Cannabis and opioid perceptions, co-use, and substitution among patients across 4 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

Prescription opioids are used for managing pain in persons with cancer, however, there are socioeconomic and racial disparities in medication access. Cannabis is increasingly used for cancer symptom management and as an opioid alternative. Limited data are available about patterns of opioid and cannabis use among patients with cancer. We used survey data from 4 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in 3 states (n = 1220) to assess perceptions, use of cannabis and opioids for pain, their substitution, and racial and ethnic differences in each outcome. Compared with White patients, Black patients were less likely to use opioids for pain (odds ratio [OR] = 0.66; P = .035) and more likely to report that cannabis was more effective than opioids (OR = 2.46; P = .03). Race effects were mitigated (P > .05) after controlling for socioeconomic factors. Further research is needed to understand cannabis and opioid use patterns and how overlapping social determinants of health create a disadvantage in cancer symptom management for Black patients.

Perceptions, prevalence, and patterns of cannabis use among cancer patients treated at 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: The legal climate for cannabis use has dramatically changed with an increasing number of states passing legislation legalizing access for medical and recreational use. Among cancer patients, cannabis is often used to ameliorate adverse effects of cancer treatment. Data are limited on the extent and type of use among cancer patients during treatment and the perceived benefits and harms. This multicenter survey was conducted to assess the use of cannabis among cancer patients residing in states with varied legal access to cannabis. METHODS: A total of 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers, across states with varied cannabis-access legal status, conducted surveys with a core questionnaire to assess cannabis use among recently diagnosed cancer patients. Data were collected between September 2021 and August 2023 and pooled across 12 cancer centers. Frequencies and 95% confidence intervals for core survey measures were calculated, and weighted estimates are presented for the 10 sites that drew probability samples. RESULTS: Overall reported cannabis use since cancer diagnosis among survey respondents was 32.9% (weighted), which varied slightly by state legalization status. The most common perceived benefits of use were for pain, sleep, stress and anxiety, and treatment side effects. Reported perceived risks were less common and included inability to drive, difficulty concentrating, lung damage, addiction, and impact on employment. A majority reported feeling comfortable speaking to health-care providers though, overall, only 21.5% reported having done so. Among those who used cannabis since diagnosis, the most common modes were eating in food, smoking, and pills or tinctures, and the most common reasons were for sleep disturbance, followed by pain and stress and anxiety with 60%-68% reporting improved symptoms with use. CONCLUSION: This geographically diverse survey demonstrates that patients use cannabis regardless of its legal status. Addressing knowledge gaps concerning benefits and harms of cannabis use during cancer treatment is critical to enhance patient-provider communication.

The impact of outpatient supportive oncology on cancer care cost and utilization.

BACKGROUND: Supportive oncology (SO) care reduces symptom severity, admissions, and costs in patients with advanced cancer. This study examines the impact of SO care on utilization and costs. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of utilization and costs comparing patients enrolled in SO versus three comparison cohorts who did not receive SO. Using claims, the authors estimated differences in health care utilization and cost between the treatment group and comparison cohorts. The treatment group consisting of patients treated for cancer at an National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center who received SO between January 2018 and December 2019 were compared to an asynchronous cohort that received cancer care before January 2018 (n = 60), a contemporaneous cohort with palliative care receiving SO care from other providers in the Southeastern Pennsylvania region during the program period (n = 86), and a contemporaneous cohort without palliative care consisting of patients at other cancer centers who were eligible for but did not receive SO care (n = 393). RESULTS: At 30, 60, and 90 days post-enrollment into SO, the treatment group had between 27% and 70% fewer inpatient admissions and between 16% and 54% fewer emergency department visits (p < .05) compared to non-SO cohorts. At 90 days following enrollment in SO care, total medical costs were between 4.4% and 24.5% lower for the treatment group across all comparisons (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: SO is associated with reduced admissions, emergency department visits, and total costs in advanced cancer patients. Developing innovative reimbursement models could be a cost-effective approach to improve care of patients with advanced cancer.

