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.

Background: Older head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors have concerning rates of potentially unsafe opioid prescribing. Identifying the specialties of opioid prescribers for HNC survivors is critical for targeting the settings for opioid safety interventions. This study hypothesized that oncology and surgery providers are primarily responsible for opioid prescriptions in the year after treatment but that primary care providers (PCPs) are increasingly involved in prescribing over time. Methods: Using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare data, a retrospective analysis was conducted of adults aged >65 years diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with stage I–III HNC and who had ≥6 months of treatment‐free follow‐up through 2019. Starting at treatment completion, opioid fills were assigned to a prescriber specialty: oncology, surgery, primary care, pain management, or other. Prescriber patterns were summarized for each year of follow‐up. Multinomial logistic regression models captured the likelihood of opioids being prescribed by each specialty. Results: Among 5135 HNC survivors, 2547 (50%) had ≥1 opioid fill (median, 2.1‐year follow‐up). PCPs prescribed 47% of all fills (42%–55% each year). PCPs prescribed opioids to 45% of survivors with ≥1 opioid fill, which was a greater share than other specialties. PCPs prescribed longer supplies of opioids (median, 20 days/fill; median, 30 days/year) than oncologists or surgeons. The likelihood of an opioid being prescribed by an oncology provider was four times lower than that of it being prescribed by a PCP. Conclusions: PCP involvement in opioid prescribing remains high throughout HNC survivorship. Interventions to improve the safety of opioid prescribing should target primary care, as is typical for opioid reduction efforts in the noncancer population. Half of older head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors, who experience a high burden of pain after treatment completion, fill opioid prescriptions in the early years after treatment completion, and those who fill opioid prescriptions are most likely to have their opioids prescribed by a primary care provider. Further exploration of opioid safety among HNC survivors, and interventions to improve opioid safety, should focus largely on primary care settings in the early years after treatment completion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundAdjuvant therapy plays a major role in treating colorectal cancer, and physicians' views of its effectiveness influence treatment decisions. We assessed physicians' views of the relative benefits and risks of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for stages II and III colon and rectal cancers.MethodsThe Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium surveyed a geographically dispersed population of medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons in the United States about the benefits and risks of adjuvant therapies for colorectal cancer. We used logistic regression to assess the association of physician and practice characteristics with beliefs about adjuvant therapies.ResultsAmong 1,296 respondents, > 90% believed the benefits of adjuvant therapies for stage III colorectal cancer outweigh the risks. Only 21.9%, 50%, and 50.4% believed in the net benefit of chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer, chemotherapy for stage II rectal cancer, and radiation for stage II rectal cancer, respectively. Younger physicians were less likely than others to perceive adjuvant therapy for stage II colorectal cancer as beneficial. Medical oncologists were more likely than surgeons and radiation oncologists to endorse the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation for stage II rectal cancer, but less likely for stage II colon cancer.ConclusionsPhysicians largely agreed that the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer, as well as chemotherapy, and radiation for stage III rectal cancer, outweigh the risks, consistent with strong evidence, but were divided over the net benefit of adjuvant therapies for stage II colorectal cancer, where evidence is inconsistent.

Abstract Background We propose a novel framework for management of cancer survivorship: electronic patient Self-Assessment and Management (SAM). SAM is a framework for transfer of information to and from patients in such a way as to increase both the patient's and the health care provider's understanding of the patient's progress, and to help ensure that patient care follows best practice. Methods Patients who participate in the SAM system are contacted by email at regular intervals and asked to complete validated questionnaires online. Patient responses on these questionnaires are then analyzed in order to provide patients with real-time, online information about their progress and to provide them with tailored and standardized medical advice. Patient-level data from the questionnaires are ported in real time to the patient's health care provider to be uploaded to clinic notes. An initial version of SAM has been developed at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) for aiding the clinical management of patients after surgery for prostate cancer. Results Pilot testing at MSKCC and UCSF suggests that implementation of SAM systems are feasible, with no major problems with compliance (> 70% response rate) or security. Conclusion SAM is a conceptually simple framework for passing information to and from patients in such a way as to increase both the patient's and the health care provider's understanding of the patient's progress, and to help ensure that patient care follows best practice.

Although health behavior theories postulate that risk perception should motivate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, this relationship is unclear. This meta-analysis aims to examine the relationship between CRC risk perception and screening behavior, while considering potential moderators and study quality. A search of six databases yielded 58 studies (63 effect sizes) that quantitatively assessed the relationship between CRC risk perception and screening behavior. Most included effect sizes (75 %) reported a positive association between CRC risk perception and screening behavior. A random effects meta-analysis yielded an overall effect size of z = 0.13 (95 % CI 0.10-0.16), which was heterogeneous (I.sup.2 = 99 %, [tau].sup.2 = 0.01). Effect sizes from high-quality studies were significantly lower than those from lower quality studies (z = 0.02 vs. 0.16). We found a small, positive relationship between CRC risk perception and reported screening behavior, with important identified heterogeneity across moderators. Future studies should focus on high quality study design., Author(s): Thomas M. Atkinson[sup.1] , Talya Salz[sup.1] , Kaitlin K. Touza[sup.2] , Yuelin Li[sup.1] , Jennifer L. Hay[sup.1] Author Affiliations: (1) Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering [...]

