Supporting gut health with medicinal cannabis in people with advanced cancer: potential benefits and challenges.

The side effects of cancer therapy continue to cause significant health and cost burden to the patient, their friends and family, and governments. A major barrier in the way in which these side effects are managed is the highly siloed mentality that results in a fragmented approach to symptom control. Increasingly, it is appreciated that many symptoms are manifestations of common underlying pathobiology, with changes in the gastrointestinal environment a key driver for many symptom sequelae. Breakdown of the mucosal barrier (mucositis) is a common and early side effect of many anti-cancer agents, known to contribute (in part) to a range of highly burdensome symptoms such as diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, infection, malnutrition, fatigue, depression, and insomnia. Here, we outline a rationale for how, based on its already documented effects on the gastrointestinal microenvironment, medicinal cannabis could be used to control mucositis and prevent the constellation of symptoms with which it is associated. We will provide a brief update on the current state of evidence on medicinal cannabis in cancer care and outline the potential benefits (and challenges) of using medicinal cannabis during active cancer therapy.

Opioid analgesic dose and route conversion ratio studies: a scoping review to inform an eDelphi guideline.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians regularly prescribe opioids to manage acute and chronic cancer pain, frequently to address acute postoperative pain, and occasionally to manage chronic non-cancer pain. Clinical efficacy may be suboptimal in some patients due to side effects and/or poor response, and opioid rotation/switching (conversions) is frequently necessary. Despite the widespread practice, opioid conversion ratios are inconsistent between clinicians, practices, and countries. Therefore, we performed a scoping systematic review of opioid conversion studies to inform an international eDelphi guideline. METHODS: To ensure a comprehensive review, we conducted a systematic search across multiple databases (OVID Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, EBM-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Registered Trials, LILACS, IMEMR, AIM, WPRIM) using studies published up to June 2022. Additionally, we performed hand and Google Scholar searches to verify the completeness of our findings. Our inclusion criteria encompassed randomized and non-randomized studies with no age limit, with only a few pediatric studies identified. We included studies on cancer, non-cancer, acute, and chronic pain. The level and grade of evidence were determined based on the Multinational Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) criteria. RESULTS: Our search yielded 21,118 abstracts, including 140 randomized (RCT) and 68 non-randomized (NRCT) clinical trials. We compared these results with recently published conversion ratios. Modest correlations were noted between published reviews and the present scoping systematic review. CONCLUSION: The present scoping systematic review found low-quality evidence to support an opioid conversion guideline. We will use these data, including conversion ratios and type and route of administration, to inform an eDelphi guideline.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) guidelines: cannabis for psychological symptoms including insomnia, anxiety, and depression.

PURPOSE: During the treatment of cancer, 18% of patients use cannabis for symptom management. Anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances are common symptoms in cancer. A systematic review of the evidence for cannabis use for psychological symptoms in cancer patients was undertaken to develop a guideline. METHODS: A literature search of randomized trials and systematic reviews was undertaken up to November 12, 2021. Studies were independently assessed for evidence by two authors and then evaluated by all authors for approval. The literature search involved MEDLINE, CCTR, EMBASE, and PsychINFO databases. Inclusion criteria included randomized control trials and systematic reviews on cannabis versus placebo or active comparator in patients with cancer and psychological symptom management (anxiety, depression, and insomnia). RESULTS: The search yielded 829 articles; 145 from Medline, 419 from Embase, 62 from PsychINFO, and 203 from CCTR. Two systematic reviews and 15 randomized trials (4 on sleep, 5 on mood, 6 on both) met eligibility criteria. However, no studies specifically assessed the efficacy of cannabis on psychological symptoms as primary outcomes in cancer patients. The studies varied widely in terms of interventions, control, duration, and outcome measures. Six of 15 RCTs suggested benefits (five for sleep, one for mood). CONCLUSION: There is no high-quality evidence to recommend the use of cannabis as an intervention for psychological symptoms in patients with cancer until more high-quality research demonstrates benefit.

