ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2025
Perceptions, Uses, and Information Sources of Medical Cannabis Among Patients With Cancer.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Although medical cannabis (MC) has been shown to relieve cancer- and treatment-related symptoms, there is increasing misinformation regarding its antitumor efficacy. We aimed to identify opportunities for oncologists to communicate evidence-based guidance to patients regarding its use. Methods and Materials: Patients with cancer seen in radiation oncology clinic between June 2022 and July 2023 were surveyed with a questionnaire regarding their perceptions and information sources of MC. Associations between survey responses and demographic and disease variables were evaluated. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed on narrative responses in search of common themes. Results: Eighty-four patients (84% completion rate) were included in the analysis. Most (83.3%) strongly agreed or agreed that MC can provide symptom relief, whereas a subset of patients (15.5%) strongly agreed or agreed that MC can cure cancer. This latter subcohort was significantly more likely to identify as Hispanic/Latino (38.5% vs 9.9%, Conclusions: Although most patients consider MC to be a valuable addition to conventional therapies for managing refractory symptoms, a subset believed it had potential as an anticancer therapy. Many patients rely on unregulated sources, highlighting the need for providers to address misinformation, bridge knowledge gaps, and clarify its use.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.