Self-reported knowledge of tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol concentration in cannabis products among cancer patients and survivors.

PURPOSE: Cannabis use may introduce risks and/or benefits among people living with cancer, depending on product type, composition, and nature of its use. Patient knowledge of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol (CBD) concentration could provide information for providers about cannabis use during and after treatment that may aide in risk and benefit assessments. This study aimed to examine knowledge of THC or CBD concentration among patients living with cancer who consume cannabis, and factors associated with knowledge of cannabinoid concentrations. METHODS: People living with cancer who consumed cannabis since their diagnosis (n = 343) completed an anonymous, mixed-mode survey. Questions assessed usual mode of delivery (MOD), knowledge of THC/CBD concentration, and how source of acquisition, current cannabis use, and source of instruction are associated with knowledge of THC/CBD concentration. Chi-square and separate binary logistic regression analyses were examined and weighted to reflect the Roswell Park patient population. RESULTS: Less than 20% of people living with cancer had knowledge of THC and CBD concentration for the cannabis products they consumed across all MOD (smoking- combustible products, vaping- vaporized products (e-cigarettes), edibles-eating or drinking it, and oral- taking by mouth (pills)). Source of acquisition (smoking-AOR:4.6, p < 0.01, vaping-AOR:5.8, p < 0.00, edibles-AOR:2.6, p < 0.04), current cannabis use (edibles-AOR:5.4, p < 0.01, vaping-AOR: 11.2, p < 0.00, and oral-AOR:9.3, p < 0.00), and source of instruction (vaping only AOR:4.2, p < 0.05) were found to be variables associated with higher knowledge of THC concentration. CONCLUSION: Self-reported knowledge of THC and CBD concentration statistically differed according to MOD, source of acquisition, source of instruction, and current cannabis use.

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.

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.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Palliative Care, Version 2.2021.

Palliative care has evolved to be an integral part of comprehensive cancer care with the goal of early intervention to improve quality of life and patient outcomes. The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide recommendations to help the primary oncology team promote the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory for each patient with cancer. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel meets annually to evaluate and update recommendations based on panel members' clinical expertise and emerging scientific data. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's recent discussions and highlights updates on the importance of fostering adaptive coping strategies for patients and families, and on the role of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to optimize symptom management.

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.

How Effective Is Palliative Care in Improving Patient Outcomes?

OPINION STATEMENT: As palliative care (PC) continues its rapid growth, an emerging body of evidence is demonstrating that its approach of interdisciplinary supportive care benefits many patient populations, including in the oncology setting. As studies and data proliferate, however, questions persist about who, what, why, when, and how PC as well as the ideal time for a PC consult and length of involvement. When comparing outcomes from chemotherapy trials, it is important to consider the dosing regimens used in the various studies. In the same way, it is important to account for the "dose" of the PC interventions utilized across studies, and apples to apples comparisons are needed in order to draw accurate conclusions about PC's benefits. Studies which include a true interdisciplinary PC intervention consistently show improvements in patient quality of life, as well as cost savings, with further study needed for other outcomes. These benefits cannot be extrapolated to care which may be labeled "palliative care," but which does not meet the standard of true interdisciplinary PC. The ultimate question is: Does PC indeed improve outcomes?

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Palliative Care, Version 2.2017.

The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide interdisciplinary recommendations on palliative care for patients with cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize and provide context for the updated guidelines recommendations regarding hospice and end-of-life (EOL) care. Updates for 2017 include revisions to and restructuring of the algorithms that address important EOL concerns. These recommendations were revised to provide clearer guidance for oncologists as they care for patients with cancer who are approaching the transition to EOL care. Recommendations for interventions and reassessment based on estimated life expectancy were streamlined and reprioritized to promote hospice referrals and improved EOL care.

Conversion ratios: Why is it so challenging to construct opioid conversion tables?

