Testing the feasibility of mobile ecological momentary assessment for symptom burden and management among metastatic cancer patients.

Background: Individuals who have metastatic cancer experience substantial physical and psychological distress (e.g., pain, depression, anxiety) from their disease and its treatment compared to patients with less advanced disease. As the burden of symptoms varies over time, ecological momentary assessment (EMA) may be used to better understand patients' symptom trajectories, complimenting traditional longitudinal data collection methods. However, few have used EMA in patients with metastatic disease. The current study adds to the existing literature by exploring interrelated, common cancer-related symptoms of pain, anxiety, and depression and use of cannabis-based products, opioid medications, other (nonopioid) pain medications, and medications for anxiety or depression. Methods: An eight-day prospective observational feasibility study was conducted among 50 patients with metastatic cancer recruited from seven solid cancer clinics at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. Participants completed a week of interval-contingent mobile EMA, administered daily at 9 a.m., 3 p.m., and 8 p.m., and a comprehensive interviewer-administered questionnaire on Day 8. Participants were queried on their symptom burden and management strategies (i.e., use of medications and cannabis). We considered EMA to be feasible if a priori retention (80%) and adherence goals (75%) were met. Results: Seventy-nine percent of eligible patients contacted enrolled in the study (n = 50 of 63). Among those enrolled, 92% were retained through Day 8 and 80% completed >90% of EMAs, exceeding a priori objectives. Participants' average pain, anxiety, and depressive symptoms across the week of EMA ranged from 1.7 to 1.8 (1 to 5 scale). Symptoms varied little by day or time of administration. On Day 8, significant proportions of participants reported past-week use of medications and cannabis for symptom management. Conclusions: Participants exceeded a priori adherence and retention objectives, indicating that mobile EMA is feasible among metastatic cancer patients, addressing a gap in the existing literature and informing future research. Restricting eligibility to participants with a minimum cutoff of symptom burden may be warranted to increase observations of symptom variability and provide opportunities for future health interventions. Future research is needed to test the acceptability and quality of data over a longer study period in this patient population.

Marijuana and Cannabidiol Use Prevalence and Symptom Management Among Patients with Cancer.

Symptoms such as pain, nausea, and anxiety are common in individuals with cancer. Treatment of these issues is often challenging. Cannabis products may be helpful in reducing the severity of these symptoms. While some studies include data on the prevalence of cannabis use among patients with cancer, detailed data remain limited, and none have reported the prevalence of cannabidiol (CBD) use in this population. Adult patients with cancer attending eight clinics at a large, NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center completed a detailed, cannabis-focused questionnaire between 2021 and 2022. Eligible participants were diagnosed with invasive cancer and treated in the past 12 months. Summary statistics were calculated to describe the sample regarding cannabis use. Approximately 15% (n = 142) of consented patients (n = 934) reported current cannabis use (defined as use within the past 12 months). Among which, 75% reported cannabis use in the past week. Among current cannabis users, 39% (n = 56; 6% overall) used CBD products. Current users reported using cannabis a median of 4.5 (interquartile range: 0.6­7.0) days/week, 2.0 (1.0­3.0) times per use/day, and for 3 years (0.8­30.0). Use patterns varied by route of administration. Patients reported moderate to high relief of symptoms with cannabis use. This study is the most detailed to date in terms of cannabis measurement and provides information about the current state of cannabis use in active cancer. Future studies should include complete assessments of cannabis product use, multiple recruitment sites, and diverse patient populations. SIGNIFICANCE: Clinicians should be aware that patients are using cannabis products and perceive symptom relief with its use.

The role of travel distance and price promotions in tobacco product purchase quantity.

INTRODUCTION: Rural Americans are particularly vulnerable to tobacco price reducing promotions are known to be directed to and used by vulnerable populations. Tobacco purchasing decisions, such as unit quantity purchased, may vary by rurality, by price promotion use, and possibly by the interaction between the two. Purchase decisions are likely to affect tobacco use behavior. Therefore, explanation of variation in tobacco purchase quantity by factors associated with rural vulnerability and factors that fall under the regulatory scope of the Tobacco Control Act (TCA) of 2009 could be of value to regulatory proposals intended to equitably benefit public health. METHODS: Our sample included 54 combustible tobacco users (298 purchase events) and 27 smokeless tobacco users (112 purchase events), who were asked to report all tobacco purchases on a smartphone application. We used an ecological momentary assessment methodology to collect data about tobacco users' purchasing patterns, including products, quantity purchased, and use of price promotions. A parent cohort study provided relevant data for home-outlet distance calculation and covariates. Our analysis examined associations between our outcome-purchase quantity per purchase event-and distance from participant's home to the nearest outlet, whether a price reducing promotion was used, and the interaction of these two factors. RESULTS: Combustible users showed an increased cigarette pack purchase quantity if they lived further from an outlet and used a price promotion (i.e., an interaction effect; RR = 1.70, 95% CI [1.11, 2.62]). Smokeless users purchased more units of snuff when they used price promotions (RR = 1.81, 95% CI [1.02, 3.20]). CONCLUSIONS: Regulatory action that imposes restrictions on the availability or use of price promotions could alter the purchasing behavior of rural Americans in such a way that makes it easier to reduce tobacco use or quit. Such action would also restrict flexibility in the price of tobacco products, which is known as a powerful tobacco control lever.