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.

The recent National Institute of Health (NIH) INCLUDE (INvestigation of Co-occurring conditions across the Lifespan to Understand Down syndromE) initiative has bolstered capacity for the current increase in clinical trials involving individuals with Down syndrome (DS). This new NIH funding mechanism offers new opportunities to expand and develop novel approaches in engaging and effectively enrolling a broader representation of clinical trials participants addressing current medical issues faced by individuals with DS. To address this opportunity, the NIH assembled leading clinicians, scientists, and representatives of advocacy groups to review existing methods and to identify those areas where new approaches are needed to engage and prepare DS populations for participation in clinical trial research. This paper summarizes the results of the Clinical Trial Readiness Working Group that was part of the INCLUDE Project Workshop: Planning a Virtual Down Syndrome Cohort Across the Lifespan Workshop held virtually September 23 and 24, 2019.

BackgroundIt is not known whether modifiable lifestyle factors that predict survival after invasive breast cancer differ by subtype.MethodsWe analyzed data for 121,435 women diagnosed with breast cancer from 67 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium with 16,890 deaths (8,554 breast cancer specific) over 10 years. Cox regression was used to estimate associations between risk factors and 10-year all-cause mortality and breast cancer-specific mortality overall, by estrogen receptor (ER) status, and by intrinsic-like subtype.ResultsThere was no evidence of heterogeneous associations between risk factors and mortality by subtype (P adj > 0.30). The strongest associations were between all-cause mortality and BMI ≥30 versus 18.5-25 kg/m2 [HR (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19 (1.06-1.34)]; current versus never smoking [1.37 (1.27-1.47)], high versus low physical activity [0.43 (0.21-0.86)], age ≥30 years versus 0-

Glioma incidence is highest in non-Hispanic Whites, and to date, glioma genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to date have only included European ancestry (EA) populations. African Americans and Hispanics in the US have varying proportions of EA, African (AA) and Native American ancestries (NAA). It is unknown if identified GWAS loci or increased EA is associated with increased glioma risk. We assessed whether EA was associated with glioma in African Americans and Hispanics. Data were obtained for 832 cases and 675 controls from the Glioma International Case-Control Study and GliomaSE Case-Control Study previously estimated to have

The Appalachian region has been disproportionately impacted by the opioid epidemic. This study, informed by the Health Belief Model (HBM), explored Appalachian community members perspectives on prescription opioid misuse and community-based programs to dispose of unused opioid analgesics. In 2018, we conducted ten focus groups (n=94 participants) in 5 Appalachian counties. Thirteen themes across 5 of the HBM constructs emerged from our analysis. Participants perceived that their communities are susceptible to the harms associated with opioid misuse, these harms are serious, suggesting they could be motivated to change disposal behaviors. Many participants recognized the benefit to disposing of unused prescription opioids including protecting household members from misusing and protecting the home from robbery. Nevertheless, participants identified barriers to proper disposal, including keeping the medications just in case for future ailments and the location of drop boxes near law enforcement (due to deep-seated mistrust of law enforcement agencies). Self-efficacy was difficult to assess as many participants were completely unaware of the presence of dropboxes in the community and also expressed concerns about the inconvenience of proper disposal using dropboxes These findings have implications for developing community-based campaign messages promoting proper disposal of unused opioids.