Background: Cancer survivors receive more long‐term opioid therapy (LTOT) than people without cancer, but the safety of LTOT prescribing is unknown. Methods: Opioid‐naive adults aged ≥66 years who had been diagnosed in 2008‐2015 with breast, lung, head and neck, or colorectal cancer were identified with data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries linked with Medicare claims. Survivors with 1 or more LTOT episodes (≥90 consecutive days) occurring ≥1 year after their cancer diagnosis and before censoring at hospice entry, another cancer diagnosis, 6 months before death, or December 2016 were included. The safety of prescribing during the first 90 days of the first LTOT episode was measured during follow‐up. As a positive safety indicator, the proportion of survivors with concurrent nonopioid pain management was measured. Indicators of less safe prescribing were the proportion of survivors with a high average daily opioid dose (≥90 morphine milligram equivalents) and the proportion of survivors with concurrent benzodiazepine dispensing. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify clinical predictors of each safety outcome. Results: In all, 3628 cancer survivors received LTOT during follow‐up (median duration, 4.9 months; interquartile range, 3.5‐8.0 months). Seventy‐two percent of the survivors received multimodal pain management concurrently with LTOT. Eight percent of the survivors had high‐dose opioid prescriptions; 25% of the survivors received benzodiazepines during LTOT. Multivariable analyses identified variations in safety measures by multiple clinical factors, although none were consistently significant across outcomes. Conclusions: To improve safe LTOT prescribing for survivors, efforts should focus on increasing multimodal pain management and reducing inappropriate benzodiazepine prescribing. Different clinical predictors of each outcome suggest different drivers of safe prescribing. Cancer survivors are more likely than those without cancer to receive long‐term opioid therapy, and this study of older survivors of cancer finds shortcomings in the safety of long‐term opioid therapy prescribing. Specifically, 28% of survivors receive opioids without concurrent multimodal pain management, 8% of survivors have high average daily opioid doses, and 25% of survivors receive concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Clinical practice guidelines recommend colonoscopies at regular intervals for colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. Using data from a large, multi-regional, population-based cohort, we describe the rate of surveillance colonoscopy and its association with geographic, sociodemographic, clinical, and health services characteristics. Methods We studied CRC survivors enrolled in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study. Eligible survivors were diagnosed between 2003 and 2005, had curative surgery for CRC, and were alive without recurrences 14 months after surgery with curative intent. Data came from patient interviews and medical record abstraction. We used a multivariate logit model to identify predictors of colonoscopy use. Results Despite guidelines recommending surveillance, only 49% of the 1423 eligible survivors received a colonoscopy within 14 months after surgery. We observed large regional differences (38% to 57%) across regions. Survivors who received screening colonoscopy were more likely to: have colon cancer than rectal cancer (OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.05-1.90); have visited a primary care physician (OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.14-1.82); and received adjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.27-2.41). Compared to survivors with no comorbidities, survivors with moderate or severe comorbidities were less likely to receive surveillance colonoscopy (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.49-0.98 and OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.66, respectively). Conclusions Despite guidelines, more than half of CRC survivors did not receive surveillance colonoscopy within 14 months of surgery, with substantial variation by site of care. The association of primary care visits and adjuvant chemotherapy use suggests that access to care following surgery affects cancer surveillance.

Abstract Background We propose a novel framework for management of cancer survivorship: electronic patient Self-Assessment and Management (SAM). SAM is a framework for transfer of information to and from patients in such a way as to increase both the patient's and the health care provider's understanding of the patient's progress, and to help ensure that patient care follows best practice. Methods Patients who participate in the SAM system are contacted by email at regular intervals and asked to complete validated questionnaires online. Patient responses on these questionnaires are then analyzed in order to provide patients with real-time, online information about their progress and to provide them with tailored and standardized medical advice. Patient-level data from the questionnaires are ported in real time to the patient's health care provider to be uploaded to clinic notes. An initial version of SAM has been developed at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) for aiding the clinical management of patients after surgery for prostate cancer. Results Pilot testing at MSKCC and UCSF suggests that implementation of SAM systems are feasible, with no major problems with compliance (> 70% response rate) or security. Conclusion SAM is a conceptually simple framework for passing information to and from patients in such a way as to increase both the patient's and the health care provider's understanding of the patient's progress, and to help ensure that patient care follows best practice.

Background: Survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) have increased risk of opioid misuse. Methods: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End‐Results‐Medicare data, we matched adults ≥66 years diagnosed with HNC 2008‐2015 with cancer‐free controls. We computed odds ratios (OR) for receipt of chronic opioid therapy (COT, claims for ≥90 consecutive days) for HNC survivors compared to controls each year after matching through 2016. Results: The cohort of HNC survivors declined from 5107 in the first year after diagnosis to 604 in the sixth year after diagnosis. For 5 years, rates of COT among HNC survivors exceeded that of controls. Differences between survivors and controls declined each year (ORs: year 1, 4.36; year 2, 2.60; year 3, 2.18; year 4, 1.85; and year 5, 1.35; all P‐values <.05). Conclusions: Among older HNC survivors, cancer‐associated opioid use in the first years after diagnosis suggests that the benefit of opioids must balance the risk of opioid misuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]