Factors Affecting the Decision on Cannabis Use in Gynecologic Cancer Patients After the Legalization of Cannabis
Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Dhammapoj Jeerakornpassawat, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 110 Intavaroros Road, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand. Email: dhammapoj.j@cmu.ac.thAbstract
Objective:
To characterize the patterns of cannabis use among gynecologic cancer patients, in terms of potential factors influencing their decision-making on cannabis use, the reasons for use or non-use, and sources of information on cannabis use.
Methods:
From March to July 2022, gynecologic cancer patients at a clinic were interviewed and classified into 3 groups: current users, ex-users, and never-users. The received data included: demographic data, cannabis use details, reasons for using and not using, adverse events, satisfaction, and intent to use. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to identify risk factors influencing decision-making.
Result:
Among 240 participants, 11.67% were classified as current users, 28.33% as ex-users, and 60% as never-users. The significant factors influencing cannabis use decisions were advanced stage and receiving information on cannabis, regardless of the information source. The satisfaction derived from cannabis was due to the enhancement of mood and physical activity, improvement in sleep quality, stimulation of appetite, and mitigation of adverse events associated with cancer treatment. Approximately 60% of users aimed for a cancer cure. The main reasons for quitting were inability to obtain cannabis and absence of persistent cancer symptoms.
Conclusion:
Among Thai patients with gynecologic cancer, 40% had a history of cannabis use. Advanced cancer stage was an independent factor for decision-making on cannabis use. Sources of information on cannabis are non-healthcare providers. Many patients intended to use cannabis for cancer cure. Also, many were satisfied with use because of a relief of unwanted symptoms, indirectly suggesting improvement in quality of life. The main reason for quitting was unavailability. The main reason for never trying was a concern of interference with treatment. Our results may guide the direction of strategy of cannabis use among patients with gynecologic cancers.
Introduction
Among cancer patients suffering from symptoms associated with cancer or anticancer therapy, cannabis has been proven to be useful in relieving pain, anorexia, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, insomnia, and depression.1 bibr2-15347354241261363bibr3-15347354241261363bibr4-15347354241261363bibr5-15347354241261363bibr6-15347354241261363-7 The reasons for cannabis use in most patients are relief from pain, stress, and anxiety,2,6 while some use it for cancer cure. 6 Nevertheless, though animal studies support the anticancer effect of cannabis,1,2,7 bibr8-15347354241261363-9 there has been no clinical trial on cancer cure in humans. Anticancer mechanisms are possibly linked to antiproliferative, antimetastatic, antiangiogenic, and proapoptotic effects.1,8,9
Cannabis contains 2 major active components: tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), which are effective in reducing cancer-associated pain.1,8,10 bibr11-15347354241261363-12 The raw plant could not directly act on the receptors. It needs to be heated to decarboxylate the acid to activate THC and CBD. 8 Most users worldwide employ cannabis through inhalation, oral consumption, and both modalities. 6 In Thailand, people use cannabis in the following ways: smoking, vaporizing, oral intake, oral spray, oral drops, suppositories, or topical use.8,12 With inhalation, the cannabinoids are more rapidly absorbed and their levels in the bloodstream more rapidly decline than with the oral route, achieving higher peak concentration and a shorter duration of effect with less formation of the psychoactive 11- OH-THC metabolites.9,11,12
Among current users, 1 study reported the most common drug interactions with CNS depressants but no difference between nonusers and users in terms of tiredness or drowsiness, an expected adverse effect associated with cannabis use. 7 The common side effects are drowsiness, dry mouth, gastrointestinal irritation, constipation, lethargy, palpitations, sweating, paranoia, and increased appetite.13,14 More than half of cannabis users received no counseling on potentially harmful or beneficial effects. 7 Most start taking it on their own or due to the advice of friends, without proper counseling by healthcare providers.6,7 Moreover, most oncology healthcare providers lack sufficient knowledge about cannabis to make recommendations. 15 Their perceived barriers are monitoring the patient’s use of cannabis, accurate dose prescription, and insufficient research. 15 There is a lack of dosing guidelines for the use of cannabinoid-based therapies in clinical practice, though side effects could be controlled through dose titration and are not treatment-limiting.8,10,12
Never-users reported a high level of interest in learning more about the role of cannabis in cancer care and most wanted the information from their oncology providers, but they were more likely to get information from sources outside the healthcare system.6,15,16 The main barrier to cannabis use was the concern of addiction and worsening the cancer. 2
In Thailand, since 2019, all parts of the cannabis and hemp plants have been legalized for medical therapy. The main purpose of this study is to understand patient perceptions of these treatments and the barriers to effective management of cancer-related symptoms. This study was conducted to explore the proportion of our gynecologic cancer patients with a history of cannabis use, their information sources, and the accessible sources of cannabis. Understanding the reasons for using and not using in addition to the patients’ concerns would aid in the holistic care of cancer patients in all processes of treatment and even during palliation, probably improving quality of life eventually.