Perspectives from patients with chronic lung disease on a telehealth-facilitated integrated palliative care model: a qualitative content analysis study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lung disease affects nearly 37 million Americans and often results in significant quality of life impairment and healthcare burden. Despite guidelines calling for palliative care (PC) integration into pulmonary care as a vital part of chronic lung disease management, existing PC models have limited access and lack scalability. Use of telehealth to provide PC offers a potential solution to these barriers. This study explored perceptions of patients with chronic lung disease regarding a telehealth integrated palliative care (TIPC) model, with plans to use findings to inform development of an intervention protocol for future testing. METHODS: For this qualitative study, we conducted semi-structured interviews between June 2021- December 2021 with patients with advanced chronic lung disease. Interviews explored experiences with chronic lung disease, understanding of PC, and perceived acceptability of the proposed model along with anticipated facilitators and barriers of the TIPC model. We analyzed findings with a content analysis approach. RESULTS: We completed 20 interviews, with two that included both a patient and caregiver together due to patient preference. Perceptions were primarily related to three categories: burden of chronic lung disease, pre-conceived understanding of PC, and perspective on the proposed TIPC model. Analysis revealed a high level of disease burden related to chronic lung disease and its impact on day-to-day functioning. Although PC was not well understood, the TIPC model using a shared care planning approach via telehealth was seen by most as an acceptable addition to their chronic lung disease care. CONCLUSIONS: These findings emphasize the need for a patient-centered, shared care planning approach in chronic lung disease. The TIPC model may be one option that may be acceptable to individuals with chronic lung disease. Future work includes using findings to refine our TIPC model and conducting pilot testing to assess acceptability and utility of the model.

Toward reducing racialized pain care disparities: Approaching cannabis research and access through the lens of equity and inclusion.

There is growing interest in cannabis use for cancer pain. This commentary aims to discuss the evidence surrounding cannabis use for cancer pain in the context of the long-racialized landscape of cannabis policies and the disparity in pain control among cancer patients holding minoritized racial identities. Much evidence surrounding both the benefits and harms of cannabis use in cancer patients, and all patients in general, is lacking. Although drawing on the research in cancer that is available, it is also important to illustrate the broader context about how cannabis' deep roots in medical, political, and social history impact patient use and health care policies. There are lessons we can learn from the racialized disparities in opioid risk mitigation strategies, so they are not replicated in the settings of cannabis for cancer symptom management. Additionally, the authors intentionally use the term "cannabis" here rather than "marijuana.: In the early 1900s, the lay press and government popularized the use of the word "marijuana" instead of the more common "cannabis" to tie the drug to anti-Mexican prejudice.

Perioperative opioids and survival outcomes in resectable head and neck cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are a mainstay in pain control for oncologic surgery. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the associations of perioperative opioid use with overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with resectable head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL between 2000 and 2022 was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies investigating perioperative opioid use for patients with HNC undergoing surgical resection and its association with OS and DFS were included. RESULTS: Three thousand three hundred seventy-eight studies met initial inclusion criteria, and three studies representing 562 patients (intraoperative opioids, n = 463; postoperative opioids, n = 99) met final exclusion criteria. One study identified that high intraoperative opioid requirement in oral cancer surgery was associated with decreased OS (HR = 1.77, 95% CI 0.995-3.149) but was not an independent predictor of decreased DFS. Another study found that increased intraoperative opioid requirements in treating laryngeal cancer was demonstrated to have a weak but statistically significant inverse relationship with DFS (HR = 1.001, p = 0.02) and OS (HR = 1.001, p = 0.02). The last study identified that patients with chronic opioid after resection of oral cavity cancer had decreased DFS (HR = 2.7, 95% CI 1.1-6.6) compared to those who were not chronically using opioids postoperatively. CONCLUSION: An association may exist between perioperative opioid use and OS and DFS in patients with resectable HNC. Additional investigation is required to further delineate this relationship and promote appropriate stewardship of opioid use with adjunctive nonopioid analgesic regimens.

