Background: The 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. Methods: A 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. Results: Overall 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. Conclusion: This 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.

Cancer encompasses a highly heterogeneous group of diseases. It is thought that transition from promotion to progression in carcinogenesis may be driven primarily by epigenetic abnormalities. There is emerging evidence that nutrition and environmental factors affect epigenetic changes. The observation that epigenetic changes are reversible makes them an attractive target for cancer prevention. Until recently, there have been difficulties studying epigenetic mechanisms in interactions between dietary factors and environmental toxicants. The development of the field of cancer epigenetics in the past decade has been rapidly advanced by genome-wide technologies, initially employing microarrays but increasingly high-throughput sequencing, which helped to improve the quality of the analysis, increase the capacity of sample throughput, and reduce the cost of assays. It is particularly true for applications of cancer epigenetics in epidemiologic studies examining the relationship among diet, epigenetics, and cancer because of the issues of tissue heterogeneity, the often limiting amount of DNA samples, and the significant cost of the analyses. This review offers an overview of the state of the science in nutrition, environmental toxicants, epigenetics, and cancer to stimulate further exploration of this important and developing area of science. Additional epidemiologic research is needed to clarify the relationship of these complex epigenetic mechanisms on cancer.

Background: Air pollution exposure has been associated with a multitude of diseases and poses a significant concern to public health. For targeted environmental risk communication and interventions to be effective, it is important to correctly identify characteristics associated with worry of harm from air pollution. Methods: Using responses from 3,630 participants of the Health Information National Trends Survey 4 Cycle 2, we assessed worry of harm from exposure to indoor (IAP) and outdoor (OAP) air pollution separately. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results: Hispanics were more likely to worry about harm from IAP and OAP compared to non-Hispanic whites. Participants who lived in metropolitan counties were more likely to worry about harm from IAP and OAP compared to those who lived in rural counties. Finally, those who believed their chance of getting cancer was high were more likely to worry about harm from IAP and OAP compared to those who thought their likelihood of getting cancer was low. Conclusions: Worry of harm from IAP and OAP varied across sociodemographic and cancer-related characteristics. Public health professionals should consider these characteristics when developing targeted environmental risk communication and interventions.

The current body of evidence from both preclinical and epidemiologic studies suggests that cumulative stress may play a role in carcinogenesis; however, few studies on human populations have examined allostatic load (AL) as it relates to cancer risk, progression, and mortality. In this commentary, we discuss the use and value of AL as a measure to assess exposure to stress for cancer epidemiologic studies, describe the existing evidence between AL and sources of cancer-related environmental stressors, and summarize the existing epidemiologic studies on AL and cancer risk, progression, and mortality. We also outline several knowledge gaps and what steps should be considered to advance research on the role of AL and cancer risk, progression, and mortality in human populations.

Expanding legal access to medical cannabis across the United States increases availability and use of cannabis products to manage cancer-related symptoms and treatment side effects despite the lack of research-based evidence on its potential benefits and harms. To address knowledge gaps in how cancer patients access and use cannabis, their perceived risks and benefits with its use, and whether cancer patients discuss cannabis use with their healthcare providers during treatment, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) supported 12 NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers to conduct surveys, which included NCI standardized core questions on cannabis use during treatment, among their cancer patient populations. This overview highlights key results from the articles contained in the monograph, which includes a summary of the results of core questions across all centers and reports from individual or groups of cancer centers on survey results related to the sourcing of cannabis, associated cost, behavioral factors associated with cannabis use (such as smoking, drinking, or using other substances), patient-provider communication on cannabis use during treatment, ethnic variations in patterns, sources, and reasons for cannabis use as well as methodologic concerns related to survey data analysis. The results of these surveys of cannabis use after the diagnosis of cancer lay the groundwork for much-needed research to answer the questions of benefits and harms, including potential interactions with cancer treatments for cancer patients.

Background: Air pollution exposure has been associated with a multitude of diseases and poses a significant concern to public health. For targeted environmental risk communication and interventions to be effective, it is important to correctly identify characteristics associated with worry of harm from air pollution. Methods: Using responses from 3,630 participants of the Health Information National Trends Survey 4 Cycle 2, we assessed worry of harm from exposure to indoor (IAP) and outdoor (OAP) air pollution separately. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results: Hispanics were more likely to worry about harm from IAP and OAP compared to non-Hispanic whites. Participants who lived in urban counties were more likely to worry about harm from IAP and OAP compared to those who lived in rural counties. Finally, those who believed their chance of getting cancer was high were more likely to worry about harm from IAP and OAP compared to those who thought their likelihood of getting cancer was low. Conclusions: Worry of harm from IAP and OAP varied across sociodemographic and cancer-related characteristics. Public health professionals should consider these characteristics when developing targeted environmental risk communication and interventions.