Search

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOverall 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.ConclusionThis 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.

Objectives: To identify patient characteristics, health concerns, and barriers to care based on overweight or obesity. Methods: A 50-question anonymous survey was administered to patients. Data were compared by body mass index (BMI). Results: Among 3976 distributed surveys, 899 were returned and 682 were analyzed. Most respondents were women (60%), White (94%), and married/partnered (65%) and had some college education (80%). Younger and unmarried persons had higher BMI (P <.001). Concern for quality of life (P <.001) and importance of lifestyle changes (P =.006) increased with BMI, but confidence in making changes decreased as BMI increased (P <.001). Perceived good health decreased with increasing BMI (P <.001), whereas depression and other comorbid conditions increased. Self-esteem decreased and stigma increased with higher BMI (both P <.001). Weight discussions with clinicians (P <.001) and belief that clinicians should be involved in weight management (P =.002) increased with BMI, yet self-perception of being judged by clinicians also increased (P <.001). As BMI increased, delays in seeking health care increased (P <.001). Conclusions: This survey study highlights perceived health concerns and barriers to care among persons with overweight and obesity. With higher BMI, self-esteem decreased, and stigma, self-perception of poor health, perception of being judged by clinicians, and delay in seeking medical care increased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionThe nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR) of 3'-hydroxycotinine to cotinine is a noninvasive marker of the rate of nicotine metabolism. Fast metabolism (ie, a high NMR) is associated with lower cigarette smoking abstinence rates using transdermal nicotine replacement. We evaluated whether the NMR can be used to predict self-reported nicotine lozenge use and tobacco abstinence among smokeless tobacco users treated for tobacco dependence.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of data from one arm of a large trial. Participants received quitting support materials and 4-mg nicotine lozenges by mail plus three coaching phone calls. Saliva kits were mailed for collection of saliva samples, which were analyzed for cotinine and 3'-hydroxycotinine. Self-reported tobacco and lozenge use were assessed at 3 months. Analyses were performed using Spearman rank correlation and logistic regression.ResultsOf the 160 saliva collection kits mailed, 152 were returned. The NMR was not significantly correlated with the baseline amount of smokeless tobacco used, the number of years of tobacco use, or the level of tobacco dependence as measured by the Severson Smokeless Tobacco Dependency Scale. The NMR was positively correlated with lozenge use (r = 0.21, P = .015), but it did not predict self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 3 months.ConclusionsFast metabolizers may need to self-administer more nicotine replacement in the form of nicotine lozenges to achieve the same clinical response achieved by slower metabolizers using fewer lozenges.

IntroductionTo describe the characteristics associated with patterns of daily and dual tobacco use among U.S. Air Force (USAF) personnel transitioning from basic military training to technical training.MethodsCross-sectional survey of USAF personnel in Technical Training School at Lackland Air Force Base (N = 8,956, response rate: 73%). Logistic regression analyzed the association of predictor variables between daily smokers, daily smokeless tobacco (ST) users, daily smokers who used ST nondaily, daily ST users who smoked cigarettes nondaily, and daily users of both cigarettes and ST.ResultsCompared to daily smokers, participants who were daily smokers/nondaily ST users were more likely to be male, would use ST and multiple forms of tobacco in the future, reported more friends using ST and cigarettes, and were more susceptible to tobacco advertising. Compared to daily ST users, daily ST users/nondaily cigarette users were more likely to live in the Midwest, would use multiple forms of tobacco in the future, reported more friends smoked cigarettes and used ST, and were more likely to try a product that claimed to be safer than cigarettes. Daily users of both cigarettes and ST were significantly more likely to be nicotine dependent than daily smokers/nondaily ST users and daily ST users/nondaily smokers.ConclusionsDual users are heterogeneous groups of tobacco users who are at high risk for continued tobacco use. Daily users of both cigarettes and ST have higher levels of nicotine dependence, even when compared to other dual users. Specific interventions targeted at dual users are needed in this increasingly prevalent and high-risk population.

Guideline-recommended screening programs exist for only a few cancer types. Although all these programs are understood to lead to reductions in cancer-related mortality, standard-of-care screening tests vary in accuracy, adherence and effectiveness. Recent advances in high-throughput technologies and machine learning have facilitated the development of blood-based multi-cancer cancer early detection (MCED) tests. MCED tests are positioned to be complementary to standard-of-care screening and they may broaden screening availability, especially for individuals who are not adherent with current screening programs and for individuals who may harbor cancers with no available screening options. In this article, we outline some key features that should be considered for study design and MCED test development, provide an example of the developmental pathway undertaken for an emerging multi-biomarker class MCED test and propose a clinical algorithm for an imaging-based diagnostic resolution strategy following MCED testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We compared the effectiveness of a "stepped care" approach with increasing treatment intensity ("Step Care") to one with repeated treatments ("Recycle") among cigarette smokers interested in quitting smoking. Step 1 of the Step Care intervention consisted of a single counseling session, nicotine patch for six weeks and telephonic contact. For smokers not achieving tobacco abstinence 6 months after randomization with Step 1, the intensity of the intervention increased to four counseling sessions, bupropion sustained-release, nine telephone calls and three mailings (Step 2). For those not achieving tobacco abstinence 12 months after randomization, smokers received six behavioral counseling sessions, nicotine patch and nicotine gum, nine telephone calls and three mailings (Step 3). The Recycle participants received one session of health behavior counseling, six weeks of the nicotine patch and a telephone call at each step. 270 cigarette smokers were randomized. At 24 months after randomization using an intention to treat analysis, no statistically significant difference was observed in prolonged smoking abstinence between the Step Care and Recycle condition (16.9% versus 9.4%; adjusted OR = 1.88; 95% CI 0.88-4.01; P =0.10). Additional research is needed to explore whether a stepped care intervention increases long-term smoking abstinence rates compared with repeating the same intervention.