MASCC guideline: cannabis for cancer-related pain and risk of harms and adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 18% of patients with cancer use cannabis at one time as palliation or treatment for their cancer. We performed a systematic review of randomized cannabis cancer trials to establish a guideline for its use in pain and to summarize the risk of harm and adverse events when used for any indication in cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized trials with or without meta-analysis was carried out from MEDLINE, CCTR, Embase, and PsychINFO. The search involved randomized trials of cannabis in cancer patients. The search ended on November 12, 2021. The Jadad grading system was used for grading quality. Inclusion criteria for articles were randomized trials or systematic reviews of randomized trials of cannabinoids versus either placebo or active comparator explicitly in adult patients with cancer. RESULTS: Thirty-four systematic reviews and randomized trials met the eligibility criteria for cancer pain. Seven were randomized trials involving patients with cancer pain. Two trials had positive primary endpoints, which could not be reproduced in similarly designed trials. High-quality systematic reviews with meta-analyses found little evidence that cannabinoids are an effective adjuvant or analgesic to cancer pain. Seven systematic reviews and randomized trials related to harms and adverse events were included. There was inconsistent evidence about the types and levels of harm patients may experience when using cannabinoids. CONCLUSION: The MASCC panel recommends against the use of cannabinoids as an adjuvant analgesic for cancer pain and suggests that the potential risk of harm and adverse events be carefully considered for all cancer patients, particularly with treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Pregabalin for chemotherapy-induced neuropathy: background and rationale for further study.

Chemotherapy-induced neuropathy is difficult to manage, and the pain associated with neuropathy is poorly responsive to gabapentin in a randomized trial. Duloxetine is the only drug that has been found to be effective in reducing pain from chemotherapy neuropathy. In this qualitative review, the use of pregabalin for chemotherapy-induced neuropathy is discussed including the rationale and pharmacological reasons why pregabalin should be considered in a large, randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) expert opinion/guidance on the use of clinically assisted nutrition in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: The pro vision of clinically assisted nutrition (CAN) in patients with advanced cancer is controversial, and there is a paucity of specific guidance, and so a diversity in clinical practice. Consequently, the Palliative Care Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) formed a Subgroup to develop evidence-based guidance on the use CAN in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This guidance was developed in accordance with the MASCC Guidelines Policy. A search strategy for Medline was developed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were explored for relevant reviews/trials respectively. The outcomes of the review were categorised by the level of evidence, and a "category of guideline" based on the level of evidence (i.e. "recommendation", "suggestion", or "no guideline possible"). RESULTS: The Subgroup produced 11 suggestions, and 1 recommendation (due to the paucity of evidence). These outcomes relate to assessment of patients, indications for CAN, contraindications for CAN, procedures for initiating CAN, and re-assessment of patients. CONCLUSIONS: This guidance provides a framework for the use of CAN in advanced cancer, although every patient needs individualised management.

When does early palliative care influence aggressive care at the end of life?

