability to conduct trials investigating the potential therapeutic efficacy of the plant. This is a narrative review aimed at clinicians, summarizing cannabis phytochemistry, trials in the areas of nausea and vomiting, appetite, pain and anticancer activity, including assessment of case reports of antitumor use, with reflective assessments of the quality and quantity of evidence. Despite preclinical evidence and social media claims, the utility of cannabis, cannabinoids or cannabis-based medicines in the treatment of cancer remains to be convincingly demonstrated. With an acceptable safety profile, cannabis and its congeners may be useful in managing symptoms related to cancer or its treatment. Further clinical trials should be conducted to evaluate whether the preclinical antitumor effects translate into benefit for cancer patients. Oncologists should familiarize themselves with the available database to be able to better advise their patients on the potential uses of this complementary botanical therapy.

Cannabis and the Cancer Patient

Session 2 of the National Cancer Institute's Cannabis, Cannabinoids, and Cancer Research Workshop opened with testimony from a lymphoma survivor who detailed medicinal cannabis-related improvements in nausea, low appetite, insomnia, and mental health and the limited clinical counsel she received regarding cannabis use. Discussion next turned to the evolution of the legal landscape of cannabis in the United States, one in which state and federal laws frequently conflict and the Controlled Substance Act renders cannabis Schedule I. This legal climate creates conundrums for US medicinal cannabis researchers who contend with limited funding opportunities, avenues to source trial drug, and procedural red tape and for oncology clinicians who recommend medicinal cannabis to patients with some frequency while perceiving themselves as ill equipped to make such clinical recommendations. Ultimately, it creates challenges for cancer patients who find themselves turning to nonmedical and anecdotal information sources. The risks of cannabis use by the cancer patient were discussed next. These include infection, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic drug-botanical interactions, cyclic nausea and vomiting, e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated illness, legal issues, and high cost. The session concluded with a broad survey of the research supporting oncologic cannabinoid use, conclusive evidence for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and suggestive evidence for cancer-related pain.

Cannabis Use among Cancer Survivors amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results from the COVID-19 Cannabis Health Study

Clinical indications for medicinal cannabis use include those with cancer, a subgroup advised to avoid exposure to COVID-19. This study aims to identify changes to cannabis use, methods of cannabis delivery, and coping strategies among cancer survivors since the pandemic by cancer status. Chi-squared tests were used for univariate comparisons of demographic characteristics, cannabis use patterns, COVID-19 symptoms, and coping behaviors by cancer survivor status. Data included 158 responses between 21 March 2020 and 23 March 2021, from medicinal cannabis users, categorized as cancer survivors (n = 79) along with age-matched medicinal cannabis users without a history of cancer (n = 79). Compared to adults without a history of cancer, cancer survivors were more likely to report use of cannabis as a way of managing nausea/vomiting (40.5% versus 20.3%, p = 0.006), headaches or migraines (35.4% versus 19.0%, p = 0.020), seizures (8.9% versus 1.3%, p = 0.029), and sleep problems (70.9% versus 54.4%, p = 0.033), or as an appetite stimulant (39.2% versus 17.7%, p = 0.003). Nearly 23% of cancer survivors reported an advanced cannabis supply of more than 3 months compared to 14.3% of adults without a history of cancer (p = 0.002); though the majority of cancer survivors reported less than a one-month supply. No statistically significant differences were observed by cancer survivor status by cannabis dose, delivery, or sharing of electronic vaping devices, joints, or blunts. Cancer survivors were more likely to report a fear of being diagnosed with COVID-19 compared to adults without a history of cancer (58.2% versus 40.5%, p = 0.026). Given the frequency of mental and physical health symptoms reported among cancer survivors, clinicians should consider conversations about cannabis use with their patients, in particular among cancer survivors.

Cancer patient's attitudes of using medicinal cannabis for sleep

PURPOSE

Poor sleep is one of the most common side effects of cancer treatment. One increasingly popular approach to manage side effects of cancer treatment is use of medicinal cannabis (MC).

DESIGN

Cancer patients using MC participated in semi-structured interviews to assess their experiences with MC (n = 24). A multi-stage thematic analysis was applied to interview transcripts. Themes related to use of MC for sleep were extracted.

FINDINGS

The majority reported MC use for sleep. These participants reported that MC improved sleep initiation and continuity, resulted in decreased use of sleep medications, and that improved sleep led to better health. No participant reported MC was ineffectual for sleep or caused undesirable side effects when used for sleep.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients often utilize MC to specifically manage poor sleep. There is a need for rigorous studies assessing prevalence of use for this indication and clinical trials to assess comparative efficacy and safety.

Differences between cancer patients and others who use medicinal Cannabis

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients have been at the forefront of policy discussions leading to legalization of medical Cannabis (marijuana). Unfortunately, Cannabis use among those with cancer is poorly understood.

METHODS

A diverse group of patients seeking certification for medical Cannabis in the state of Michigan were surveyed at the time of their presentation to medical dispensaries. The survey assessed demographics, employment/disability, pain, physical functioning, mental health, mode of Cannabis use, and frequency/amount of Cannabis use. Chi-square and t-tests were performed to compare those who did and did not endorse cancer diagnosis.

RESULTS

Analysis of data from 1485 adults pursuing medical Cannabis certification, including 72 (4.8%) reporting a cancer diagnosis, indicated that those with cancer were older [mean age 53.4 years (SD = 10.5) vs. 44.7 years (SD = 13.0); p<0.001] than those without cancer. They also differed regarding employment status (p<0.001; working: 20.8% vs. 46.2%; disabled: 44.4% vs. 26.5% for those with vs. those without cancer, respectively). Those with cancer used less Cannabis (p = 0.033 for quantity used) and used Cannabis less often (p = 0.032 for frequency of use); they less frequently endorsed smoking Cannabis (80% vs 91%; p = 0.015). There was a non-significant trend to increased edible use in those with cancer (57% vs. 44%; p = 0.052).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with cancer who are seeking medical Cannabis are different from those seeking medical Cannabis without cancer, and they report using Cannabis differently. Further research to characterize the patterns and consequences of Cannabis use in cancer patients is needed.

Cancer patients' experiences with medicinal cannabis-related care

BACKGROUND

Little is known about medical cannabis (MC)-related care for patients with cancer using MC.

METHODS

Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted in a convenience sample of individuals (n = 24) with physician-confirmed oncologic diagnoses and state/district authorization to use MC (Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, New York, and Washington, DC) from April 2017 to March 2019. Standard qualitative techniques were used to assess the degree of MC-related health care oversight, MC practices, and key information sources.

RESULTS

Among 24 participants (median age, 57 years; range, 30-71 years; 16 women [67%]), MC certifications were typically issued by a professional new to a patient's care after a brief, perfunctory consultation. Patients disclosed MCuse to their established medical teams but received little medical advice about whether and how to use MC. Patients with cancer used MC products as multipurpose symptom management and as cancer-directed therapy, sometimes in lieu of standard-of-care treatments. Personal experimentation, including methodical self-monitoring, was an important source of MC know-how. Absent formal advice from medical professionals, patients relied on nonmedical sources for MC information.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with cancer used MC with minimal medical oversight. Most received MC certifications through brief meetings with unfamiliar professionals. Participants desired but were often unable to access high-quality clinical information about MC from their established medical teams. Because many patients are committed to using MC, a product sustained by a growing industry, medical providers should familiarize themselves with the existing data for MM and its limitations to address a poorly met clinical need.