Background: Increase in breast cancer incidence associated with mammography screening diffusion may have attenuated risk associations between family history and breast cancer.Methods: The proportions of women ages 40 to 74 years reporting a first-degree family history of breast cancer were estimated in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium cohort (BCSC: N = 1,170,900; 1996-2012) and the Collaborative Breast Cancer Study (CBCS: cases N = 23,400; controls N = 26,460; 1987-2007). Breast cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive) relative risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) associated with family history were calculated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard and logistic regression models.Results: The proportion of women reporting a first-degree family history increased from 11% in the 1980s to 16% in 2010 to 2013. Family history was associated with a >60% increased risk of breast cancer in the BCSC (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.55-1.66) and CBCS (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.57-1.72). Relative risks decreased slightly with age. Consistent trends in relative risks were not observed over time or across stage of disease at diagnosis in both studies, except among older women (ages 60-74) where estimates were attenuated from about 1.7 to 1.3 over the last 20 years (P trend = 0.08 for both studies).Conclusions: Although the proportion of women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer increased over time and by age, breast cancer risk associations with family history were nonetheless fairly constant over time for women under age 60.Impact: First-degree family history of breast cancer remains an important breast cancer risk factor, especially for younger women, despite its increasing prevalence in the mammography screening era. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(12); 1753-60. ©2017 AACR.

Introduction: HPV vaccination prevents most HPV-related cancers, yet uptake remains low. HPV is linked to an estimated 70% of oropharyngeal cancers (OPCs) in the US and outnumber cases of HPV-related cervical cancers. Not all OPCs can be detected through routine screening, making HPV vaccination a more effective primary prevention strategy. However, bridging primary and oral healthcare faces challenges due to a lack of referral networks between practices. The purpose of this study is to identify key infrastructure elements and policies, as well as HPV prevention strategies, among an academic practice network of dental clinics and partnering community health clinics in a southeastern state. Methods: Researchers held interviews with directors and focus groups with staff at six dental clinics and eight associated community clinics in a southeastern state. Interviews and focus groups at dental and community clinics were analyzed by two study team members using thematic analysis with Nvivo software. Results: A total of 90 participants participated in all focus groups and interviews (N = 14 interviews, 10 focus groups (5–13 participants per focus group). Most participants identified as white (58.9%) and female (70%), with an average age of 38.5 years. Researchers identified nine key study themes: three specific to the dental clinics' HPV conversations with patients, two related to community clinics' vaccine provision, and four involving the relationship between the dental and co-located community clinics. Dental clinic staff do not currently discuss HPV with patients. They are open to discussing HPV with patients but anticipate barriers that require preparation to overcome them. Community clinics have demonstrated previous success with HPV vaccination, but patients over the age of 18 face financial barriers to vaccination. Community clinics and dental clinics report that they do not currently have existing referral networks but are open to a referral system between practices if infrastructure is put into place to support it. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that there is interest in, and potential for, increased discussion of HPV with dental patients and collaboration between dental and community clinics for HPV vaccination referral. The results of this investigation can be used to develop intervention strategies to increase HPV vaccination through referrals between dental clinics and nearby community clinics. Ultimately, this work can reduce health inequities in HPV-related cancers, serve as a model for US dental practices, and possibly influence public health policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medication disposal programs have been promoted as one solution to the opioid crisis, but uptake by community members has been minimal. Objectives: To clarify perceptions of medication disposal options among people who have been prescribed an opioid analgesic in North Carolina to inform interventions that can facilitate the disposal of unused opioids. Methods: In 2022, we conducted focus groups with participants who received an opioid medication in the past year to gain information to develop an intervention related to the disposal of unused opioid medication (12 focus group discussions (FGDs); total N = 37; 30 identified as female, 6 as male, and 1 as another gender). Participants were shown a slide with the Food and Drug Administration's recommended disposal options and asked about their perceptions of each option. Themes were derived using an inductive, thematic, qualitative approach. Results: Seven themes about perceptions of medication disposal programs emerged from the data. Four of the themes reflect potential barriers to medication disposal: failed disposal attempts, lack of sufficient education on proper disposal, unclear meaning of specific disposal language, and concerns about existing disposal options. Three of the themes provide insight on potential facilitators of medication disposal: preference of low-cost disposal options, ease and accessibility among disposal methods, and preferred disposal methods. Conclusion: Patients should be provided clear and consistent guidance from prescribers and dispensing pharmacists on when and how to dispose of unused medications and opportunities to dispose of medications at no cost to the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns about breast cancer overdiagnosis have increased the need to understand how cancers detected through screening mammography differ from those first detected by a woman or her clinician. We investigated risk factor associations for invasive breast cancer by method of detection within a series of case-control studies (1992-2007) carried out in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire (n=15,648 invasive breast cancer patients and 17,602 controls aged 40-79 years). Approximately half of case women reported that their cancer had been detected by mammographic screening and half that they or their clinician had detected it. In polytomous logistic regression models, parity and age at first birth were more strongly associated with risk of mammography-detected breast cancer than with risk of woman/clinician-detected breast cancer (P≤0.01; adjusted for mammography utilization). Among postmenopausal women, estrogen-progestin hormone use was predominantly associated with risk of woman/clinician-detected breast cancer (odds ratio (OR)=1.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29, 1.72), whereas obesity was predominantly associated with risk of mammography-detected breast cancer (OR=1.72, 95% CI: 1.54, 1.92). Among regularly screened premenopausal women, obesity was not associated with increased risk of mammography-detected breast cancer (OR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.18), but it was associated with reduced risk of woman/clinician-detected breast cancer (OR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.64). These findings indicate important differences in breast cancer risk factors according to method of detection.

