Addiction in Patients With Cancer: Challenges and Opportunities

Concurrent substance use among cancer patients with and without a history of cannabis use since cancer diagnosis at an NCI-Designated Cancer Center in Florida

BACKGROUND

Although substance use may have adverse impacts on cancer outcomes, little is known regarding patterns of concurrent substance use with cannabis among cancer patients. Our objective was to examine predictors of concurrent substance use with cannabis among cancer patients since their cancer diagnosis and explore perceptions of cannabis among these patients.

METHODS

Patients treated at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center were invited to participate in an electronic survey regarding medical cannabis from August to November 2021. Survey data were linked to internal data resources including electronic health records and patient intake forms to obtain history of substance use (defined as within at least 3 months of cancer diagnosis) of cigarettes, injection drugs, high levels of alcohol, or clinically unsupervised prescription drugs (total n = 1094). Concurrent substance users were defined as those with any reported substance use and cannabis use at the time of cancer diagnosis. We used descriptive statistics (χ2 or exact tests) to compare groups and estimated adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to identify predictors of substance use among users and nonusers of cannabis.

RESULTS

Approximately 45% (n = 489) of the sample reported cannabis use since their cancer diagnosis. Of patients who reported using cannabis, 20% self-reported concurrent polysubstance use, while 8% of cannabis nonusers reported substance use (P < .001). Among patients who use cannabis, those who reported 2 or more self-reported treatment-related symptoms (eg, pain, fatigue) were more likely to have self-reported concurrent substance use (AOR = 3.15, 95% CI = 1.07 to 9.27) compared with those without any symptoms. Among nonusers, those with lower educational background were more likely to have a history of concurrent substance use (AOR = 3.74, 95% CI = 1.57 to 8.92). Patients who use cannabis with concurrent substance use were more likely to report improved sleep (P = .04), increased appetite (P = .03), and treatment of additional medical conditions (P = .04) as perceived benefits of cannabis use.

CONCLUSIONS

High symptom burden may be associated with concurrent substance use with cannabis among cancer patients.

Common patient-reported sources of cancer-related distress in adults with cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cancer-related distress (CRD) is widely experienced by people with cancer and is associated with poor outcomes. CRD screening is a recommended practice; however, CRD remains under-treated due to limited resources targeting unique sources (problems) contributing to CRD. Understanding which sources of CRD are most commonly reported will allow allocation of resources including equipping healthcare providers for intervention.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to describe the frequency of patient-reported sources of CRD and to identify relationships with CRD severity, demographics, and clinical characteristics. We included empirical studies that screened adults with cancer using the NCCN or similar problem list. Most and least common sources of CRD were identified using weighted proportions computed across studies. Relationships between sources of CRD and CRD severity, demographics, and clinical characteristics were summarized narratively.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies were included. The most frequent sources of CRD were worry (55%), fatigue (54%), fears (45%), sadness (44%), pain (41%), and sleep disturbance (40%). Having enough food (0%), substance abuse (3%), childbearing ability (5%), fevers (5%), and spiritual concerns (5%) were infrequently reported. Sources of CRD were related to CRD severity, sex, age, race, marital status, income, education, rurality, treatment type, cancer grade, performance status, and timing of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Sources of CRD were most frequently emotional and physical, and resources should be targeted to these sources. Relationships between sources of CRD and demographic and clinical variables may suggest profiles of patient subgroups that share similar sources of CRD. Further investigation is necessary to direct intervention development and testing.

Implementation of the REFLECT Communication Curriculum for Clinical Oncology Graduate Medical Education

Background: Communication and interpersonal skills are essential medical components of oncology patient care. Patients and families rely on physicians for treatment, expertise, guidance, hope, meaning, and compassion throughout a life-threatening illness. A provider's inability to empathize with patients is linked to physician-related fatigue and burnout. Because oncology training programs focus on teaching evidence-based medicine and clinical acumen, little time may be dedicated to professional development and acquisition of interactive skills. Traditional communication courses typically include two components: formal, knowledge-based learning skills, which are gained from didactic lectures, and role-playing, which usually occurs in small groups. We report the implementation of a novel longitudinal communication curriculum for trainees in Oncology. Materials and Methods: At a single-center institution, an innovative communication curriculum titled "REFLECT" (Respect, Empathy, Facilitate Effective Communication, Listen, Elicit Information, Compassion, and Teach Others) was implemented for radiation oncology residents and medical oncology fellows to improve and refine physician/patient interactions. All oncology specialty residents and fellows were eligible to participate in this communication curriculum. The curriculum emphasized a reflective process to guide trainees through challenging scenarios. Results: Since October 2018, this comprehensive course consisted of quarterly (four hour) workshops comprising assigned reading, knowledge assessments, didactic lectures, expert guest lecturers, standardized patient simulations, role-playing, patient/expert panels, coaching, reflective writing, and debriefing/feedback sessions. The curriculum provided longitudinal communication training integrated with the learners' daily physician/patient encounters rather than occasional isolated experiences. Fifteen workshops have been completed. Each focused on navigating challenging situations with patients, loved ones, or colleagues. Conclusions: Future directions of the curriculum will entail improving the communication skills of oncology trainees and gathering communication improvement data to assess the program's success formally.