Medical cannabis use is becoming increasingly popular all over the world. In Thailand, legalized use has just been approved as a national policy. It is expected to gain much more popularity shortly. Nevertheless, baseline understanding of cannabis, prevalence of illegal use, and medical use of cannabis among various medical conditions vary among different populations. For effective implementation of medical cannabis use in cancer patients, there is a need to first improve knowledge regarding its risks and benefits, as well as the expectations of patients from the medical use of cannabis. Each population should develop its own data. This information is essential for the development of a specific strategy to overcome the observed barriers with proper direction; such barriers may be different among various countries. Therefore, we conducted this study to characterize the patterns of cannabis use among gynecologic cancer patients, in terms of potential factors influencing their decision-making on cannabis use, the reasons for use or non-use, and sources of information on cannabis use. We conducted this study in the hope that the results could guide the direction of a strategy of cannabis use among patients with gynecologic cancers.
Patients and Methods
This prospective, descriptive study was conducted at a university hospital, a tertiary medical teaching center, with ethical approval by the Institutional Review Board, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand (Research ID, OBG-2565-08825). The study population was gynecologic cancer patients attending the outpatient gynecologic oncology clinic of Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, Chiang Mai, Thailand from March to July 2022. We conducted a structured review using a Google form, with a research assistant recording the patient’s answers. The patients were screened for eligibility. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age of 20 years or greater, (2) having been diagnosed with 1 gynecologic cancer and treated at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, and (3) ability to communicate fluently in Thai. They could be in any process of treatment: during treatment, during surveillance, and palliative care. Exclusion criteria included unstable conditions and refusal to participate. All participants were required to give informed consent and authorization to disclose protected health information from the hospital database by appending their signature on a consent document. Patients were assigned a code number to keep them anonymous. A total of 240 eligible individuals responded to the consent form and all completed the survey. The survey took approximately 10 minutes to complete. Each participant was given a hand alcohol spray as a gift.
Patient Questionnaire
The questionnaire was built via the Google form in an electronic format, and the research assistant asked the participants questions one after another. Information collected from the patient questionnaire included the following: (1) demographic information, including age, medical problem, marital status, level of education, income, and the Eastern Clinical Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) scores, (2) type and stage of cancer at diagnosis, (3) cancer treatment status, current symptoms from cancer and cancer treatment, and (4) information sources about cannabis use. The answers to each question were based on pre-defined multiple-choice options.
The participants were classified into 3 groups: current users, ex-users, and never-users. The first 2 groups were asked about the details regarding their use of cannabis (including the part of the herb, route of use, frequency of use, and source of cannabis), the reasons for use, adverse events, and their satisfaction from use. If they quit using already, we asked about the reasons for that. The never-users were asked about their reasons for not using and their interest in using if they had enough information and accessibility.
Statistical Analysis
Data analysis was performed using STATA 16.0. Comparisons of the quantitative data analysis were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, whereas comparisons of the categorical data were performed using the Chi-squared test. Multivariate analysis, using logistic regression analysis with a forward stepwise method was used to identify independent factors influencing cannabis use decisions. P < .05 indicates statistical significance.