BACKGROUND: Data for multiple common susceptibility alleles for breast cancer may be combined to identify women at different levels of breast cancer risk. Such stratification could guide preventive and screening strategies. However, empirical evidence for genetic risk stratification is lacking. METHODS: We investigated the value of using 77 breast cancer-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for risk stratification, in a study of 33 673 breast cancer cases and 33 381 control women of European origin. We tested all possible pair-wise multiplicative interactions and constructed a 77-SNP polygenic risk score (PRS) for breast cancer overall and by estrogen receptor (ER) status. Absolute risks of breast cancer by PRS were derived from relative risk estimates and UK incidence and mortality rates. RESULTS: There was no strong evidence for departure from a multiplicative model for any SNP pair. Women in the highest 1% of the PRS had a three-fold increased risk of developing breast cancer compared with women in the middle quintile (odds ratio [OR] = 3.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.95 to 3.83). The ORs for ER-positive and ER-negative disease were 3.73 (95% CI = 3.24 to 4.30) and 2.80 (95% CI = 2.26 to 3.46), respectively. Lifetime risk of breast cancer for women in the lowest and highest quintiles of the PRS were 5.2% and 16.6% for a woman without family history, and 8.6% and 24.4% for a woman with a first-degree family history of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The PRS stratifies breast cancer risk in women both with and without a family history of breast cancer. The observed level of risk discrimination could inform targeted screening and prevention strategies. Further discrimination may be achievable through combining the PRS with lifestyle/environmental factors, although these were not considered in this report.

While several risk factors for breast cancer have been identified, studies have not consistently shown whether these factors operate more strongly at certain ages or for just pre- or postmenopausal women. We evaluated whether risk factors for breast cancer differ according to age or menopausal status. Data from five population-based case-control studies conducted during 1988-2008 were combined and analyzed. Cases (N = 23,959) and population controls (N = 28,304) completed telephone interviews. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervals and tests for interaction by age and menopausal status. Odds ratios for first-degree family history of breast cancer were strongest for younger women-reaching twofold elevations-but were still statistically significantly elevated by 58-69 % among older women. Obesity was inversely associated with breast cancer among younger women and positively associated with risk for older women (interaction P < 0.0001). Recent alcohol intake was more strongly related to breast cancer risk among older women, although consumption of 3 or more drinks/day among younger women also was associated with elevated odd ratios (P < 0.0001). Associations with benign breast disease and most reproductive/menstrual factors did not vary by age. Repeating analysis stratifying by menopausal status produced similar results. With few exceptions, menstrual and lifestyle factors are associated with breast cancer risk regardless of age or menopausal status. Variation in the association of family history, obesity, and alcohol use with breast cancer risk by age and menopausal status may need to be considered when determining individual risk for breast cancer.