Standardizing opioid management is challenging due to the absence of a ceiling dose, the unknown ideal therapeutic plasma level, and the lack of an clear relationship between dose and therapeutic response. Opioid rotation or conversion, which is switching from one opioid, route of administration, or both, to another, to improve therapeutic response and reduce toxicities, occurs in 20-40 percent of patients treated with opioids. Opioid conversion is often needed when there are adverse effects, toxicities, or inability to tolerate a certain opioid formulation. A majority of patients benefit from opioid conversion, leading to improved analgesia and less adverse effects. There are different published ways of converting opioids in the literature. This review of 20 years of literature is centered on opioid conversions and aims to discuss the complexity of converting opioids. We discuss study designs, outcomes and measures, pain phenotypes, patient characteristics, comparisons of equivalent doses between opioids, reconciling conversion ratios between opioids, routes, directional differences, half-lives and metabolites, interindividual variability, and comparison to package insert information. Palliative care specialists have not yet come to a consensus on the ideal opioid equianalgesic table; however, we discuss a recently updated table, based on retrospective evidence, that may serve as a gold standard for practical use in the palliative care population. More robust, well-designed studies are needed to validate and guide future opioid conversion data.

Adjunctive Intranasal Esketamine for Comorbid Treatment-Resistant Depression with Suicidal Ideation in Patients Receiving Palliative Care at a Comprehensive Cancer Center: A Case Series.

Background: The psychiatric needs of those with cancer and other advanced illnesses are becoming increasingly recognized. Ketamine is emerging as a promising treatment option for depressive disorders in psychiatric and palliative care. In the palliative care setting, its study has been hindered by lack of consistent administration routes and dosing. Intranasal (IN) esketamine (Spravato®) has recently received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval as an adjunctive agent for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) with suicidal ideation (SI). Objective: We sought to offer IN esketamine to patients suffering from TRD and SI at a comprehensive cancer center. Methods: We designed and implemented a protocol to administer IN esketamine and describe three cases in which it was provided to patients with TRD and SI at a palliative care clinic in the United States. Results: Following treatment, all three patients had substantial reduction in depression severity and no further suicidalideation. These improvements were maintained for up to a year. No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions: These cases illustrate the potential utility of IN esketamine in the palliative care setting.

Should Cannabis be Used for Anorexia in Patients With Cancer?

Healthcare professionals are frequently asked about the benefits of cannabis for appetite or anorexia-cachexia syndrome. In popular culture, cannabis has a reputation of causing an increased hunger, slang termed "the munchies," so many patients consume this with the hope that it may improve the loss of appetite associated with serious illness such as cancer. There have only been a few randomized, controlled trials studying the controversial question as to if cannabis improves appetite. These studies are small and show no statistically significant benefit for appetite and one small study showed improvement of taste for foods. Due to regulation barriers, the studies have use synthetic products, not the products that represent what is more commonly used in the population, often whole flower smoked, vaporized or oral products. Despite the popularity of cannabis in culture, often touted as a panacea for all maladies, the evidence and education for several adverse effects and potential drug interactions have has yet to catch up with the cultural craze. International cannabis experts in the United States and Australia do not routinely certify patients for medical cannabis off trial for anorexia-cachexia, but one expert in Canada would consider use in selected cancer patients.

Cannabis and opioid perceptions, co-use, and substitution among patients across 4 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

Prescription opioids are used for managing pain in persons with cancer, however, there are socioeconomic and racial disparities in medication access. Cannabis is increasingly used for cancer symptom management and as an opioid alternative. Limited data are available about patterns of opioid and cannabis use among patients with cancer. We used survey data from 4 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in 3 states (n = 1220) to assess perceptions, use of cannabis and opioids for pain, their substitution, and racial and ethnic differences in each outcome. Compared with White patients, Black patients were less likely to use opioids for pain (odds ratio [OR] = 0.66; P = .035) and more likely to report that cannabis was more effective than opioids (OR = 2.46; P = .03). Race effects were mitigated (P > .05) after controlling for socioeconomic factors. Further research is needed to understand cannabis and opioid use patterns and how overlapping social determinants of health create a disadvantage in cancer symptom management for Black patients.

Do We Have Structure, Process and Outcomes to Support Cannabis as Supportive Therapy in Cancer?

Cannabis is becoming more popular and more available in the United States. It has been approved for use by multiple states for various conditions and several states now allow recreational cannabis. We explore the structure of cannabis distribution, the process of acquisition, outcomes, and the safety of cannabis in the United States.