BACKGROUND: Early palliative care improves patient quality of life and influences cancer care. The time frame of early has not been established. Eight quality measures reflect aggressive care at the end of life. We retrospectively reviewed patients who died with cancer between January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019, and compared the timing of palliative care consultation, advance directives (AD), and home palliative care with aggressive care at the end of life (ACEOL). METHODS: Patients without ACEOL indicators were compared to patients with one or more than one indicator of ACEOL. The proportion of patients who received palliative care, completed AD, and the timing of palliative care and AD (less than 30 days, 30-90 days, and greater than 90 days prior to death) was compared for patients who had ACEOL versus those who did not. Chi-square analysis was used for categorical data, one-way ANOVA for continuous variables, and odds ratio (OR) with confidence intervals (CI) was reported as a measure of effect size. A p value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: 1727 patients died, 46% were female, and the mean age was 69 (SD 11.91). Seventy-one percent had a palliative care consult, 26% completed AD, and 888 (51.4%) had at least one indicator of ACEOL. The most common indicator of ACEOL was new chemotherapy within 30 days of death, in 571 of 888 (64%) of patients experiencing ACEOL. ADs completed at any time reduced ACEOL (OR 0.80, 95%CI 0.64-0.99). Palliative care initiated at 30 days was associated with a greater risk of ACEOL (OR 5.32, 95% CI 3.94-7.18) and initiated between 30 and 90 days (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.07-1.80) compared to no palliative care but was associated with reduced chemotherapy as an indicator of ACEOL when > 90 days (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38-0.57) before death. DISCUSSION: Completed ADs were associated with reduced chemotherapy in the last 30 days of life and reduced ICU admissions. This may reflect goals of care and end-of-life discussions and transition of care to comfort measures. Palliative care paradoxically when initiated within 90 days before death was associated with greater ACEOL compared to no palliative care. This may be due to consultation late in the course of illness with a focus on crisis management in patients frequently utilizing the health care system. There is an associated reduction in the use of chemotherapy in the last 30 days of life if palliative care is consulted 90 days prior to death. CONCLUSIONS: An initial palliative care consult greater than 90 days before death and ADs completed at any time during the disease trajectory was associated only with reduced chemotherapy in the last 30 days of life compared with no palliative care among the 7 ACEOL indicators. ADs were associated with reduced ICU admissions. Most palliative care consults occurred within 90 days of death and a palliative care consult within 90 days of death is not an optimal utilization of services.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) expert opinion/consensus guidance on the use of cannabinoids for gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal symptoms are common in patients with cancer, whether related to treatment or a direct effect of the disease itself. Patients may choose to access cannabinoids outside of their formal medical prescriptions to palliate such symptoms. However, clinical guidelines are lacking in relation to the use of such medicines for gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the evidence for the use of cannabinoids for symptom control in patients with cancer was undertaken. Search strategies were developed for Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, including all publications from 1975 up to 12 November 2021. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids compared with placebo or active comparator in adult patients with cancer, regardless of type, stage, or treatment status. Articles for inclusion were agreed by all authors, and data extracted and summarized by two authors. Each study was scored according to the Jadad scale. This review was specifically for the purpose of developing guidelines for the use of cannabis for gastrointestinal symptoms, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), chronic nausea, anorexia-cachexia syndrome, and taste disturbance. RESULTS: Thirty-six randomized controlled trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria for this review of gastrointestinal symptoms: 31 relating to CINV, one to radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and the remaining four to anorexia-cachexia and altered chemosensory disturbance. The populations for the randomized controlled trials were heterogeneous, and many studies were of poor quality, lacking clarity regarding method of randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment. For CINV, eleven RCTs showed improvement with cannabis compared to placebo, but out of 21 trials where cannabis was compared to other antiemetics for CINV, only 11 favoured cannabis. CONCLUSION: Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and nabilone were more effective in preventing CINV when compared to placebo but are not more effective than other antiemetics. For refractory CINV, one study of THC:CBD demonstrated reduced nausea as an add-on treatment to guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy without olanzapine. The MASCC Guideline Committee found insufficient evidence to recommend cannabinoids for the management of CINV, nausea from advanced cancer, cancer-associated anorexia-cachexia, and taste disturbance. High-quality studies are needed to inform practice.

The Management of Nausea and Vomiting Not Related to Anticancer Therapy in Patients with Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: In cancer patients, the management of nausea and vomiting that is not directly related to treatment is challenging. Much current practice is based on expert opinion and anecdote. Fortunately, over recent years, a number of quality trials have been undertaken to strengthen the evidence base that guides the care of our patients with these distressing symptoms. Much is still unknown however. In this article, we present the latest literature that addresses some of the outstanding issues.

Treating Chronic Pain with Buprenorphine-The Practical Guide.

