MASCC guideline: cannabis for cancer-related pain and risk of harms and adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 18% of patients with cancer use cannabis at one time as palliation or treatment for their cancer. We performed a systematic review of randomized cannabis cancer trials to establish a guideline for its use in pain and to summarize the risk of harm and adverse events when used for any indication in cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized trials with or without meta-analysis was carried out from MEDLINE, CCTR, Embase, and PsychINFO. The search involved randomized trials of cannabis in cancer patients. The search ended on November 12, 2021. The Jadad grading system was used for grading quality. Inclusion criteria for articles were randomized trials or systematic reviews of randomized trials of cannabinoids versus either placebo or active comparator explicitly in adult patients with cancer. RESULTS: Thirty-four systematic reviews and randomized trials met the eligibility criteria for cancer pain. Seven were randomized trials involving patients with cancer pain. Two trials had positive primary endpoints, which could not be reproduced in similarly designed trials. High-quality systematic reviews with meta-analyses found little evidence that cannabinoids are an effective adjuvant or analgesic to cancer pain. Seven systematic reviews and randomized trials related to harms and adverse events were included. There was inconsistent evidence about the types and levels of harm patients may experience when using cannabinoids. CONCLUSION: The MASCC panel recommends against the use of cannabinoids as an adjuvant analgesic for cancer pain and suggests that the potential risk of harm and adverse events be carefully considered for all cancer patients, particularly with treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

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

PURPOSE: During the treatment of cancer, 18% of patients use cannabis for symptom management. Anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances are common symptoms in cancer. A systematic review of the evidence for cannabis use for psychological symptoms in cancer patients was undertaken to develop a guideline. METHODS: A literature search of randomized trials and systematic reviews was undertaken up to November 12, 2021. Studies were independently assessed for evidence by two authors and then evaluated by all authors for approval. The literature search involved MEDLINE, CCTR, EMBASE, and PsychINFO databases. Inclusion criteria included randomized control trials and systematic reviews on cannabis versus placebo or active comparator in patients with cancer and psychological symptom management (anxiety, depression, and insomnia). RESULTS: The search yielded 829 articles; 145 from Medline, 419 from Embase, 62 from PsychINFO, and 203 from CCTR. Two systematic reviews and 15 randomized trials (4 on sleep, 5 on mood, 6 on both) met eligibility criteria. However, no studies specifically assessed the efficacy of cannabis on psychological symptoms as primary outcomes in cancer patients. The studies varied widely in terms of interventions, control, duration, and outcome measures. Six of 15 RCTs suggested benefits (five for sleep, one for mood). CONCLUSION: There is no high-quality evidence to recommend the use of cannabis as an intervention for psychological symptoms in patients with cancer until more high-quality research demonstrates benefit.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) expert opinion/consensus guidance on the use of cannabinoids for gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal symptoms are common in patients with cancer, whether related to treatment or a direct effect of the disease itself. Patients may choose to access cannabinoids outside of their formal medical prescriptions to palliate such symptoms. However, clinical guidelines are lacking in relation to the use of such medicines for gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the evidence for the use of cannabinoids for symptom control in patients with cancer was undertaken. Search strategies were developed for Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, including all publications from 1975 up to 12 November 2021. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids compared with placebo or active comparator in adult patients with cancer, regardless of type, stage, or treatment status. Articles for inclusion were agreed by all authors, and data extracted and summarized by two authors. Each study was scored according to the Jadad scale. This review was specifically for the purpose of developing guidelines for the use of cannabis for gastrointestinal symptoms, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), chronic nausea, anorexia-cachexia syndrome, and taste disturbance. RESULTS: Thirty-six randomized controlled trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria for this review of gastrointestinal symptoms: 31 relating to CINV, one to radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and the remaining four to anorexia-cachexia and altered chemosensory disturbance. The populations for the randomized controlled trials were heterogeneous, and many studies were of poor quality, lacking clarity regarding method of randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment. For CINV, eleven RCTs showed improvement with cannabis compared to placebo, but out of 21 trials where cannabis was compared to other antiemetics for CINV, only 11 favoured cannabis. CONCLUSION: Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and nabilone were more effective in preventing CINV when compared to placebo but are not more effective than other antiemetics. For refractory CINV, one study of THC:CBD demonstrated reduced nausea as an add-on treatment to guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy without olanzapine. The MASCC Guideline Committee found insufficient evidence to recommend cannabinoids for the management of CINV, nausea from advanced cancer, cancer-associated anorexia-cachexia, and taste disturbance. High-quality studies are needed to inform practice.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) expert opinion/guidance on the use of clinically assisted nutrition in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: The pro vision of clinically assisted nutrition (CAN) in patients with advanced cancer is controversial, and there is a paucity of specific guidance, and so a diversity in clinical practice. Consequently, the Palliative Care Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) formed a Subgroup to develop evidence-based guidance on the use CAN in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This guidance was developed in accordance with the MASCC Guidelines Policy. A search strategy for Medline was developed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were explored for relevant reviews/trials respectively. The outcomes of the review were categorised by the level of evidence, and a "category of guideline" based on the level of evidence (i.e. "recommendation", "suggestion", or "no guideline possible"). RESULTS: The Subgroup produced 11 suggestions, and 1 recommendation (due to the paucity of evidence). These outcomes relate to assessment of patients, indications for CAN, contraindications for CAN, procedures for initiating CAN, and re-assessment of patients. CONCLUSIONS: This guidance provides a framework for the use of CAN in advanced cancer, although every patient needs individualised management.

An audit of end-of-life symptom control in patients with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) dying in a hospital in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: The literature contains limited information on the problems faced by dying patients with COVID-19 and the effectiveness of interventions to manage these. AIM: The aim of this audit was to assess the utility of our end-of-life care plan, and specifically the effectiveness of our standardised end-of-life care treatment algorithms, in dying patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: The audit primarily involved data extraction from the end-of-life care plan, which includes four hourly nursing (ward nurses) assessments of specific problems: patients with problems were managed according to standardised treatment algorithms, and the intervention was deemed to be effective if the problem was not present at subsequent assessments. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: This audit was undertaken at a general hospital in England, covered the 8 weeks from 16 March to 11 May 2020 and included all inpatients with COVID-19 who had an end-of-life care plan (and died). RESULTS: Sixty-one patients met the audit criteria: the commonest problem was shortness of breath (57.5%), which was generally controlled with conservative doses of morphine (10-20 mg/24 h via a syringe pump). Cough and audible respiratory secretions were relatively uncommon. The second most common problem was agitation/delirium (55.5%), which was generally controlled with standard pharmacological interventions. The cumulative number of patients with shortness of breath, agitation and audible respiratory secretions increased over the last 72 h of life, but most patients were symptom controlled at the point of death. CONCLUSION: Patients dying of COVID-19 experience similar end-of-life problems to other groups of patients. Moreover, they generally respond to standard interventions for these end-of-life problems.

Hypoplasia of the inferior vena cava in a young man presenting with extensive deep venous thrombosis.

We present a case of a 34-year-old man with extensive deep venous thrombosis (DVT) who was found to have multiple abnormalities of venous anatomy, notably hypoplasia of the inferior vena cava with azygous continuation. DVT has an annual incidence of around 1 in 1000 people in the UK. Many cases will have readily identifiable risk factors, such as underlying malignancy, immobility or thrombophilia, but at times, these might not be so straightforward and unexpected contributing factors may be found. Although relatively uncommon in the general population, congenital venous abnormalities have been found at higher incidence in young adults presenting with spontaneous DVT and should therefore remain a consideration when classical risk factors are absent.