Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs最新文献

Cannabis use among individuals with cancer is best understood using survey self-report. As cannabis remains federally illegal, surveys could be subject to nonresponse and measurement issues impacting data quality. We surveyed individuals using medical cannabis for a cancer-related condition in the Minnesota Medical Cannabis Program (MCP). Although survey responders are older, there are no differences by race and ethnicity, gender, or receipt of reduced cannabis registry enrollment fee. Responders made a more recent purchase and more recently completed an independent symptom assessment for the registry than nonresponders, suggesting some opportunity for nonresponse error. Among responders, self-report and MCP administrative data with respect to age, race, gender, registry certification, and cannabis purchase history were similar. Responders were less likely to report receipt of Medicaid than would be expected based on registry low-income enrollment eligibility. Although attention should be paid to potential for nonresponse error, surveys are a reliable tool to ascertain cannabis behavior patterns in this population.

Objective: This study aims to describe patterns, sources, and reasons for cannabis use among cancer patients by ethnic group.

Methods: Data are from a cross-sectional study of 416 surveys collected via RedCap anonymously from adult cancer patients seen at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center within the last 5 years. A harmonized survey was created with 11 other National Cancer Institute centers to assess cannabis use patterns, sources, and reasons for use. Sociodemographics and cancer details were also collected via self-report. Descriptive statistics by ethnic group were compared using χ2 and Fisher exact tests.

Results: Among the sample (age mean = 50.4 [15.7] years; 53% male; 8.3% lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer; 46.7% Hispanic and Latinx individuals), 69.6% reported lifetime use of cannabis, 33.7% began cannabis use after cancer diagnosis, 48.1% of those consuming cannabis did not have a prescription for cannabis, and 29.4% of cannabis users consumed daily. The frequency of cannabis use (P = .04) and reasons for cannabis use (P = .02) varied by ethnic group. Sleep and pain were the most prevalent reasons for use among the Hispanics and Latinx populations; pain, mental health management, and neuropathy were the most prevalent reasons for cannabis use among non-Hispanic White individuals.

Conclusions: Patterns and reasons for cannabis use differed among cancer patients by ethnic group in this exploratory cross-sectional study aimed to provide data for more rigorous study. Understanding these distinctions are pivotal in conducting more rigorous studies that address the unique needs of diverse populations utilizing cannabis for managing cancer-related symptoms.

Background: This study characterizes patient and health-care professional perspectives regarding medical cannabis use at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center. Data evaluated included the prevalence and patterns of and reasons for cannabis use.

Methods: Patients with cancer undergoing treatment were recruited into a cross-sectional survey as part of a national National Cancer Institute-funded effort. Participants completed a survey about cannabis use, reasons for use, and types of cannabis. A health-care professional survey was also conducted to explore perspectives regarding patients' use of cannabis.

Results: A total of 313 patients with cancer (mean [SD] age = 60.7 [12.8] years) completed the survey (43% response rate) between 2021 and 2022. Of the respondents, 58% were female; identified as White (61%) and Black (23%); and had diverse cancer diagnoses. Nearly half of respondents (43%) had previously used cannabis, one-quarter (26%) had used cannabis since their cancer diagnosis, and almost 1 in 6 (17%) were actively using cannabis at the time of survey completion. The most common modes of ingestion were gummies (33%) and smoking (30%). The most commonly reported reasons for use were insomnia (46%), pain (41%), and mood (39%). For the 164 health-care professionals who completed the survey (25% response rate), the majority agreed that cannabis use (72%) is safe and beneficial for patients (57%). Four in 10 (39%) health-care professionals felt comfortable providing guidance to patients about cannabis use; however, only 1 in 8 (13%) felt knowledgeable about the topic of cannabis.

Conclusions: Approximately one-sixth of patients with cancer receiving treatment actively use cannabis for management of various cancer symptoms. Perceptions about cannabis use and education varied widely among health-care professionals.

Background: Cannabis use is prevalent among cancer patients and survivors and may provide some therapeutic benefits for this population. However, benefits may be attenuated when cannabis is co-used with tobacco, which is associated with more severe tobacco and cannabis use and adverse outcomes in noncancer populations. We compared cannabis use, primary mode of use, and therapeutic and/or nontherapeutic use among 3 groups of patients and survivors based on cigarette smoking status.

Methods: Survey data was collected from patients and survivors with cancer (n = 1732) at 2 US National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in states with varying cannabis regulatory policy. Prevalence of cannabis use (prior to diagnosis, after diagnosis, before treatment, after treatment), primary mode of use, and therapeutic and/or nontherapeutic use were assessed by cigarette smoking status (current, former, never) within and across centers using weighted bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression, controlling for demographic and clinical variables.

