Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) guidelines: cannabis for psychological symptoms including insomnia, anxiety, and depression

A Cross Sectional Survey of Factors Related to Cannabis Use as a Sleep Aid Among Canadian Cancer Survivors

OBJECTIVES

Poor sleep is a common side effect of cancer. Cannabis is increasingly used to manage cancer treatment-related symptoms, including sleep. This study investigated factors related to cannabis use for sleep among Canadian cancer survivors.

METHOD

Adult Canadian cancer survivors (N = 940) were recruited via the Angus Reid Institute and completed an online, cross-sectional survey. Univariate and multiple binomial logistic regression models identified factors associated with cannabis use for sleep.

RESULTS

Of the participants (Mage = 64.5 yrs; Women = 51.1%; White = 92.9%), 25.1% (n = 236) currently use cannabis for sleep. Participants were at greater odds of using cannabis for sleep if they identified as a gender other than man or woman (AOR = 11.132), were diagnosed with multiple medical conditions (2:AOR = 1.988; 3+:AOR = 1.902), two psychological conditions (AOR = 2.171), multiple sleep disorders (AOR = 2.338), insomnia (AOR = 1.942), bone (AOR = 6.535), gastrointestinal (AOR = 4.307), genitourinary (AOR = 2.586), hematological (AOR = 4.739), or an unlisted cancer (AOR = 3.470), received hormone therapy only (AOR = 3.054), drink heavily (AOR = 2.748), or had mild insomnia (AOR = 1.828). Older participants (AOR=.972) and those with sleep apnea were less likely to use cannabis for sleep (AOR=.560).

CONCLUSION

Given its prevalence, research is needed to understand how factors associated with cannabis use as a sleep aid among Canadian cancer survivors may influence its use and effectiveness and whether these factors are barriers to accessing evidence-based treatments.

Cannabis use after a cancer diagnosis in a population-based sample of cancer survivors

PURPOSE

This study aimed to characterize the prevalence and correlates of cannabis use and the methods and reasons for use among recently diagnosed cancer survivors in a population sample within Washington state.

METHODS

We identified individuals diagnosed with invasive cancers in the prior 6 to 17 months from April 2020 to December 2020 using the Seattle-Puget Sound Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry. Participants (n = 1,515) completed a questionnaire, including demographics, medical history, cannabis use, and other substance use. Cancer characteristics and date of diagnosis were obtained from SEER registry data. We calculated weighted prevalence estimates and logistic regression models to evaluate correlates of cannabis use.

RESULTS

Overall, 41.3% of survivors reported cannabis use at any time after diagnosis, most commonly via edibles (60.5%) and smoking (43.8%). The most frequently reported reasons for use were sleep (54.5%), mood, stress, anxiety, and depression (44.3%), pain (42.3%), and recreation (42.3%). Cannabis use was associated with younger age, race (White vs. Asian), less education, former or current smoking, consuming more than 2 alcohol-containing drinks per day, having late-stage cancer, and cancer site.

CONCLUSION

In this first evaluation of cannabis use in a registry-linked, population-based sample of survivors of all cancer types, based in a state where recreational and medical cannabis have been legal for a decade, approximately 2 in 5 survivors reported post-diagnosis use. Given how common cannabis use is among cancer survivors, there is a great need to understand its impact on cancer treatment outcomes and the overall health of cancer survivors.

Integrative Therapies in Cancer Care: An Update on the Guidelines

INTRODUCTION

ASCO and the Society for Integrative Oncology have collaborated to develop guidelines for the application of integrative approaches in the management of anxiety, depression, fatigue and use of cannabinoids and cannabis in patients with cancer. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to improve outcomes and quality of life by enhancing conventional cancer treatment with integrative modalities.

METHODS

All studies that informed the guideline recommendations were reviewed by an Expert Panel which was made up of a patient advocate, an ASCO methodologist, oncology providers, and integrative medicine experts. Panel members reviewed each trial for quality of evidence, determined a grade quality assessment label, and concluded strength of recommendations.

RESULTS

Strong recommendations for management of cancer fatigue during treatment were given to both in-person or web-based mindfulness-based stress reduction, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, and tai chi or qigong. Strong recommendations for management of cancer fatigue after cancer treatment were given to mindfulness-based programs. Clinicians should recommend against using cannabis or cannabinoids as a cancer-directed treatment unless within the context of a clinical trial. The recommended modalities for managing anxiety included Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs), yoga, hypnosis, relaxation therapies, music therapy, reflexology, acupuncture, tai chi, and lavender essential oils. The strongest recommendation in the guideline is that MBIs should be offered to people with cancer, both during active treatment and post-treatment, to address depression.

CONCLUSION

The evidence for integrative interventions in cancer care is growing, with research now supporting benefits of integrative interventions across the cancer care continuum.

Palliative Medicine Fellows' Discussions, Perceptions, and Training Regarding Medical Cannabis

CONTEXT

Medical cannabis is increasingly considered for palliation of pain, nausea/vomiting, anorexia, and other symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine whether training in hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) adequately prepares fellows to counsel patients about medical cannabis.

