Cannabis Perceptions and Patterns of Use Among Older Adult Cancer Survivors.

Objectives: To descriptively assess cannabis perceptions and patterns of use among older adult cancer survivors in a state without a legal cannabis marketplace. Methods: This study used weighted prevalence estimates to cross-sectionally describe cannabis perceptions and patterns of use among older (65+) adults (N = 524) in a National Cancer Institute-designated center in a state without legal cannabis access. Results: Half (46%) had ever used cannabis (18% following diagnosis and 10% currently). Only 8% had discussed cannabis with their provider. For those using post-diagnosis, the most common reason was for pain (44%), followed by insomnia (43%), with smoking being the most common (40%) mode of use. Few (<3%) reported that cannabis had worsened any of their symptoms. Discussion: Even within a state without a legal cannabis marketplace, older cancer survivors might commonly use cannabis to alleviate health concerns but unlikely to discuss this with their providers.

Unsupervised Clustering of Olfactory Phenotypes.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical classifications of olfactory function are based primarily upon a percentage of correct answers in olfactory identification testing. This simple classification provides little insight into etiologies of olfactory loss, associated comorbidities, or impact on the quality of life (QOL). METHODS: Community-based subjects underwent olfactory psychophysical testing using Sniffin Sticks to measure threshold (T), discrimination (D), and identification (I). The cognitive screening was performed using Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE). Unsupervised clustering was performed based upon T, D, I, and MMSE. Post hoc differences in demographics, comorbidities, and QOL measures were assessed. RESULTS: Clustering of 219 subjects, mean age 51 years (range 20-93 years) resulted in 4 unique clusters. Cluster 1 was the largest and predominantly younger normosmics. Cluster 2 had the worst olfaction with impairment in nearly all aspects of olfaction and decreased MMSE scores. This cluster had higher rates of smoking, heart disease, and cancer and had the worst olfactory-specific QOL. Cluster 3 had normal MMSE with relative preservation of D and I, but severely impaired T. This cluster had higher rates of smoking and heart disease with moderately impaired QOL. Cluster 4 was notable for the worst MMSE scores, but general preservation of D and I with moderate loss of T. This cluster had higher rates of Black subjects, diabetes, and viral/traumatic olfactory loss. CONCLUSION: Unsupervised clustering based upon detailed olfactory testing and cognitive testing results in clinical phenotypes with unique risk factors and QOL impacts. These clusters may provide additional information regarding etiologies and subsequent therapies to treat olfactory loss.