Results: Current cigarette use was associated with greater rates of cannabis use prior to diagnosis, after diagnosis, during treatment, and after treatment within each center (all P < .001) and in pooled analyses across centers (all P < .001). Primary mode of use, knowledge of cannabis products, and therapeutic and/or nontherapeutic use also statistically differed by tobacco status and study site.

Conclusions: Results illustrate the importance of conducting assessments for both tobacco and cannabis use among cancer patients during and after cancer treatment, regardless of the cannabis regulatory environment. Given previous data indicating harms from co-use and continued tobacco use during cancer treatment, this issue introduces new priorities for cancer care delivery and research.

Background: Although substance use may have adverse impacts on cancer outcomes, little is known regarding patterns of concurrent substance use with cannabis among cancer patients. Our objective was to examine predictors of concurrent substance use with cannabis among cancer patients since their cancer diagnosis and explore perceptions of cannabis among these patients.

Methods: Patients treated at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center were invited to participate in an electronic survey regarding medical cannabis from August to November 2021. Survey data were linked to internal data resources including electronic health records and patient intake forms to obtain history of substance use (defined as within at least 3 months of cancer diagnosis) of cigarettes, injection drugs, high levels of alcohol, or clinically unsupervised prescription drugs (total n = 1094). Concurrent substance users were defined as those with any reported substance use and cannabis use at the time of cancer diagnosis. We used descriptive statistics (χ2 or exact tests) to compare groups and estimated adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to identify predictors of substance use among users and nonusers of cannabis.

Results: Approximately 45% (n = 489) of the sample reported cannabis use since their cancer diagnosis. Of patients who reported using cannabis, 20% self-reported concurrent polysubstance use, while 8% of cannabis nonusers reported substance use (P < .001). Among patients who use cannabis, those who reported 2 or more self-reported treatment-related symptoms (eg, pain, fatigue) were more likely to have self-reported concurrent substance use (AOR = 3.15, 95% CI = 1.07 to 9.27) compared with those without any symptoms. Among nonusers, those with lower educational background were more likely to have a history of concurrent substance use (AOR = 3.74, 95% CI = 1.57 to 8.92). Patients who use cannabis with concurrent substance use were more likely to report improved sleep (P = .04), increased appetite (P = .03), and treatment of additional medical conditions (P = .04) as perceived benefits of cannabis use.

Conclusions: High symptom burden may be associated with concurrent substance use with cannabis among cancer patients.

Expanding legal access to medical cannabis across the United States increases availability and use of cannabis products to manage cancer-related symptoms and treatment side effects despite the lack of research-based evidence on its potential benefits and harms. To address knowledge gaps in how cancer patients access and use cannabis, their perceived risks and benefits with its use, and whether cancer patients discuss cannabis use with their healthcare providers during treatment, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) supported 12 NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers to conduct surveys, which included NCI standardized core questions on cannabis use during treatment, among their cancer patient populations. This overview highlights key results from the articles contained in the monograph, which includes a summary of the results of core questions across all centers and reports from individual or groups of cancer centers on survey results related to the sourcing of cannabis, associated cost, behavioral factors associated with cannabis use (such as smoking, drinking, or using other substances), patient-provider communication on cannabis use during treatment, ethnic variations in patterns, sources, and reasons for cannabis use as well as methodologic concerns related to survey data analysis. The results of these surveys of cannabis use after the diagnosis of cancer lay the groundwork for much-needed research to answer the questions of benefits and harms, including potential interactions with cancer treatments for cancer patients.

Background: The legal climate for cannabis use has dramatically changed with an increasing number of states passing legislation legalizing access for medical and recreational use. Among cancer patients, cannabis is often used to ameliorate adverse effects of cancer treatment. Data are limited on the extent and type of use among cancer patients during treatment and the perceived benefits and harms. This multicenter survey was conducted to assess the use of cannabis among cancer patients residing in states with varied legal access to cannabis.

Methods: A total of 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers, across states with varied cannabis-access legal status, conducted surveys with a core questionnaire to assess cannabis use among recently diagnosed cancer patients. Data were collected between September 2021 and August 2023 and pooled across 12 cancer centers. Frequencies and 95% confidence intervals for core survey measures were calculated, and weighted estimates are presented for the 10 sites that drew probability samples.