Social Determinants of Health Associated with How Cannabis is Obtained and Used in Patients with Cancer Receiving Care at a Cancer Treatment Center in Pennsylvania.

Despite increased rates of cannabis use among patients with cancer, there are gaps in our understanding of barriers to accessing cannabis. Social determinants of health (SDoH) are associated with access to healthcare, but few studies have evaluated how SDoH relate to cannabis access and use among cancer patients. We examined whether access to and modes of cannabis use differed across indicators of SDoH among patients receiving treatment from a large National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated cancer center. This anonymous cross-sectional survey was developed in collaboration with the NCI Cannabis Supplement consortium, which funded 12 supplements to NCI Center Core Grants across the United States. We evaluated the association of race, gender, income, and age with mode of cannabis use, source of obtaining cannabis, what influences their purchase, and medical cannabis certification status. Overall, 1,053 patients receiving treatment for cancer in Pennsylvania completed the survey and 352 (33.4%) reported using cannabis since their cancer diagnosis. Patients who identified as Black/African-American were less likely to have medical cannabis certifications (p=0.04). Males and Black/African-Americans were more likely to report smoking cannabis (vs other forms, ps<0.01) and to purchase cannabis from an unlicensed dealer/seller (p<0.01). Lower-income patients were more likely to be influenced by price and ease of access (ps<0.05). Although cannabis users were younger than non-users, age was not associated with any outcomes. The current data shed light on how critical drivers of health disparities (such as race, gender, and income) are associated with where patients with cancer obtain cannabis, what forms they use, and what may influence their purchase decisions.

SIO-ASCO guideline on integrative medicine for cancer pain management: implications for racial and ethnic pain disparities.

Racial and ethnic disparities in pain management pose major challenges to equitable cancer care delivery. These disparities are driven by complex interactions between patient-, provider-, and system-related factors that resist reductionistic solutions and require innovative, holistic approaches. On September 19, 2022, the Society for Integrative Oncology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology published a joint guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations on integrative medicine for cancer pain management. Integrative medicine, which combines conventional treatments with complementary modalities from cultures and traditions around the world, are uniquely equipped to resonate with diverse cancer populations and fill existing gaps in pain management. Although some complementary modalities, such as music therapy and yoga, lack sufficient evidence to make a specific recommendation, other modalities, such as acupuncture, massage, and hypnosis, demonstrated an intermediate level of evidence, resulting in moderate strength recommendations for their use in cancer pain management. However, several factors may hinder real-world implementation of the Society for Integrative Oncology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline and must be addressed to ensure equitable pain management for all communities. These barriers include, but are not limited to, the lack of insurance coverage for many complementary therapies, the limited diversity and availability of complementary therapy providers, the negative social norms surrounding complementary therapies, the underrepresentation of racial and ethnic subgroups in the clinical research of complementary therapies, and the paucity of culturally attuned interventions tailored to diverse individuals. This commentary examines both the challenges and the opportunities for addressing racial and ethnic disparities in cancer pain management through integrative medicine.

Feasibility and Cost of Telehealth Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of telehealth head and neck cancer (HNC) survivorship care. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic search for peer-reviewed feasibility studies on telehealth models for HNC survivorship care published between 2005 and 2021 was conducted using the terms "head and neck cancer" and "telehealth" and their synonyms. Inclusion criteria were studies on telehealth survivorship program interventions for HNC patients with quantitative feasibility outcome measures (eg, enrollment, retention, attrition/dropout rate, adherence/task completion rate, patient satisfaction, cost). RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies out of 1557 identified met inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. Feasibility outcomes evaluated were enrollment and attrition rates, adherence/task completion rates, patient satisfaction, and user feedback surveys in different survivorship domains. Patient enrollment ranged from 20.8% to 85.7%, while attrition ranged from 7% to 47.7%. Overall, adherence was 30.2% higher in the intervention group than in the control group (46.8% vs 16.6%). Studies with cost analysis found telehealth models of care to be statistically significantly less expensive and more cost-efficient than the standard model of care, with a $642.30 saving per patient (n = 3). Telehealth models also substantially reduced work time saving per visit (on average, 7 days per visit). CONCLUSION: While telehealth survivorship programs are feasible and cost-effective and are associated with improved patient outcomes, they might not be ideal for every patient. Further investigations are needed to understand the role of telehealth in survivorship care, given the variability in study design, reporting, measures, and methodological quality.

