Role of primary care in opioid prescribing for older head and neck cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Older head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors have concerning rates of potentially unsafe opioid prescribing. Identifying the specialties of opioid prescribers for HNC survivors is critical for targeting the settings for opioid safety interventions. This study hypothesized that oncology and surgery providers are primarily responsible for opioid prescriptions in the year after treatment but that primary care providers (PCPs) are increasingly involved in prescribing over time. METHODS: Using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, a retrospective analysis was conducted of adults aged >65 years diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with stage I-III HNC and who had ≥6 months of treatment-free follow-up through 2019. Starting at treatment completion, opioid fills were assigned to a prescriber specialty: oncology, surgery, primary care, pain management, or other. Prescriber patterns were summarized for each year of follow-up. Multinomial logistic regression models captured the likelihood of opioids being prescribed by each specialty. RESULTS: Among 5135 HNC survivors, 2547 (50%) had ≥1 opioid fill (median, 2.1-year follow-up). PCPs prescribed 47% of all fills (42%-55% each year). PCPs prescribed opioids to 45% of survivors with ≥1 opioid fill, which was a greater share than other specialties. PCPs prescribed longer supplies of opioids (median, 20 days/fill; median, 30 days/year) than oncologists or surgeons. The likelihood of an opioid being prescribed by an oncology provider was four times lower than that of it being prescribed by a PCP. CONCLUSIONS: PCP involvement in opioid prescribing remains high throughout HNC survivorship. Interventions to improve the safety of opioid prescribing should target primary care, as is typical for opioid reduction efforts in the noncancer population.

Cannabis use among recently treated cancer patients: perceptions and experiences.

PURPOSE: To characterize cannabis use among cancer patients, we aimed to describe 1) patterns of cannabis use across multiple cancer sites; 2) perceived goals, benefits, harms of cannabis; and 3) communication about cannabis. METHODS: Patients with 9 different cancers treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between March and August 2021 completed an online or phone survey eliciting cannabis use, attitudes, and communication about cannabis. Multivariable logistic regression estimated the association of cancer type and cannabis use, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and prior cannabis use. RESULTS: Among 1258 respondents, 31% used cannabis after diagnosis, ranging from 25% for lung cancer to 59% for testicular cancer. Characteristics associated with cannabis use included younger age, lower education level, and cancer type. In multivariable analysis, compared to lung cancer patients, gastrointestinal cancer patients were more likely to use cannabis (odds ratio [OR] 2.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-5.43). Cannabis use in the year prior to diagnosis was strongly associated with cannabis use after diagnosis (OR 19.13, 95% CI 11.92-30.72). Among users, reasons for use included difficulty sleeping (48%); stress, anxiety, or depression (46%); and pain (42%). Among respondents who used cannabis to improve symptoms, 70-90% reported improvement; < 5% reported that any symptom worsened. Only 25% discussed cannabis with healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: Almost a third of cancer patients use cannabis, largely for symptom management. Oncologists may not know about their patients' cannabis use. To improve decision making about cannabis use during cancer care, research is needed to determine benefits and harms of cannabis use.

Real-world use of bone modifying agents in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bone modifying agents (BMAs) prevent skeletal related events among patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) involving bone and prevent osteoporotic fractures among patients at high risk. BMA utilization for patients with mCRPC has not been well quantified. METHODS: We used linked SEER registry and Medicare claims data. We included men diagnosed with stage IV prostate adenocarcinoma during 2007-2015, aged > = 66 at diagnosis, with sufficient continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B, and D, who received androgen deprivation therapy. We limited to those who subsequently received a CRPC-defining treatment (CDT). We identified patients with evidence of bone metastasis using claims. Our primary outcome was receipt of a BMA (zoledronic acid or denosumab) within 180 days of initiating CDT. RESULTS: Among 1292 included patients, 1034 (80%) had bone metastasis. BMA use within 180 days of initiating CDT was higher among patients with bone metastases than those without (705/1034 [68%] vs 56/258 [22%]). Among patients without bone metastasis, those with high osteoporotic fracture risk were more likely than those without to receive a BMA (OR = 2.48, 95% CI: 1.17, 5.29); however, only 26% of patients with high fracture risk received a BMA. Among patients who received BMAs, most (62%) first initiated them >90 days before initiating CDT. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of patients with mCRPC and bone metastases received BMAs within 180 days after initiating CDT. A greater proportion of patients without bone metastasis may warrant BMA therapy for osteoporotic fracture prevention. Some patients with bone metastasis may be able to delay BMA initiation until CRPC.