Assessing Efficacy and Use Patterns of Medical Cannabis for Symptom Management in Elderly Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Our study sought to further characterize patterns of medical cannabis use in elderly cancer patients. Furthermore, we sought to assess efficacy of medical cannabis for the treatment of pain, nausea, anorexia, insomnia and anxiety in elderly cancer patients. BACKGROUND: Medical cannabis use is growing for symptom management in cancer patients, but limited data exists on the safety or efficacy of use in elderly patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review assessing changes in numerical symptom scores reported at clinic visits before and after medical cannabis initiation. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in pain, nausea, appetite, insomnia or anxiety scores reported before and after initiation of medical cannabis. Oil was the most common form used, followed by vape, and the most common ratios used were high tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to cannabidiol (CBD) and equal parts THC/CBD products. CONCLUSION: This study did not find a statistically significant change in symptom scores with medical cannabis use, although further study is warranted given the limitations of the present study. Elderly patients most commonly are using equal parts THC/CBD or high THC ratio products initially.

ADCC's Improving Goal Concordant Care Initiative: Implementing Primary Palliative Care Principles.

BACKGROUND: High-quality, timely goals of care communication (GOCC) may improve patient and caregiver outcomes and promote care that is consistent with patient preferences. PROBLEM: Cancer patients, and their loved ones, appreciate GOCC; however, oncologists often lack formal communication training, institutional support and structures necessary to promote the delivery, documentation, and longitudinal follow-up of GOCC. PROPOSED SOLUTION: The Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers (ADCC), representing 10 U.S. academic cancer hospitals, undertook the Improving Goal Concordant Care Initiative (IGCC). This national, 3-year implementation initiative was designed in Fall 2019 by a workgroup of quality, oncology, and palliative care leaders, as well as patient and family advisory committee members (PFAC). IGCC addresses systemic gaps by requiring four core components for participation: 1) Implementation of a formal communication skills training (CST) program, 2) Structured GOCC documentation in the electronic medical record that is visible to all clinicians, 3) Expectations regarding the timing and patient populations for GOCC, and 4) Implementation of a measurement framework. METHOD: Dyads of palliative and oncology leaders committed to attend regularly scheduled, ADCC-led, virtual meetings during the design and implementation phase, incorporating PFAC feedback at every stage. Using the RE-AIM framework, we describe process and outcome evaluation measures defined by implementation and measures workgroups and collected routinely, including: CST completion; trainee evaluation response rate, trainee-reported quality of CST, trainee changes in self-efficacy and distress; percent of high-priority patients participating in GOCC, and patient-reported response to the "Heard and Understood" scale (HU). IGCC's impact will be assessed using claims-based utilization metrics near the end of life (EOLM) and followed longitudinally. Qualitative evaluations near the completion of IGCC will provide insight into perceived barriers, enabling factors, and sustainability. OUTCOMES: Implementation of all IGCC components has begun at all sites. ADCC-wide, 35% of MD/DOs have completed CST (range by site: 8%-100%). CST is highly rated; in Quarter 3, 2022, 93%-100%, 90%-100% and 87%-100% of respondents reported above average to excellent CST quality, likelihood to use the skills and likelihood to recommend CST to others, respectively. Clinician self-efficacy and distress ratings are expected in late 2023. All sites have identified patient populations and continue to refine automated triggers and timelines; uptake of GOCC documentation has been slow. Eight of 10 sites have submitted patient-reported HU data. EOLM data are expected for all sites in early 2024. LESSONS LEARNED: Flexibility in implementation with shared definitions, measures, and learnings about approaches optimizes the ability of all centers to collaborate and make progress in improving GOCC. Flexibility adds to the complexity of understanding intervention effectiveness, the critical intervention components and the fidelity necessary to achieve specific outcomes.

Postoperative Restrictive Opioid Protocols and Durable Changes in Opioid Prescribing and Chronic Opioid Use.