Results
From March to July 2022, 240 eligible patients were approached for consent, and all agreed to participate in the research. The enrolled patients were categorized into 3 groups, current users: 28 patients (11.67%), ex-users: 68 patients (28.33%), and never-users: 144 patients (60%). The demographics and characteristics of the enrolled patients are summarized, as presented in Table 1. At initial diagnosis, approximately half the patients were assigned to early and half to advanced stages in each group. Around 39.3%-51.5% of the patients in each group were undergoing treatment at the time of recruitment. The 3 most common cancers among the total participants were cancer of the uterus, cervix, and ovary/fallopian tubes, accounting for approximately 30% each.
| Characteristics | Current users (n = 28) | Ex-users users (n = 68) | Never-users users (n = 144) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years): median (IQR) | 59.00 (48.00-65.00) | 56.50 (49.00-64.00) | 58.00 (49.00-66.00) | .836 |
| Underlying disease | .937 | |||
| None | 18 (64.3) | 40 (58.8) | 85 (59.2) | |
| Ischemic heart disease | 1 (3.6) | 1 (1.5) | 4 (2.7) | |
| Cerebrovascular disease | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.5) | 2 (1.3) | |
| Psychiatric disease | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (1.3) | |
| Diabetes/Hypertension/Dyslipidemia | 9 (32.1) | 26 (38.2) | 51 (35.5) | |
| Relationship status | .992 | |||
| Divorced/Widow | 3 (10.7) | 6 (8.8) | 15 (10.5) | |
| Single | 6 (21.4) | 15 (22.1) | 29 (20.1) | |
| Married/Cohabitant | 19 (67.9) | 47 (69.1) | 100 (69.4) | |
| Education | .051 | |||
| Less than high school | 8 (28.6) | 34 (50.0) | 76 (52.8) | |
| High school | 2 (7.1) | 10 (14.7) | 15 (10.4) | |
| College | 18 (64.3) | 24 (35.3) | 53 (36.8) | |
| Employment status | .037 | |||
| Not employed | 12 (42.9) | 48 (70.6) | 85 (59.0) | |
| Employed | 16 (57.1) | 20 (29.4) | 59 (41.0) | |
| Monthly income (Baht) | .267 | |||
| No income | 8 (28.6) | 35 (51.5) | 69 (47.9) | |
| Less than 10 000 | 4 (14.3) | 7 (10.3) | 24 (16.7) | |
| 10 000-50 000 | 13 (46.4) | 19 (27.9) | 42 (29.2) | |
| More than 50 000 | 3 (10.7) | 7 (10.3) | 9 (6.2) | |
| ECOG score | .189 | |||
| ≤2 | 28 (100.0) | 68 (100.0) | 139 (96.5) | |
| >2 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (3.5) | |
| Type of cancer | .135 | |||
| Uterus | 4 (14.8) | 25 (36.8) | 43 (30.0) | |
| Cervix | 9 (33.3) | 15 (22.1) | 53 (36.8) | |
| Ovary and fallopian tube | 12 (44.4) | 26 (38.2) | 38 (26.4) | |
| GTN | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.5) | 5 (3.4) | |
| Vulva or vagina | 2 (7.4) | 1 (1.5) | 5 (3.4) | |
| FIGO stage (Initial diagnosis) | .070 | |||
| Early stage (I-II) | 12 (42.9) | 29 (42.6) | 82 (57.0) | |
| Advanced stage (III-IV) | 16 (57.1) | 39 (57.4) | 62 (43.1) | |
| Current disease status | .104 | |||
| Currently undergoing treatment | 11 (39.3) | 35 (51.5) | 67 (46.5) | |
| Finished treatment | 17 (60.7) | 33 (48.5) | 77 (53.5) | |
The characteristics and demographic data of the 3 groups categorized by cannabis use were not different in terms of mean age, underlying diseases, marital status, and income. In terms of symptoms associated with cancer, most of the patients, approximately three-fourths, had no symptoms (pain, nausea vomiting, sleeping problems, and appetite), as presented in Table 2. The most common symptoms among the current users and ex-users were decreased appetite, sleeping problems, pain, nausea vomiting. Of the participants with pain problems, the rates of patients not using pain medication during the symptom (79.2%-85.7%) were not significantly different among the 3 groups.