OPINION STATEMENT: Buprenorphine has unique and favorable pharmacological properties that make it useful in a variety of clinical scenarios. It has been recommended to consider buprenorphine first-line opioid for chronic pain, especially in the elderly as it may be associated with less cognitive impairment, falls, sexual dysfunction, and sarcopenia when compared with schedule II opioids. It may be useful in patients with comorbid substance use disorder or non-medical opioid use, as there is less risk of misuse, euphoria and it may improve mood. When used to treat opioid use disorder, the training and waiver was recently waived for licensed practitioners with a DEA and any provider may prescribe buprenorphine. For many reasons outlined in this article, the popularity of using buprenorphine for analgesia continues to grow and a practitioner should consider this as an excellent and safe option for chronic pain.

Pain or fatigue: which correlates more with suffering in hospitalized cancer patients?

BACKGROUND: The association of pain and suffering seems intuitive, but evidence substantiating this association is lacking. In studies of cancer patients, fatigue, rather than pain, is the most prevalent and debilitating symptom. This study aimed to compare the correlation of pain and fatigue to suffering, and identify other potential sources of suffering in cancer patients treated in a palliative care unit. METHODS: One hundred fifty cancer patients were surveyed. Fifteen variables were measured on a 0- to 10-point scale: suffering, pain, level of acceptable pain, effect of pain on quality of life, fatigue, level of acceptable fatigue, effect of fatigue on quality of life, and specific types of suffering. Univariable associations with suffering were made with Pearson correlation (continuous variables) or t test (binary predictors). Multivariable associations with suffering were assessed with linear regression analysis and bootstrapping. RESULTS: In multivariable analysis, highest pain (parameter estimate 0.38) had a greater impact on suffering than highest fatigue (parameter estimate 0.21). When other variables were assessed, 38% of the variability in suffering was accounted for by pain "now", fatigue in the past 24 hours, and age. CONCLUSION: The most important predictors of greater suffering in hospitalized cancer patients are pain, younger age, and fatigue. Despite their significant effect on suffering, other underlying contributors to suffering have yet to be identified. Designing interventions to reduce fatigue, in addition to pain management, may help in alleviating overall suffering.

Medical management of malignant bowel obstruction in patients with advanced cancer: 2021 MASCC guideline update.

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a frequent complication in patients with advanced cancer, particularly colon or gynecological malignancies. MASCC previously published a guideline for symptom management of MBO in 2017. This is a 5-year update. METHOD: A systematic search and review of relevant literature includes a review published in 2010 and 2017. The guideline update used the same literature search process as followed in 2015. The dates of the new search included 2015 up to February 2, 2021. The guidelines involved the pharmacologic management of nausea and vomiting in malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) only. Only randomized trials were included in the updated guideline as evidence. The evidence was reviewed by the panel and the MASCC criteria for establishing a guideline were followed using MASCC level of grading and category of evidence. RESULTS: There was one systematic review and 3 randomized trials accepted as evidence from 257 abstracts. Octreotide is effective in reducing gastrointestinal secretions and colic and thereby reduces nausea and vomiting caused by MBO. Scopolamine butylbromide is inferior to octreotide in the doses used in the comparison study. Olanzapine or metoclopramide may be effective in reducing nausea and vomiting secondary to partial bowel obstructions. The panel suggests using either drug. Additional studies are needed to clarify benefits. Haloperidol has been used by convention as an antiemetic but has not been subjected to a randomized comparison. Ranitidine plus dexamethasone may be effective in reducing nausea and vomiting from MBO but cannot be recommended until there is a comparison with octreotide. DISCUSSION: Octreotide remains the drug of choice in managing MBO. Ranitidine was used in one randomized trial in all participants and so its effectiveness as a single drug is not known until there is a randomized comparison with octreotide. Antiemetics such as metoclopramide and olanzapine may be effective, but we have very few randomized trials of antiemetics in MBO. CONCLUSION: The panel recommends octreotide in non-operable MBO. Randomized trials are needed to clarify ranitidine and antiemetic choices.