Patient-Important Needs and Goals Related to Nutrition Interventions during Cancer Treatment.

Patients with cancer often experience nutrition-related challenges for which they are subsequently connected with nutritional support. Yet to date there are no validated tools to assess whether nutrition interventions sufficiently address patients' needs. A vital step toward developing a tool is to identify primary patient-important goals related to receiving nutrition support during cancer care. To that end, we interviewed patients and clinicians to identify nutrition-related needs and goals of patients undergoing cancer treatment. We interviewed 31 patients undergoing cancer treatment and 17 clinicians at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, PA. Two coders analyzed transcripts using a conventional qualitative content analysis approach. Patients and clinicians both identified weight maintenance, improved food satisfaction and intake, and improved quality of life metrics - such as reduced emotional and financial stress - as top nutrition-related goals. Participants also highlighted the importance of patients receiving food they like and having control over what they eat when designing optimal nutrition interventions. These findings will be used in future work to create a patient-centered assessment tool designed to capture a range of patient goals related to nutrition interventions.

A Longitudinal Observational Study of Medical Cannabis Use and Polypharmacy among Patients Presenting to Dispensaries in Pennsylvania.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use is increasing among adults to treat a variety of health conditions. Given the potential for interactions and adverse events, it is important to assess the use of medical cannabis along with other concomitant medications when assessing for polypharmacy. METHODS: The objective of this observational, longitudinal study was to examine medical cannabis (MC) use along with concomitant medications over 12 months in patients with serious medical conditions enrolled in the Pennsylvania (PA) Department of Health's (DOH) Medical Marijuana Program and to collect and catalog which forms of MC patients are taking along with their concomitant medications. RESULTS: There were 213 participants who completed the baseline surveys in full, and 201, 187, and 175 who completed the 1, 6, and 12-month follow-up surveys. The mean age of the participants was 41.3 years, and 54.5% were female. The mean number of MC products taken at baseline was 3.41 and 3.47 at the 12-month survey. Participants took an average of 3.76 (SD 3.15) medications at baseline and 3.65 (SD 3.4) at 12 months. Most commonly used concomitant medications at baseline included vitamins (42.3%), antidepressants (29.1%), analgesics (22.1%), herbal products (19.7%), and anxiolytics (17.8%). CONCLUSION: Participants used multiple medical cannabis products to treat a number of medication conditions in conjunction with multiple medications.

Increasing equitable access to telehealth oncology care in the COVID-19 National Emergency: Creation of a telehealth task force.

INTRODUCTION: Telehealth (TH) utilization in cancer care prior to COVID-19 was variable. Research highlights disparities in access determined by socioeconomic factors including education, income, race, and age. In response to COVID-19 and these disparities, we assessed the impact of a personalized digital support structure, the Telehealth Task Force (TTF), to reduce disparities in TH. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of cohorts between January 1, 2020 and August 30, 2020: Pre (TH use with basic telephone support), Intervention (TH access with TTF), and Post (TH access after TTF initiation and educational material dissemination). Data collected included successful TH access, health literacy (HL), and Area Deprivation Index, a ranking of neighborhoods by socioeconomic disadvantage (ADI). The data were analyzed in univariate ordinary least squares model and adjacent categories ratio model using statistical software R to understand the relationship between TTF, HL, ADI, and TH access. RESULTS: We included 555 patients from January 1, 2020 to August 30, 2020 (90 preintervention, 194 intervention, and 271 postintervention), excluding patients without ADI/HL. TTF support successfully engaged older, racially, and socioeconomically diverse patients in TH; ADI is significantly higher in the postintervention group vs. preintervention (mean difference = 7.66, 95% CI 1.00-4.32, p = 0.024) and more patients had low HL during intervention compared with preintervention (adjacent categories ratio = 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.93, p = 0.021). DISCUSSION: COVID-19 created an immediate need for TH. Implementation of the TTF helped close the digital divide, increasing TH access for vulnerable patients. Attention to digital readiness can mitigate disparities in access to care. Future research should explore the implementation of widespread routine digital support initiatives.