Importance: Changes in postsurgical opioid prescribing practices may help reduce chronic opioid use in surgical patients. Objective: To investigate whether postsurgical acute pain across different surgical subspecialties can be managed effectively after hospital discharge with an opioid supply of 3 or fewer days and whether this reduction in prescribed opioids is associated with reduced new, persistent opioid use. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective cohort study with a case-control design, a restrictive opioid prescription protocol (ROPP) specifying an opioid supply of 3 or fewer days after discharge from surgery along with standardized patient education was implemented across all surgical services at a tertiary-care comprehensive cancer center. Participants were all patients who underwent surgery from August 1, 2018, to July 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were the rate of compliance with the ROPP in each surgical service, the mean number of prescription days and refill requests, type of opioid prescribed, and rate of conversion to chronic opioid use determined via a state-run opioid prescription program. Postsurgical complications were also measured. Results: A total of 4068 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [13.8] years; 2528 women [62.1%]) were included, with 2017 in the pre-ROPP group (August 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019) and 2051 in the post-ROPP group (February 1, 2019, to July 31, 2019). The rate of compliance with the protocol was 95%. After implementation of the ROPP, mean opioid prescription days decreased from a mean (SD) of 3.9 (4.5) days in the pre-ROPP group to 1.9 (3.6) days in the post-ROPP group (P < .001). The ROPP implementation led to a 45% decrease in prescribed opioids after surgery (mean [SD], 157.22 [338.06] mean morphine milligram equivalents [MME] before ROPP vs 83.54 [395.70] MME after ROPP; P < .001). Patients in the post-ROPP cohort requested fewer refills (367 of 2051 [17.9%] vs 422 of 2017 [20.9%] in the pre-ROPP cohort; P = .02). There was no statistically significant difference in surgical complications. The conversion rate to chronic opioid use decreased following ROPP implementation among both opioid-naive patients with cancer (11.3% [143 of 1267] to 4.5% [118 of 2645]; P < .001) and those without cancer (6.1% [19 of 310] to 2.7% [16 of 600]; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, prescribing an opioid supply of 3 or fewer days to surgical patients after hospital discharge was feasible for most patients, led to a significant decrease in the number of opioids prescribed after surgery, and was associated with a significantly decreased conversion to long-term opioid use without concomitant increases in refill requests or significant compromises in surgical recovery.

Palliative Medical Management of Inoperable Malignant Bowel Obstruction With "Triple Therapy": Dexamethasone, Octreotide, and Metoclopramide.

CONTEXT: Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a complication of advanced malignancy. For inoperable patients, symptoms are often treated using analgesics, anticholinergics, and anti-emetics. There are, however, few published guidelines for the medical management of MBO. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of the combination of dexamethasone, octreotide, and metoclopramide ("triple therapy") in patients with MBO, compared to patients who received none of the 3 medications ("no drug therapy"). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients with MBO admitted in a single-center comprehensive cancer center. Patients who received dexamethasone, octreotide, and metoclopramide during their hospitalization for treatment of inoperable MBO were selected for analysis. Patients were excluded if they received a venting gastric tube. Rate of de-obstruction as well as time to de-obstruction were measured. RESULTS: There were 20 patients identified who received all 3 drugs of interest, and 29 patients identified who received none of the 3 medications. There was no statistically significant difference in rates of de-obstruction between the 2 groups, though there was a non-significant trend toward patients who received triple therapy were more likely to reach de-obstruction, compared to patients who had no drug therapy (95% vs. 83%, p = 0.379); there was no significant difference in adjusted analysis. CONCLUSION: In patients with inoperable MBO, there was no statistically significant difference in rates of de-obstruction with triple drug therapy compared to patients who received none of the 3 drugs, though the study may not have been powered to detect a difference and further investigation is warranted.

Chronic Pain, Functional Status, and Life Satisfaction Are Associated With Patients Living With HIV Discussing Advance Care Planning With Their Family or Friends.

CONTEXT: In the era of effective antiretroviral therapy, persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) are living longer, transforming HIV from a universally fatal disease to a serious chronic illness, warranting discussions between patients and their loved ones about advance care planning (ACP). Evidence is needed on factors associated with patients' likelihood to discuss ACP with loved ones. OBJECTIVES: To further characterize factors associated with successful ACP in PLWHAs with their loved ones, we examined associations between patients having ACP discussions with the need for assistance with personal care, chronic pain, life satisfaction, prior family disagreements over health care decisions, sex, age, and interference in daily routines due to memory problems. METHODS: Data were from the Affirm Care study (N = 370), which examined social and environmental factors associated with health outcomes among PLWHAs and their informal caregivers. RESULTS: Slightly more than half of respondents discussed ACP with loved ones (57%). In adjusted analysis, higher levels of chronic pain (odds ratio [OR] = 2.09, P = 0.045), needing assistance with personal care (OR = 1.63, P = 0.023), greater life satisfaction (OR = 1.02, P = 0.002), prior family arguments over health care decisions (OR = 2.80, P < 0.001), and female sex (OR = 2.22, P = 0.001) were associated with higher odds of discussing ACP with loved ones, whereas age, drug use, education level, depression, and memory problems were nonsignificant. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that interventions to increase ACP among PLWHAs and their loved ones should target males. The findings also suggest PLWHAs with chronic pain, the need for assistance with personal care, and those with a history of prior family arguments over health care decisions may be primed for ACP.