MASCC antiemetics in advanced cancer updated guideline.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting are a common clinical symptom in the advanced cancer patient. Pharmacologic management is important. Evidence for drug choices and guidelines are needed to help clinicians manage nausea and vomiting in this population METHODS: Evidence from a systematic review published in 2010, initial MASCC guidelines developed from a systematic review of literature to 2015, and a new systematic review of randomized trials published between 2015 and February 2, 2021, was combined to establish a new guideline. RESULTS: A search of the literature between 2015 and February 2, 2021, revealed 257 abstracts of which there was one systematic review and 4 randomized trials which were used to modify the guideline. The new guideline is as follows: First Line: Metoclopramide (II) multiple small RCTs including a placebo-controlled trial, haloperidol (II) multiple non-placebo-controlled RCTs, high consensus. Second line: Methotrimeprazine (II) 1 well-powered non-placebo-controlled RCT, olanzapine (II) 1 placebo-controlled pilot RCT, high consensus. Third line: Tropisetron (II) large unblinded lower quality non-placebo-controlled RCT, levosulpiride (II) 1 blinded non-placebo-controlled pilot RCT, high consensus. DISCUSSION: Haloperidol, metoclopramide, methotrimeprazine, olanzapine tropisetron, and levosulpiride have been antiemetics used in randomized trials with antiemetic activity demonstrated. There are only three placebo-controlled randomized trials we could find in our literature review. Placebo responses varied significantly between two randomized trials. More randomized placebo-controlled trials with either metoclopramide or haloperidol rescue are needed to clarify antiemetic choices in advanced cancer. CONCLUSION: First-line antiemetics for nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer are metoclopramide and haloperidol, and second-line medications are methotrimeprazine and olanzapine.

The Benefits of Olanzapine in Palliating Symptoms.

OPINION STATEMENT: Olanzapine has become a major drug in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting as a prophylactic agent. In addition, a recent randomized trial has demonstrated its benefits in treating nausea and vomiting associated with advanced cancer. The added benefit to olanzapine is that it also stimulates appetite. As a result, since it treats multiple symptoms associated with advanced cancer, it is likely to become the antiemetic of choice in palliative care at least in the USA. The added benefit of treating insomnia and the avoidance of benzodiazepines should place olanzapine in at the top of the list of drugs to use for patients who do complain of insomnia. There is no good evidence that it potentiates the respiratory depression of opioids unlike benzodiazepines. The evidence is weak that olanzapine in as an adjuvant analgesic. Hopefully, future trials will explore this in greater depth. The benefits of adding olanzapine to potent opioids are that it may reduce craving, drug cues, and opioid misuse. Other symptoms like anxiety and depression may be addressed by the addition of olanzapine to standard antidepressants.

Opioids and Cancer Mortality.

OPINION STATEMENT: Opioids are the gold standard for the treatment of cancer-related pain. Preclinical studies have associated opioids with cancer progression and overall survival. In mice models, opioids have been shown to possess pro-tumor activity secondary to immunosuppression, migration of tumor cells, increased activity of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, and angiogenesis leading to tumor progression. In contrast, opioids have also been associated with having antitumor activity by activation of apoptosis and phagocytosis. However, high-quality randomized controlled trials in humans that are focused on the association between opioids and survival in cancer patients are lacking, which underscores the importance of being cautious when interpreting the results of the preclinical studies. Cancer-related pain is complex and multifactorial and may worsen as the disease progresses leading to higher opioid utilization. Moreover, cancer pain by itself has been associated with poor survival. The survival in these advanced cancer patients taking opioids may be more likely to be associated with cancer progression and not the opioid use. Adequate treatment of cancer pain has the potential to improve quality of life and performance status, highlighting the importance of continuing to use opioids to manage pain efficiently. More research is clearly needed.