Impact of Head and Neck Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment on Patient-Partner Intimacy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma diagnosis and treatment on patient- and partner-perceived intimacy and to understand if a diagnosis of HPV-related head and neck squamous cell carcinoma influences patient-partner intimacy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational. SETTING: Single tertiary care center. METHODS: An investigator-developed questionnaire was used to prospectively survey patients and partners in 2 groups based on human papillomavirus (HPV) status: HPV+ and HPV- at diagnosis (visit 1) and after treatment (visit 2). Surveys were scored on a 60-point scale, and results were categorized as follows: loss of intimacy (0-30), stable relationship (31-41), or improvement in intimacy (42-60). Responses of couples who participated together were assessed for concordance. Responses were considered discordant if patient and partner scores equated to different levels of perceived intimacy. Median patient and partner scores were compared via Mann-Whitney U test, and concordance was assessed with a chi-square test. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients and 28 partners completed surveys at visit 1 and 28 patients and 15 partners at visit 2. Median scores among patients and partners were similar at the first time point (HPV+, 45 vs 45, P = .64; HPV-, 42.6 vs 40.8, P = .29) and the second (HPV+, 44.5 vs 44, P = .87; HPV-, 40.2 vs 39.6, P = .90). Concordance rates between HPV+ and HPV- couples were 63% vs 44% (P = .43) for the first time point and 89% vs 50% (P = .24) for the second. CONCLUSION: Patients and partners reported stable or improved intimacy at both time points, and most couples tended to agree on their levels of perceived intimacy. A diagnosis of HPV did not appear to significantly affect intimacy scores.

Cannabis Use in Patients With Cancer: A Clinical Review.

Cannabis use and interest continues to increase among patients with cancer and caregivers. High-quality research remains scant in many areas, causing hesitancy or discomfort among most clinical providers. Although we have limitations on hard outcomes, we can provide some guidance and more proactively engage in conversations with patients and family about cannabis. Several studies support the efficacy of cannabis for various cancer and treatment-related symptoms, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and cancer pain. Although formulations and dosing guidelines for clinicians do not formally exist at present, attention to tetrahydrocannabinol concentration and understanding of risks with inhalation can reduce risk. Conflicting information exists on the interaction between cannabis and immunotherapy as well as estrogen receptor interactions. Motivational interviewing can help engage in more productive, less stigmatized conversations.

Characterizing anxiety, pain, sleep, and quality of life among patients in a state Medical Marijuana Program.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is increasingly used for symptom management, but its effects on health-related quality of life (QoL) have been inconclusive. OBJECTIVES: The goal of the present study was to characterize self-reported symptoms and QoL among patients certified to use medical cannabis. METHODS: These data are from the baseline assessment of a 12-month longitudinal study. The survey assessed certifying conditions, current medications, symptoms and symptom severity. QoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care (FACIT-Pal) which includes Physical Well-Being (PWB), Social/Family Well-Being (SWB), Emotional Well-Being (EWB), Functional Well-Being (FWB), and the Palliative Care subscale. Higher scores indicated better QoL. RESULTS: Overall, 210 patients (114 female, 92 male, 3 non-binary, 1 refused) completed the survey. The most common certifying conditions were pain (48.6%), anxiety (36.7%), and PTSD (15.7%) and the most common symptoms were anxiety (65.2%), pain (56.7%), sleep disturbance (38.6%), and depression (31.4%). Compared to normative data, this sample reported lower QoL, specifically EWB and SWB scores (i.e., T-Scores<45). Opioid/benzodiazepine/sedative-hypnotic use was associated with lower QoL on all subscales (except SWB and FWB) (ps < 0.05). Greater number of self-reported symptoms and medical conditions were associated with lower QoL (ps < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite mixed evidence regarding cannabis' efficacy for anxiety, 36.7% of the current sample were certified by a physician for anxiety. Lower QoL was associated with more self-reported comorbid medical conditions, higher total symptom count, and reported use of an opioid and/or benzodiazepine. Future longitudinal data will provide critical information regarding the trajectory of these symptoms and QoL.