| Symptoms | Current users (n = 28) | Ex-users users (n = 68) | Never-users (n = 144) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pain symptom | |||
| Absent | 21 (75.0) | 52 (76.5) | 105 (72.9) |
| Present | 7 (25.0) | 16 (23.5) | 39 (27.1) |
| Nausea and vomiting | |||
| Absent | 24 (85.7) | 59 (86.8) | 122 (84.7) |
| Present | 4 (14.3) | 9 (13.2) | 22 (15.3) |
| Sleeping problems | |||
| Absent | 23 (82.1) | 46 (67.6) | 90 (62.5) |
| Present | 5 (17.9) | 22 (32.4) | 54 (37.5) |
| Decreased appetite | |||
| Absent | 21 (75.0) | 48 (70.6) | 93 (64.6) |
| Present | 7 (25.0) | 20 (29.4) | 51 (35.4) |
| Pain control medications | |||
| None | 24 (85.7) | 57 (83.8) | 114 (79.2) |
| Paracetamol | 1 (3.6) | 6 (8.8) | 20 (13.9) |
| NSAIDs | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (1.4) |
| Weak and Strong opioid | 3 (10.7) | 5 (7.4) | 8 (5.6) |
| Antiemetics | |||
| Absent | 25 (89.3) | 62 (91.2) | 133 (92.4) |
| Present | 3 (10.7) | 6 (8.8) | 11 (7.6) |
| Sleep medications | |||
| Absent | 28 (100.0) | 60 (88.2) | 122 (84.7) |
| Present | 0 (0.0) | 8 (11.8) | 22 (15.3) |
| Frequency of sleep medication use | |||
| Never use | 28 (100.0) | 61 (89.7) | 122 (84.7) |
| Infrequent | 0 (0.0) | 4 (5.9) | 14 (9.8) |
| Daily use | 0 (0.0) | 3 (4.4) | 8 (5.5) |
Cannabis Information
The rates of receiving information about cannabis in the current users and ex-users groups were significantly higher than that in the never-users group, as presented in Table 3. This may imply the potentiality of the patients’ decision to use cannabis being dependent on the availability of information. Note that 27.1% of the never-users group reported that they never had information about cannabis, while only 3.6% and 5.9% in the current users group and the ex-users group did respectively. Eleven percent of participants in the never-users group reported that their healthcare providers were against cannabis use. This figure is more than those of the other 2 groups (7.1% and 7.4% in the current users and ex-users groups respectively). All 3 groups reported a high rate (88.2%-92.6%) of uncertainty of the healthcare providers to give information to the patients.
| Cannabis information | Current users (n = 28) | Ex-users users (n = 68) | Never-users (n = 144) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source of cannabis information * | |||
| Health care providers | 5 (17.9) | 2 (2.9) | 5 (3.5) |
| Other experienced patients | 5 (17.9) | 16 (23.5) | 19 (13.2) |
| Family/friends | 15 (53.6) | 35 (51.5) | 42 (29.2) |
| Online media | 2 (7.1) | 11 (16.2) | 39 (27.1) |
| Never received information | 1 (3.6) | 4 (5.9) | 39 (27.1) |
| Information from healthcare providers (HCP) | |||
| Recommended | 2 (7.1) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.7) |
| Against | 2 (7.1) | 5 (7.4) | 16 (11.1) |
| Uncertain | 24 (85.7) | 63 (92.6) | 127 (88.2) |
| Sufficient information from HCP to make the decision | |||
| Sufficient | 13 (46.4) | 23 (33.8) | 38 (26.4) |
| Insufficient | 12 (42.9) | 25 (36.8) | 68 (47.2) |
| Uncertain | 3 (10.7) | 20 (29.4) | 38 (26.4) |
| Type of cannabis use | |||
| Raw plant (leaves, stems, flowers) | 11 (39.3) | 42 (61.8) | - |
| Extract (oil) | 17 (60.7) | 26 (38.2) | - |
| Route of administration | |||
| Drop | 14 (51.9) | 31 (45.6) | - |
| Inhalation | 3 (11.1) | 1 (1.5) | - |
| Other forms (boiled, chewing, topical use) | 10 (37.0) | 36 (52.9) | - |
The significant factors affecting the decision on cannabis use were advanced FIGO stage at first assignment and receiving information on cannabis, regardless of the information source, including healthcare providers, other experienced patients, family, friends, and online media (Table 4).