EEG Correlates of Central Origin of Cancer-Related Fatigue.

The neurophysiological mechanism of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) remains poorly understood. EEG was examined during a sustained submaximal contraction (SC) task to further understand our prior research findings of greater central contribution to early fatigue during SC in CRF. Advanced cancer patients and matched healthy controls performed an elbow flexor SC until task failure while undergoing neuromuscular testing and EEG recording. EEG power changes over left and right sensorimotor cortices were analyzed and correlated with brief fatigue inventory (BFI) score and evoked muscle force, a measure of central fatigue. Brain electrical activity changes during the SC differed in CRF from healthy subjects mainly in the theta (4-8 Hz) and beta (12-30 Hz) bands in the contralateral (to the fatigued limb) hemisphere; changes were correlated with the evoked force. Also, the gamma band (30-50 Hz) power decrease during the SC did not return to baseline after 2 min of rest in CRF, an effect correlated with BFI score. In conclusion, altered brain electrical activity during a fatigue task in patients is associated with central fatigue during SC or fatigue symptoms, suggesting its potential contribution to CRF during motor performance. This information should guide the development and use of rehabilitative interventions that target the central nervous system to maximize function recovery.

Checkpoint Inhibitors, Palliative Care, or Hospice.

PURPOSE: Checkpoint (CTLA-4, PD-1, and PD-L1) inhibitors have changed the face of oncology. A subset of patients enjoys long, gratifying treatment responses. Unfortunately, most patients do not respond even when expressing favorably markers such as PD-L1. Checkpoint inhibitors are largely palliative (though a subset have long-term cancer responses) and as such patient-related outcome measures should be included when evaluating benefits. The purpose of this review is to place checkpoint inhibitor trials within a palliation context. Included is a discussion on potential adverse effects on end-of-life care. RECENT FINDINGS: Pivotal studies have presented efficacy and safety data but we have little published data on quality of life or symptom responses. Extension of life is approximately 2-3 months with some long-term responses in a minority of patients. The cost of checkpoint inhibitors is high for utility (as measured by quality-adjusted life-year saved) and ranges from 81,000 to over 200,000 USD for quality-adjusted life-year saved. Adverse effects were suboptimally reported in multiple studies. Meaningful responses in many trials as defined by the European Society of Medical Oncology are modest. Because at least for now, checkpoint inhibitors are used in advanced cancer and largely palliative patients should be seen by palliative specialists, symptoms related to cancer assessed, and advanced directives addressed. Treatment-related autoimmune diseases represent toxicities which oncologists and palliative specialists must understand. This means that palliative care specialists should know about the benefits and adverse effects of these agents. Whether checkpoint inhibitors increase or decrease aggressive care, hospice referrals, and costs at the end of life is yet to be determined.

2016 Updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Management of nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this paper is to review the existing literature related to the management of nausea and vomiting (N & V) in advanced cancer and derive clinical evidence-based recommendations for its management. METHODS: Available systematic reviews on antiemetic drug effectiveness were used. One generic systematic review of antiemetics in advanced cancer (to 2009) was updated to February 2016. Agreement on recommendations was reached between panel members, and these were voted in favor unanimously by the larger antiemetic committee membership (n = 37). RESULTS: The evidence base in this field is minimal with largely poor quality trials or uncontrolled trials and case studies. The level of evidence in most studies is low. The drug of choice for managing N & V in advanced cancer is metoclopramide titrated to effect. Alternative options include haloperidol, levomepromazine, or olanzapine. For bowel obstruction, the recommendation is to use octreotide given alongside an antiemetic (haloperidol) and where octreotide is not an option to use an anticholinergic antisecretory agent. For opioid-induced N & V, no recommendation could be made. CONCLUSION: These new guidelines, based on the existing (but poor) evidence, could help clinicians manage more effectively the complex and challenging symptoms of N & V in advanced cancer.