Shared Decision-Making in Managing Breakthrough Cancer Pain in Patients With Advanced Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a significant problem in patients with cancer. Breakthrough cancer pain contributes to the pain experience, but it is often underassessed and underrecognized. Shared decision-making (SDM), where patient preferences, goals, and concerns are discussed and integrated into a shared decision, can potentially foster earlier identification of pain, including breakthrough cancer pain, and improve pain management. OBJECTIVES: To explore the use of SDM to evaluate its impact on cancer pain management. METHODS: This prospective, multisite study engaged patients with advanced cancer to explore the use of SDM in managing cancer pain using a digital platform with an expanded pain assessment. Decision preferences were noted and incorporated into care. Outcomes included pain and patient-perceived pain care quality. RESULTS: 51 patients with advanced cancer enrolled in the study. The mean pain score was 5 out of 10 throughout the three study time points. 88% of patients experienced breakthrough cancer pain of severe intensity at baseline and approximately 70% at visits two and three. The majority of breakthrough cancer pain episodes lasted longer than 30 minutes. The majority (86%) of participating patients desired shared decision-making or patient-driven decision-making. Most patients expressed satisfaction with the level of shared decision-making in managing their cancer pain. Breakthrough cancer pain remained significant for most patients. CONCLUSIONS: SDM incorporated into pain discussions has the potential to improve pain outcomes, but significant challenges remain in managing breakthrough cancer pain.

COVID-19 Pandemic Influence on Medical Oncology Provider Perceptions of Telehealth Video Visits.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid expansion of telehealth use in oncology, a specialty in which prior utilization was low in part because of barriers perceived by providers. Understanding the changing perceptions of medical oncology providers during the pandemic is critical for continued expansion and improvement of telehealth in cancer care. This study was designed to identify medical oncology providers' perceptions of telehealth video visits as influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical oncology providers from November 20, 2020, to January 27, 2021, at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University, a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in an urban, academic health system in Philadelphia, PA. We assessed provider perceptions of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on (1) provider-level comfort and willingness for telehealth, (2) provider-perceived patient comfort and willingness to engage in telehealth, and (3) continued barriers to successful telehealth use. RESULTS: Volunteer and convenience sampling resulted in the participation of 25 medical oncology providers, including 18 physicians and seven advanced practice providers, in semi-structured interviews. Of the 25 participants, 13 (52%) were female and 19 (76%) were White, with an average age of 48.5 years (standard deviation = 12.6). Respondents largely stated an increased comfort level and willingness for use of video visits. In addition, respondents perceived a positive change in patient comfort and willingness, mostly driven by convenience, accessibility, and reduced risk of COVID-19 exposure. However, several reported technologic issues and limited physical examination capability as remaining barriers to telehealth adoption. CONCLUSION: The rapid adoption of telehealth necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic has increased provider-level and provider-perceived patient comfort and willingness to engage in video visits for cancer care. As both providers and patients increasingly accept telehealth across many use cases, future work should focus on further addressing technology and physical examination barriers and ensuring continued reimbursement for telehealth as a routine part of covered care.