| Factors | Univariable analysis | Multivariable analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | P | aOR (95% CI) | P | |
| Age (years) | 1.00 (0.97-1.02) | .677 | 0.97 (0.94-1.01) | .115 |
| FIGO stage (first assigned) | .022* | .030* | ||
| Early stage | 1 | 1 | ||
| Advanced stage | 1.84 (1.09-3.09) | 2.30 (1.09-4.86) | ||
| Current disease status | .937 | .842 | ||
| Undergoing treatment | 1 | 1 | ||
| Finished treatment (surveillance) | 0.91 (0.54-1.54) | 1.10 (0.49-2.44) | ||
| Palliative care | 0.87 (0.20-3.84) | 0.65 (0.12-3.47) | ||
| Source of cannabis information | <.001* | <.001* | ||
| Never received information | 1 | 1 | ||
| Health care providers | 10.92 (2.49-47.87) | 7.95 (1.25-50.61) | ||
| Other experienced patients | 8.62 (2.82-26.39) | 10.66 (3.00-37.87) | ||
| Family/friends | 9.29 (3.36-25.68) | 10.59 (3.26-34.38) | ||
| Online media | 2.41 (0.79-7.40) | 2.60 (0.72-9.35) | ||
| Cannabis information from HCP | .439 | .657 | ||
| Recommended | 1 | 1 | ||
| Against | 0.22 (0.02-2.83) | 0.39 (0.02-9.09) | ||
| Uncertain | 0.33 (0.03-3.75) | 0.64 (0.03-13.16) | ||
Reasons for Cannabis Use and Discontinuation
The 3 major reasons for cannabis use in the current users and ex-users groups were cancer cure (60.7% and 57.4% respectively), sleeping problems (39.3% and 26.5% respectively), and availability of medication provided by someone (39.3% and 29.4% respectively). Cancer or non-cancer-related pain was the reason for cannabis use in 3.6% and 13.2% of current users and ex-users respectively.
The main reasons for cannabis discontinuation in the ex-users group were difficulty in accessing the medication (23.5%), no persistent symptoms (23.5%), and concern about standard treatment interference (19.1%).
In the never-users group, the primary concerns were adverse events from cannabis, reported in 41.5% of cases, fear of standard treatment interference (40.1%), difficulty in accessing cannabis (29.9%), and reliability of the product (27.9%). Regarding their interest in cannabis use, this group of participants reported a score of 5 out of 10 (range 4-10) under the condition that they received enough information.
Side Effects
Among current users, 71.4% reported no adverse events from cannabis use. The most common adverse events in this group, reported in 10.7% of cases, were associated with the central nervous system: dizziness, memory, decision, self-control, and response to stimulus. The second most common adverse event was dry mouth, mentioned in 7.1% of cases.
Satisfaction
The satisfaction with cannabis use was mainly caused by improvement of mood problems, reported by 39.3% of current users. Other reasons for cannabis use satisfaction were improved physical activity (25%), better sleep quality (25%), increased appetite (17.9%), and decreased adverse events from cancer treatment (14.3%). The satisfaction score was 5 out of 5 (range 4-5).
Discussion
Insights gained from this study are as follows: (1) Nearly 40% of our gynecologic cancer patients have experienced cannabis use. (2) The most influential factor regarding their decision-making on cannabis use was advanced stage of cancer. (3) Healthcare providers need more training or education to provide updated and proper knowledge to cancer patients, which is helpful in their decision-making. (4) Most patients used cannabis in the hope of a cancer cure, probably implying over-expectation since the ASCO 2023 guideline presents updated evidence indicating potential improvement of quality of life in some difficult conditions e.g. refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) rather than a cancer cure.17,18 (5) Though based on subjective assessment, our study supports the notion that cannabis use seems to improve the quality of life of gynecologic cancer patients with minimal side effects.
The main reason for cannabis interest reported in previous studies was symptom management, such as sleep, appetite, pain, neuropathy, depression, and anxiety.3,4,13,14,19 The most common symptom leading to cannabis use was pain. 5 Also, 29% of the patients were taking cannabis for treatment of their cancer. 3 These reasons are consistent with our results, but more of our patients reported the hope of anticancer effects from their cannabis use (57.4%-60.7%). Though some studies proposed cannabis anticancer mechanisms through antiproliferative, antimetastatic, antiangiogenic, and proapoptotic effects,1,8,9 these anticancer effects have only been reported in animal studies. Data from clinical trials regarding cancer cure in humans are still lacking.1,7 bibr8-15347354241261363-9 Other reasons for cannabis use among our participants were advertisement and accessibility to cannabis through other people.