METHODS

A previously validated questionnaire was adapted for HPM fellows. Domains included fellows' practices recommending cannabis and their knowledge of its effectiveness and risks compared with standard treatments. U.S. HPM fellowships were sent surveys in 2022 and 2023.

RESULTS

Forty six programs participated, 123 fellows responded (response rate of 42%) including 69% female; 55% White, and 28% Asian. Of respondents, 65% reported receiving formal training regarding medical cannabis; 57% reported discussing medical cannabis with over five patients; 23% recommended medical cannabis to more than five patients in the preceding year. Only 19%, however, felt sufficiently informed to issue cannabis-related recommendations. HPM fellows with prior training were not more likely to feel sufficiently informed to discuss cannabis (RR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.82-1.66) or to recommend cannabis to patients (RR: 2.05, 95% CI: 0.89-4.71). Fellows rate cannabis as equally or more effective than conventional treatments for the following symptoms: anorexia/cachexia (63%), nausea/vomiting (43%), pain (25%), and neuropathic pain (21%).

CONCLUSION

Most HPM fellows report formal training in the use of medical cannabis. Over half of trainees reported discussing medical cannabis with patients, but few considered themselves sufficiently informed to make cannabis-related clinical recommendations. These results suggest both a need for expanded high-quality evidence for medical cannabis in palliative care and for improved formal education for HPM fellows.

Prevention and Management of Osteoradionecrosis in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer Treated With Radiation Therapy: ISOO-MASCC-ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based recommendations for prevention and management of osteoradionecrosis (ORN) of the jaw secondary to head and neck radiation therapy in patients with cancer.

METHODS

The International Society of Oral Oncology-Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (ISOO-MASCC) and ASCO convened a multidisciplinary Expert Panel to evaluate the evidence and formulate recommendations. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies, published between January 1, 2009, and December 1, 2023. The guideline also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by ISOO-MASCC, which included studies published from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 2008.

RESULTS

A total of 1,539 publications were initially identified. There were 487 duplicate publications, resulting in 1,052 studies screened by abstract, 104 screened by full text, and 80 included for systematic review evaluation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Due to limitations of available evidence, the guideline relied on informal consensus for some recommendations. Recommendations that were deemed evidence-based with strong evidence by the Expert Panel were those pertaining to best practices in prevention of ORN and surgical management. No recommendation was possible for the utilization of leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin or photobiomodulation for prevention of ORN. The use of hyperbaric oxygen in prevention and management of ORN remains largely unjustified, with limited evidence to support its practice.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines.

Does medicinal cannabis affect depression, anxiety, and stress in people with cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies

INTRODUCTION

Medicinal cannabis might have a role in supporting the mental health of people with cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy and safety of medicinal cannabis, compared with any control, as an intervention for depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms in people living with cancer. A secondary aim was to examine the effect of low versus high Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) dose on these outcomes.

METHODS

Five databases were systematically searched, and complemented with a snowball search from inception to May 2023, for any type of interventional study that included humans of any age with any cancer type. Primary outcomes were incidence and severity of depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms. Secondary outcomes were mood, cognition, quality of life, appetite, nutrition status, gastrointestinal symptoms, and adverse events. Data were pooled using Review Manager. Evidence was appraised using Cochrane risk of bias tools. Confidence in the estimated effect of pooled outcomes was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Fifteen studies (n = 11 randomized trials, n = 4 non-randomized trials) of 18 interventions (N = 1898 total participants; 100 % ≥18 years of age) were included. Ten studies examined THC (70 % synthetic), two synthetic cannabidiol with or without THC, and six whole-plant extracts. No clinically significant effects of medicinal cannabis were found on primary outcomes. The likelihood of anxiety events increased with higher-dose synthetic THC compared with a lower dose (OR: 2.0; 95 % CI: 1.4, 2.9; p < 0.001; Confidence: very low). Medicinal cannabis (THC, cannabidiol, and whole-plant extract) increased the likelihood of improved appetite (OR: 12.3; 95 % CI: 3.5, 45.5; p < 0.001; n = 3 interventions; Confidence: moderate) and reduced severity of appetite loss (SMD: -0.4; 95 % CI: -0.8, -0.1; p = 0.009; Confidence: very low). There was very low confidence that higher doses of synthetic THC increased the likelihood of any adverse event (OR: 0.5; 95 % CI: 0.3, 0.7; p < 0.001). Medicinal cannabis had no effect on emotional functioning, mood changes, confusion, disorientation, quality of life, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Confidence in findings was limited by some studies having high or unclear risk of bias and imprecise pooled estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of medicinal cannabis as a therapeutic intervention for depression, anxiety, or stress in people with active cancer. Further research should explore whether medicinal cannabis might improve and maintain appetite and if high-dose synthetic THC might increase the incidence of side-effects, including anxiety. To inform clinical practice, well-powered and rigorously designed trials are warranted that evaluate the effects of medicinal cannabis prescribed to target anxiety, depression, and stress.

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.