Impact of Cannabis Use on Least Pain Scores Among African American and White Patients with Cancer Pain: A Moderation Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Based on many published reports, African American patients with cancer experience higher pain severity scores and lower pain relief than White patients. This disparity results from undertreatment of pain and is compounded by low adherence to prescribed non-opioid and opioid analgesics among African American patients with cancer. While nearly one in four patients use cannabis to manage cancer-related symptoms, less is known about how cannabis use influences pain relief in this patient population. METHODS: This study is based on preliminary data from an ongoing study of longitudinal outcomes of opioid therapy among African American and White patients with cancer. Linear mixed-effects models were utilized to assess the interaction of race and cannabis use on pain relief using "least pain" item scores from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) averaged across three time points. Models were adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: This analysis included 136 patients (49 African American, 87 White). Overall, 30.1% of the sample reported cannabis use for cancer pain. The mean "least pain" score on BPI was 3.3 (SD=2.42) on a scale of 0-10. African American patients had a mean "least pain" score 1.32±0.48 units higher (indicating lower pain relief) than White patients (p=0.006). Cannabis use did not have a significant main effect (p=0.28). However, cannabis use was a significant moderator of the relationship between race and "least pain" (p=0.03). In the absence of cannabis use, African Americans reported higher "least pain" scores compared to Whites (mean difference=1.631±0.5, p=0.001). However, this disparity was no longer observed in African American patients reporting cannabis use (mean "least pain" difference=0.587±0.59, p=0.32). CONCLUSION: These findings point to the possible role of cannabis in cancer pain management and its potential to reduce racial disparities. These findings are preliminary and further research into the role of cannabis in cancer pain outcomes is needed.

Engaging Patients with Late-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Shared Decision Making about Treatment.

Few treatment decision support interventions (DSIs) are available to engage patients diagnosed with late-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in treatment shared decision making (SDM). We designed a novel DSI that includes care plan cards and a companion patient preference clarification tool to assist in shared decision making. The cards answer common patient questions about treatment options (chemotherapy, chemotherapy plus immunotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, clinical trial participation, and supportive care). The form elicits patient treatment preference. We then conducted interviews with clinicians and patients to obtain feedback on the DSI. We also trained oncology nurse educators to implement the prototype. Finally, we pilot tested the DSI among five patients with NSCLC at the beginning of an office visit scheduled to discuss treatment with an oncologist. Analyses of pilot study baseline and exit survey data showed that DSI use was associated with increased patient awareness of the alternatives' treatment options and benefits/risks. In contrast, patient concern about treatment costs and uncertainty in treatment decision making decreased. All patients expressed a treatment preference. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to assess DSI implementation feasibility and efficacy in clinical care.

Digital Literacy at an Urban Cancer Center: Implications for Technology Use and Vulnerable Patients.

PURPOSE: eHealth literacy, or the ability to seek, find, understand, and appraise health information from electronic sources, has become increasingly relevant in the era of COVID-19, when so many aspects of patient care became dependent on technology. We aimed to understand eHealth literacy among a diverse sample of patients with cancer and discuss ways for health systems and cancer centers to ensure that all patients have access to high-quality care. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of patients with cancer and caregivers was conducted at an NCI-designated cancer center to assess access to the Internet, smartphone ownership, use of mobile apps, willingness to engage remotely with the health care team, and use of the patient portal. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were used to assess frequencies and significant differences between variables. RESULTS: Of 363 participants, 55% (n = 201) were female, 71% (n = 241) identified as non-Hispanic White, and 29% (n = 85) reported that their highest level of education was a high school diploma. Most (90%, n = 323) reported having access to the Internet and most (82%, n = 283) reported owning a smartphone. Younger patients or those with a college degree were significantly more likely to own a smartphone, access health information online, know how to download an app on their own, have an interest in communicating with their health care team remotely, or have an account on the electronic patient portal. CONCLUSION: As cancer centers increasingly engage patients through electronic and mobile applications, patients with low or limited digital literacy may be excluded, exacerbating current cancer health disparities. Patient-, provider- and system-level technology barriers must be understood and mitigated.