Side effects were reported by about 50% of participants in a previous study. 3 On the contrary, only 28.6% of our participants reported adverse events. The most common side effect was central nervous system disturbance. Other reported side effects were dry mouth, psychiatric problems, addiction, and cardiovascular problems. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) guideline 20 suggests avoiding cancer-related pain treatment with cannabis because it has potentially harmful side effects on the psychiatric and central nervous system. In the studies,3,20 participants used THC extract with various methods, while our study found that the participants used the raw plant more than cannabis extract. Thus, the different forms of cannabis use might explain the fewer adverse events in our study. This may also reflect the absence of standard cannabis extract forms in our country. In addition, our study found that 40% of never-users were concerned about treatment interference. According to MASCC, 20 cannabis can counteract checkpoint inhibitors and decrease overall survival. Healthcare providers must discuss this issue with patients, especially given the growing use of checkpoint inhibitors in cancer treatment.
Several studies1,6,9,11,13 reported that the majority of medical cannabis users were greatly relieved of their cancer pain and reduced their opioid use. This result was not found in our study because three-fourths of our participants reported no pain symptoms before starting cannabis use. Nonetheless, the current users group reported a mean satisfaction score of 5 out of 5 (range 3-5). The reasons for their satisfaction were improvement in sleep, appetite, physical status, mood, and adverse events from cancer therapy. These results are consistent with a previous study, 13 which reported that 83% of patients with medical cannabis use had their other symptoms relieved. Cannabis might improve patients’ quality of life in any cancer treatment status. On the other hand, according to the MASCC20,21 reports, there is currently insufficient high-quality evidence to support the positive effects of cannabis on gastrointestinal symptoms and cancer-related pain. If patients are considering using cannabis as an additional treatment, they should be closely monitored.
Notably, most patients received information on cannabis from non-healthcare providers. Also, the majority of patients made their decisions based on the information they got from other people’s suggestions, not from their healthcare providers. In addition, 42.9% of participants in the current users group, 36.8% in the ex-users group, and 47.2% in the never-users group stated that the information from their healthcare providers was insufficient to make the decision. They were still undecided on whether to use cannabis-based on such information or not. McLennan et al 15 showed that 84% of healthcare providers thought they lacked knowledge about cannabis to make recommendations to their patients. They worried about adverse event monitoring, dose prescription, and the shortage of research about cannabis use in cancer patients. More than half of the healthcare providers were willing to learn more information or undergo training about medical cannabis.
Furthermore, 23% of the participants reported that the reason why they stopped cannabis use was difficulty in accessing cannabis. Various international studies reported that most patients used cannabis in extracted form, but 1 study mentioned that there is still a lack of dosing guidelines for cannabis therapies in clinical practice. 10 This might be another reason why healthcare providers are reluctant to make recommendations to the patients.
Clinical implication: Our findings can guide the direction of clinical practice strategy for effective medical cannabis use among our patients, by focusing on improvement in the understanding of healthcare providers, making them good sources of information for their patients with regard to providing scientific evidence on the risks and benefits of cannabis use. Finally, this study might encourage healthcare providers in other geographical areas to develop their own data to guide the development of an appropriate strategy for their population.
The strengths of this study are as follows: (1) prospective direct interview by the same well-trained team with systematic questionnaires could assure the patients’ understandings on the questions. (2) High homogeneity of the patients, representing a specific group of cancer patients, could result in high reliability of the results.
The study limitation is that the sample size of current users was relatively small. Nevertheless, together with ex-users who could provide the same many items of questions, the total number of cases could increase power of our analysis. Additionally, this study consisted of only patients from a single country where nationwide legalization had occurred, and patients were only from 1 institution.
Conclusion
Among gynecologic cancer patients, 40% had a history of cannabis use, including current and ex-users. The essential factors affecting a patient’s decision on medical cannabis use are advanced FIGO stage of cancer at diagnosis and information about cannabis use. Most patients received advice from other experienced patients and family, instead of their healthcare providers. Most patients intended to use cannabis for cancer cure, not for symptom relief. The main reasons for quitting cannabis use were the unavailability of cannabis and the absence of persistent cancer symptoms. Among the never-users group, the main reason for never trying cannabis was the concern of interference with current cancer treatment. They reported a score of 5 out of 10 concerning their interest in cannabis use in case of adequate information and accessibility.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to gynecologic oncology team who helped us in patient recruitment and collecting data.