Results: Overall reported cannabis use since cancer diagnosis among survey respondents was 32.9% (weighted), which varied slightly by state legalization status. The most common perceived benefits of use were for pain, sleep, stress and anxiety, and treatment side effects. Reported perceived risks were less common and included inability to drive, difficulty concentrating, lung damage, addiction, and impact on employment. A majority reported feeling comfortable speaking to health-care providers though, overall, only 21.5% reported having done so. Among those who used cannabis since diagnosis, the most common modes were eating in food, smoking, and pills or tinctures, and the most common reasons were for sleep disturbance, followed by pain and stress and anxiety with 60%-68% reporting improved symptoms with use.

Conclusion: This geographically diverse survey demonstrates that patients use cannabis regardless of its legal status. Addressing knowledge gaps concerning benefits and harms of cannabis use during cancer treatment is critical to enhance patient-provider communication.

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, an authoritative source of cancer statistics in the United States, has been funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) since 1973. The goals of SEER include measuring the cancer burden in the United States, making the results available, and supporting cancer research. These goals render products that serve as resources for different audiences, such as cancer registrars, researchers, and the public. Cancer registrars have access to a dedicated tab on the SEER website for questions, assistance with cancer coding, and training and technical resources such as SEER*Rx and SEER Data Management System (SEER*DMS). For researchers, SEER provides access to databases and software such as SEER*Stat and other linked databases such as SEER-Medicare that may offer answers to emerging issues in the field of cancer outcomes, cancer burden, health disparities, healthcare access, diagnosis, and prevention. The public can access cancer materials such as the SEER Cancer Stat Facts sheets, SEER*Explorer, and Did You Know? video series to learn more about cancer. SEER continues to update its resources with and ahead of legislation such as the Plain Writing Act and 21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act (IDEA) to improve both clarity and user experience. Moving forward, SEER continues to promote awareness of SEER resources, remains accessible and understandable across all audiences, and standardizes how new resources are shared with these groups. The longstanding commitment to making cancer resources available is fundamental to the value of SEER, as evidenced by testimonials from members of various audience types.

Background: The National Cancer Institute funds many large cohort studies that rely on self-reported cancer data requiring medical record validation. This is labor intensive, costly, and prone to underreporting or misreporting of cancer and disparity-related differential response. US population-based central cancer registries identify incident cancer within their catchment area, yielding all malignant neoplasms and benign brain and central nervous system tumors with standardized data fields. This manuscript describes the development, implementation, and features of a system to facilitate linkage between cohort studies and cancer registries and the release of cancer registry data for matched cohort participants.

Methods: The Virtual Pooled Registry-Cancer Linkage System (VPR-CLS) provides an online system to link cohorts with multiple state cancer registries by 1) securely transmitting a study file to registries, 2) providing an optimized linkage algorithm to generate preliminary match counts, and 3) providing a streamlined process and templated forms for submitting and tracking data requests for cohort participants who matched with registries.

Results: In 2022, the VPR-CLS launched with 45 registries, covering 95% of the US state populations and Puerto Rico. Registries have linked with 15 studies having 14 273-10.9 million participants. Except in 1 study, linkage sensitivity ranged from 87.0% to 99.9%. Numerous registries have adopted the VPR-CLS templated institutional review board-registry application (n = 39), templated data use agreement (n = 25), and central institutional review board (n = 16).

Conclusions: The VPR-CLS markedly improves ascertainment of cancer outcomes and is the preferred approach for determination of outcomes from cohort studies, postmarketing surveillance, and clinical trials.

Background: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program with the National Cancer Institute tested whether population-based cancer registries can serve as honest brokers to acquire tissue and data in the SEER-Linked Virtual Tissue Repository (VTR) Pilot.

Methods: We collected formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue and clinical data from patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and breast cancer (BC) for two studies comparing cancer cases with highly unusual survival (≥5 years for PDAC and ≤30 months for BC) to pair-matched controls with usual survival (≤2 years for PDAC and ≥5 years for BC). Success was defined as the ability for registries to acquire tissue and data on cancer cases with highly unusual outcomes.

Results: Of 98 PDAC and 103 BC matched cases eligible for tissue collection, sources of attrition for tissue collection were tissue being unavailable, control paired with failed case, second control that was not requested, tumor necrosis ≥20%, and low tumor cellularity. In total, tissue meeting the study criteria was obtained for 70 (71%) PDAC and 74 (72%) BC matched cases. For patients with tissue received, clinical data completeness ranged from 59% for CA-19-9 after treatment to >95% for margin status, whether radiation therapy and chemotherapy were administered, and comorbidities.

Conclusions: The VTR Pilot demonstrated the feasibility of using SEER cancer registries as honest brokers to provide tissue and clinical data for secondary use in research. Studies using this program should oversample by 45% to 50% to obtain sufficient sample size and targeted population representation and involve subspecialty matter expert pathologists for tissue selection.