Medical Oncologists' Beliefs, Practices, and Knowledge Regarding Marijuana Used Therapeutically: A Nationally Representative Survey Study.

Background Although almost every state medical marijuana (MM) law identifies cancer as a qualifying condition, little research supports MM's use in oncology. We hypothesized that the discrepancy between these laws and the scientific evidence base poses clinical challenges for oncologists. Oncologists' beliefs, knowledge, and practices regarding MM were examined in this study. Methods In November 2016, we mailed a survey on MM to a nationally-representative, random sample of 400 medical oncologists. Main outcome measures included whether oncologists reported discussing MM with patients, recommended MM clinically in the past year, or felt sufficiently informed to make such recommendations. The survey also queried oncologists' views on MM's comparative effectiveness for several conditions (including its use as an adjunct to standard pain management strategies) and its risks compared with prescription opioids. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed using standard statistical techniques. Results The overall response rate was 63%. Whereas only 30% of oncologists felt sufficiently informed to make recommendations regarding MM, 80% conducted discussions about MM with patients, and 46% recommended MM clinically. Sixty-seven percent viewed it as a helpful adjunct to standard pain management strategies, and 65% thought MM is equally or more effective than standard treatments for anorexia and cachexia. Conclusion Our findings identify a concerning discrepancy between oncologists' self-reported knowledge base and their beliefs and practices regarding MM. Although 70% of oncologists do not feel equipped to make clinical recommendations regarding MM, the vast majority conduct discussions with patients about MM and nearly one-half do, in fact, recommend it clinically. A majority believes MM is useful for certain indications. These findings are clinically important and suggest critical gaps in research, medical education, and policy regarding MM.

When and Why Should Mental Health Professionals Offer Traditional Psychodynamic Therapy to Cancer Patients?

Given the recent studies promoting time-limited manualized therapies in the oncology setting, clinicians may be reluctant to offer traditional psychodynamic therapy to cancer patients. However, there are no studies directly comparing psychodynamic therapy and other therapy modalities in this patient population and no data suggesting harm from psychodynamic approaches. Therefore, it is inappropriate to draw the conclusion that psychodynamic therapy is inferior to manualized therapy from existing evidence. Manualized treatment, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, is generally short term and therefore may reduce the practitioner's own anxiety stemming from exposure to patients facing grave disability and death. However, manualized treatment is not fully effective in specific clinical scenarios. We present a case reflecting these limitations and advocate for a flexible treatment approach incorporating elements of psychodynamic therapy.

Retrospective review of serotonergic medication tolerability in patients with neuroendocrine tumors with biochemically proven carcinoid syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Patients with carcinoid tumors frequently could benefit from the pharmacologic treatment of depression and anxiety. However, many prescribers avoid serotonergic medications due to the theoretical risk of exacerbating carcinoid syndrome. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with carcinoid tumors and elevated serotonin levels (as measured by 24-hour urine 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid [5-HIAA]) at Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center who initiated treatment with serotonergic antidepressants after a carcinoid diagnosis from 2003 to 2016. Each medication regimen was categorized based on the presence of adverse interactions as defined by clinical worsening of symptoms of carcinoid syndrome in the absence of progressive disease that temporally correlated with a serotonergic medication trial. RESULTS: A total of 73 serotonergic regimens received by 52 patients were included in the primary analysis. Among these medication trials, 8.2% of the regimens (6 regimens) were categorized as being associated with a likely adverse interaction, 61.6% of the regimens (45 regimens) were categorized as having no adverse reaction, 9.6% of the regimens (7 regimens) were categorized as an unlikely adverse reaction, and 20.6% of the regimens (15 regimens) were categorized as unknown. It is interesting to note that none of the 73 trials resulted in a carcinoid crisis requiring emergency care or hospitalization. Only 3 patients discontinued serotonergic medications due to worsening carcinoid syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Serotonergic medications appear to be a safe option for the treatment of depressive and anxiety symptoms in the majority of patients with neuroendocrine tumors and carcinoid syndrome. In the current study, <10% of patients developed a combination of flushing, diarrhea, and bloating after the initiation of serotonergic medications. Clinicians can begin with low doses, monitor these symptoms, and reduce the dose or discontinue the medication if necessary. Cancer 2017;123:2735-42. © 2017 American Cancer Society.