Radiation oncologist perceptions of therapeutic cannabis use among cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients are increasingly incorporating medical marijuana into the management of treatment-related side effects. Currently however, data is limited regarding the risks and benefits of therapeutic cannabis for cancer patients. We sought to characterize radiation oncologists' practices and opinions regarding therapeutic cannabis via a nationwide survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed via email to 873 radiation oncologists in the American Society for Radiation Oncology member database. Radiation oncologists were asked their opinions and practices regarding the use of therapeutic cannabis for their patients. Bivariate analyses of potential predictors for responses were conducted using standard statistical techniques. RESULTS: One hundred seven radiation oncologists completed the survey. According to the survey, 36% of respondents would recommend therapeutic cannabis to their patients to mitigate treatment toxicity. Physicians practicing in states where medical marijuana is legal were more likely to recommend it compared to physicians working in states that have not legalized medical marijuana (OR = 3.79, 1.19-12.1, p = 0.01). Seventy-one percent of respondents reported therapeutic cannabis as being effective at least some of the time for managing treatment-related toxicities. Fifty-eight percent of physicians reported lacking sufficient knowledge to advise patients regarding therapeutic cannabis, while 86% of respondents were interested in learning more about therapeutic cannabis for cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although a majority of radiation oncologists believe there are benefits to therapeutic cannabis, many are hesitant to recommend for or against its use. Radiation oncologists appear to be interested in learning more about how therapeutic cannabis may play a role in their patients' care.

Neighborhood disadvantage is associated with KRAS-mutated non-small cell lung cancer risk.

PURPOSE: It remains unclear why individuals living in disadvantaged neighborhoods have shorter non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) survival. It is possible that living in these deprived areas is linked with increased risk of developing aggressive NSCLC biology. Here, we explored the association of somatic KRAS mutations, which are associated with shorter survival in NSCLC patients, and 11 definitions of neighborhood disadvantage spanning socioeconomic and structural environmental elements. METHODS: We analyzed data from 429 NSCLC patients treated at a Comprehensive Cancer Center from 2015 to 2018. Data were abstracted from medical records and each patient's home address was used to assign publicly available indices of neighborhood disadvantage. Prevalence Ratios (PRs) for the presence of somatic KRAS mutations were estimated using modified Poisson regression models adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, cancer stage, and histology. RESULTS: In the NSCLC cohort, 29% had KRAS mutation-positive tumors. We found that five deprivation indices of socioeconomic disadvantage were associated with KRAS mutation. A one decile increase in several of these socioeconomic disadvantage indices was associated with a 1.06 to 1.14 increased risk of KRAS mutation. Measures of built structural environment were not associated with KRAS mutation status. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic disadvantage at the neighborhood level is associated with higher risk of KRAS mutation while disadvantage related to built environmental structural measures was inversely associated. Our results indicate not only that neighborhood disadvantage may contribute to aggressive NSCLC biology, but the pathways linking biology to disadvantage are likely operating through socioeconomic-related stress.

Neighborhood disadvantage and lung cancer risk in a national cohort of never smoking Black women.

BACKGROUND: Compared to women of other races who have never smoked, Black women have a higher risk of lung cancer. Whether neighborhood disadvantage, which Black women experience at higher rates than other women, is linked to never-smoking lung cancer risk remains unclear. This study investigates the association of neighborhood disadvantage and lung cancer risk in Black never-smoking women. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This research utilized data from the Black Women's Health Study, a prospective cohort of 59,000 Black women recruited from across the US in 1995 and followed by biennial questionnaires. Associations of lung cancer incidence with neighborhood-level factors (including two composite variables derived from Census Bureau data: neighborhood socioeconomic status and neighborhood concentrated disadvantage), secondhand smoke exposure, and PM2.5 were estimated using Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models. RESULTS: Among 37,650 never-smokers, 77 were diagnosed with lung cancer during follow-up from 1995 to 2018. The adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) of lung cancer incidence with ten unit increase in neighborhood concentrated disadvantage index was 1.30 (95 % CI: 1.04, 1.63, p = 0.023). Exposure to secondhand smoke at work was associated with increased risk (sHR = 1.93, 95 % CI: 1.21, 3.10, p = 0.006), but exposure to secondhand smoke at home and PM2.5 was not. CONCLUSION: Worse neighborhood concentrated disadvantage was associated with increased lung cancer risk in Black women who never smoked. These findings suggest that non-tobacco-related factors in disadvantaged neighborhoods may be linked to lung cancer risk in Black women and that these factors must be understood and targeted to achieve health equity.

A Lung Cancer Screening Education Program Impacts both Referral Rates and Provider and Medical Assistant Knowledge at Two Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) serve minority and low-socioeconomic populations and provide care to high-risk smokers. These centers frequently experience barriers, including low provider and medical assistant (MA) knowledge around lung cancer screening (LCS). Subsequent low LCS referral rates by providers at FQHCs limit utilization of LCS in eligible, high-risk, underserved patients. METHODS: Providers and MAs from two FQHCs participated in a LCS educational session. A pre-educational survey was administered at the start of the session and a post-educational survey at the end. The intervention included a presentation with education around non-small cell lung cancer, LCS, tobacco cessation, and shared-decision making. Both surveys were used to evaluate changes in provider and MA ability to determine eligible patients for LCS. The Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction was used to measure the impact. RESULTS: A total of 29 providers and 28 MAs enrolled in the study from two FQHCs. There was an improvement, P < .009 and P < .015 respectively, in provider and MA confidence in identifying patients for LCS. Additionally, one year prior to the program, 9 low-dose computed tomography (LDCTs) were ordered at one of the FQHCs and 0 at the other. After the program, over 100 LDCTs were ordered at each FQHC. CONCLUSIONS: A targeted LCS educational program improves provider and MAs' ability to identify eligible LCS patients and is associated with an increase in the number of patients referred to LDCT at FQHCs.