Cannabis use among cancer survivors in the United States: Analysis of a nationally representative sample.

BACKGROUND: Research on cannabis use among those with a history of cancer is limited. METHODS: Prevalence of past-year cannabis use among individuals with and without a cancer history and predictors of use within these 2 groups were determined using data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study, a nationally representative, longitudinal survey conducted in the United States (waves 1-4; 2013-2018). Discrete time survival analyses were used to estimate baseline (wave 1) predictors (physical health status, mental health status, pain, and demographic variables) on past-year engagement with cannabis within individuals who reported a cancer diagnosis at wave 1 (n = 1022) and individuals who reported never having cancer at any wave (n = 19,702). RESULTS: At the most recent survey, 8% of cancer survivors reported past-year cannabis use, compared with 15% of those without a cancer history. Across 4 time points, an estimated 3.8% of cancer survivors engaged with cannabis, as compared to 6.5% of those without a cancer history. Across both groups, older age and having health insurance were associated with lower likelihood of engaging in cannabis use, whereas greater levels of pain were associated with higher likelihood of engaging in cannabis use. Among those without a cancer history, being female, White, and having better mental health status were associated with lower likelihood of engaging in cannabis use. CONCLUSIONS: Although cannabis use prevalence is lower among cancer survivors, the reasons for use are not markedly different from those without a cancer history. Continued monitoring of use, reasons for use, and harms or benefits is warranted. LAY SUMMARY: Results from this study, which uses data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, indicate that cannabis use is generally increasing across cancer survivors and those without a history of cancer. Cancer survivors are using cannabis at slightly lower rates than those without a history of cancer. Factors related to pain seem to be more prevalent in cancer populations relative to the general population, and could be contributing to cannabis use within cancer survivor populations.

Combination therapy with methadone and duloxetine for cancer-related pain: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: A comprehensive approach to pain management often requires multimodal therapy and a combination of medications. Oncology patients may be prescribed methadone and duloxetine as single agents or in combination for cancer-related pain, particularly neuropathic pain. Duloxetine is also prescribed for depression or anxiety in patients with cancer. METHODS: A retrospective chart review on patients with cancer-related pain prescribed duloxetine and methadone combination therapy at the Virginia Commonwealth University supportive care clinic (SCC) between 2012 and 2019. Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scores reported by patients on monotherapy were compared to scores after they started combination therapy. Of 131 patients identified on combination therapy, 43 met study criteria (2 with incomplete ESAS scores). RESULTS: ESAS total and subscores after combination therapy were lower than on monotherapy. Combination therapy decreased total, pain, and emotion subscores by 5.6 (SD =17.3, dz =-0.32, P=0.046), 0.9 (SD =3.0, dz =-0.30, P=0.052), and 1.8 (SD =5.1, dz =-0.36, P=0.023), respectively. On combination therapy, 28% of patients reported at least a two-point reduction in pain scores. All study participants reported cancer pain with neuropathic components; most had mixed pain syndromes comprising nociceptive and neuropathic components. Adherence rates were high as 81% of patients with follow-up appointments continued therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest the combination of duloxetine and methadone reduces cancer-related pain and emotional symptom burden compared to either medication as a single agent.

Correction to: Enteral and parenteral nutrition in cancer patients, a comparison of complication rates: an updated systematic review and (cumulative) meta-analysis.

The appendices were incorrectly numbered in the original article. Please see below correcct appendices.

Enteral and parenteral nutrition in cancer patients, a comparison of complication rates: an updated systematic review and (cumulative) meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Weight loss in cancer patients is a worrisome constitutional change predicting disease progression and shortened survival time. A logical approach to counter some of the weight loss is to provide nutritional support, administered through enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN). The aim of this paper was to update the original systematic review and meta-analysis previously published by Chow et al., while also assessing publication quality and effect of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the meta-conclusion over time. METHODS: A literature search was carried out; screening was conducted for RCTs published in January 2015 up until December 2018. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving no infection and no nutrition support complications. Secondary endpoints included proportion of patients achieving no major complications and no mortality. Review Manager (RevMan 5.3) by Cochrane IMS and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 3) by Biostat were used for meta-analyses of endpoints and assessment of publication quality. RESULTS: An additional seven studies were identified since our prior publication, leading to 43 papers included in our review. The results echo those previously published; EN and PN are equivalent in all endpoints except for infection. Subgroup analyses of studies only containing adults indicate identical risks across all endpoints. Cumulative meta-analysis suggests that meta-conclusions have remained the same since the beginning of publication time for all endpoints except for the endpoint of infection, which changed from not favoring to favoring EN after studies published in 1997. There was low risk of bias, as determined by assessment tool and visual inspection of funnel plots. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the current European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism guidelines recommending enteral over parenteral nutrition, when oral nutrition is inadequate, in adult patients. Further studies comparing EN and PN for these critical endpoints appear unnecessary, given the lack of change in meta-conclusion and low publication bias over the past decades.

Prognostication in advanced cancer: update and directions for future research.

The objective of this review is to provide an update on prognostication in patients with advanced cancer and to discuss future directions for research in this field. Accurate prognostication of survival for patients with advanced cancer is vital, as patient life expectancy informs many important personal and clinical decisions. The most common prognostic approach is clinician prediction of survival (CPS) using temporal, surprise, or probabilistic questions. The surprise and probabilistic questions may be more accurate than the temporal approach, partly by limiting the time frame of prediction. Prognostic models such as the Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP), Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), or Prognosis in Palliative Care Study (PiPS) predictor model may augment CPS. However, care must be taken to select the appropriate tool since prognostic accuracy varies by patient population, setting, and time frame of prediction. In addition to life expectancy, patients and caregivers often desire that expected treatment outcomes and bodily changes be communicated to them in a sensible manner at an appropriate time. We propose the following 10 major themes for future prognostication research: (1) enhancing prognostic accuracy, (2) improving reliability and reproducibility of prognosis, (3) identifying the appropriate prognostic tool for a given setting, (4) predicting the risks and benefits of cancer therapies, (5) predicting survival for pediatric populations, (6) translating prognostic knowledge into practice, (7) understanding the impact of prognostic uncertainty, (8) communicating prognosis, (9) clarifying outcomes associated with delivery of prognostic information, and (10) standardizing prognostic terminology.