Supporting gut health with medicinal cannabis in people with advanced cancer: potential benefits and challenges

The side effects of cancer therapy continue to cause significant health and cost burden to the patient, their friends and family, and governments. A major barrier in the way in which these side effects are managed is the highly siloed mentality that results in a fragmented approach to symptom control. Increasingly, it is appreciated that many symptoms are manifestations of common underlying pathobiology, with changes in the gastrointestinal environment a key driver for many symptom sequelae. Breakdown of the mucosal barrier (mucositis) is a common and early side effect of many anti-cancer agents, known to contribute (in part) to a range of highly burdensome symptoms such as diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, infection, malnutrition, fatigue, depression, and insomnia. Here, we outline a rationale for how, based on its already documented effects on the gastrointestinal microenvironment, medicinal cannabis could be used to control mucositis and prevent the constellation of symptoms with which it is associated. We will provide a brief update on the current state of evidence on medicinal cannabis in cancer care and outline the potential benefits (and challenges) of using medicinal cannabis during active cancer therapy.

Drug Interactions of Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol in Cannabinoid Drugs

BACKGROUND

Cannabinoid drugs containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), or its structural analogues, as monotherapeutic agents or as extracts or botanical preparations with or without cannabidiol (CBD) are often prescribed to multimorbid patients who are taking multiple drugs. This raises the question of the risk of drug interactions.

METHODS

This review of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of interactions with cannabinoid drugs and their potential effects is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search.

RESULTS

As THC and CBD are largely metabolized in the liver, their bioavailability after oral or oral-mucosal administration is low (6-8% and 11-13%, respectively). The plasma concentrations of THC and its active metabolite 11-OH-THC can be increased by strong CYP3A4 inhibitors (verapamil, clarithromycin) and decreased by strong CYP3A4 inductors (rifampicin, carbamazepine). The clinical significance of these effects is unclear because of the variable plasma level and therapeutic spectrum of THC. The metabolism of CBD is less dependent on cytochrome P450 enzymes than that of THC. THC and CBD inhibit CYP2C and CYP3A4; the corresponding clinically relevant drug interactions probably are likely to arise only with THC doses above 30 mg/day and CBD doses above 300 mg/day.

CONCLUSION

Potential drug interactions with THC and CBD are probably of little importance at low or moderate doses. Strong CYP inhibitors or inductors can intensify or weaken their effect. Slowly ramping up the dose of oral cannabinoid drugs can lessen their pharmacodynamic interactions, which can generally be well controlled. Administration by inhalation can worsen the interactions.

A cross-sectional survey of the prevalence and patterns of using cannabis as a sleep aid in Canadian cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Poor sleep is one of the most common side effects of cancer. It can persist for years beyond treatment and negatively impact quality of life and health. Cannabis is increasingly used to manage cancer treatment-related symptoms, including sleep. This study investigated the use and perceived effects of cannabis as a sleep aid in Canadian cancer survivors.

METHODS

Adult Canadian cancer survivors (N = 1464) were recruited via the Angus Reid Institute and completed an online, cross-sectional survey including the Insomnia Severity Index and questions about cannabis use for sleep. Standard descriptive statistics, such as means, standard deviations, and ranges were produced for measured variables to assess the ways cancer survivors use cannabis for sleep. Frequencies were tabulated for categorical and ordinal variables.

RESULTS

On average, participants (Mage = 61.1 years; Women = 50%: Men = 48%) received their cancer diagnosis 12.5 years prior. Of participants, 23.5% (n = 344) currently use cannabis as a sleep aid, with reported benefits including relaxation, reduced time to fall asleep, fewer nocturnal awakenings and improved sleep quality. Two thirds (68.3%, n = 235) only began using cannabis for sleep after their cancer diagnosis. Over a third of participants (36.3%, n = 125) use cannabis as a sleep aid every day. Among the 344, the most common other reasons for using cannabis were pain (31.4%, n = 108), recreational use (24.4%, n = 84), and anxiety (12.5%, n = 43).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the prevalence and potential impact, research is needed to examine the actual efficacy of cannabis as a sleep aid.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

It is important that cancer survivors have information on methods to help their sleep to avoid impairments to quality of life and health.

Should oncologists trust cannabinoids?

Cannabis enjoyed a "golden age" as a medicinal product in the late 19th, early 20th century, but the increased risk of overdose and abuse led to its criminalization. However, the 21st century have witnessed a resurgence of interest and a large body of literature regarding the benefits of cannabinoids have emerged. As legalization and decriminalization have spread around the world, cancer patients are increasingly interested in the potential utility of cannabinoids. Although eager to discuss cannabis use with their oncologist, patients often find them to be reluctant, mainly because clinicians are still not convinced by the existing evidence-based data to guide their treatment plans. Physicians should prescribe cannabis only if a careful explanation can be provided and follow up response evaluation ensured, making it mandatory for them to be up to date with the positive and also negative aspects of the cannabis in the case of cancer patients. Consequently, this article aims to bring some clarifications to clinicians regarding the sometimes-confusing various nomenclature under which this plant is mentioned, current legislation and the existing evidence (both preclinical and clinical) for the utility of cannabinoids in cancer patients, for either palliation of the associated symptoms or even the potential antitumor effects that cannabinoids may have.