Background: A comprehensive assessment of cannabis use by patients with cancer has not previously been reported. In this study, we aimed to characterize patient perspectives about cannabis and its use. Methods: An anonymous survey about cannabis use was offered to patients 18 years of age and older attending 2 comprehensive and 2 community cancer centres, comprising an entire provincial health care jurisdiction in Canada (ethics ID: HREBA-17011). Results: Of 3138 surveys distributed, 2040 surveys were returned (65%), with 1987 being sufficiently complete for analysis (response rate: 63%). Of the respondents, 812 (41%) were less than 60 years of age; 45% identified as male, and 55% as female; and 44% had completed college or higher education. Of respondents overall, 43% reported any lifetime cannabis use. That finding was independent of age, sex, education level, and cancer histology. Cannabis was acquired through friends (80%), regulated medical dispensaries (10%), and other means (6%). Of patients with any use, 81% had used dried leaves. Of the 356 patients who reported cannabis use within the 6 months preceding the survey (18% of respondents with sufficiently complete surveys), 36% were new users. Their reasons for use included cancer-related pain (46%), nausea (34%), other cancer symptoms (31%), and non-cancer-related reasons (56%). Conclusions:The survey demonstrated that prior cannabis use was widespread among patients with cancer (43%). One in eight respondents identified at least 1 cancer-related symptom for which they were using cannabis.

We investigated the association of social jetlag (misalignment between the internal clock and socially required timing of activities) and prostate cancer incidence in a prospective cohort in Alberta, Canada. Data were collected from 7455 cancer-free men aged 35–69 years enrolled in Alberta’s Tomorrow Project (ATP) from 2001–2007. In the 2008 survey, participants reported usual bed- and wake-times on weekdays and weekend days. Social jetlag was defined as the absolute difference in waking time between weekday and weekend days, and was categorized into three groups: 0–<1 h (from 0 to anything smaller than 1), 1–<2 h (from 1 to anything smaller than 2), and 2+ h. ATP facilitated data linkage with the Alberta Cancer Registry in June 2018 to determine incident prostate cancer cases (n = 250). Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regressions, adjusting for a range of covariates. Median follow-up was 9.57 years, yielding 68,499 person-years. Baseline presence of social jetlag of 1–<2 h (HR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.10 to 2.01), and 2+ hours (HR = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.15 to 2.46) were associated with increased prostate cancer risk vs. those reporting no social jetlag (p for trend = 0.004). These associations remained after adjusting for sleep duration (p for trend = 0.006). With respect to chronotype, the association between social jetlag and prostate cancer risk remained significant in men with early chronotypes (p for trend = 0.003) but attenuated to null in men with intermediate (p for trend = 0.150) or late chronotype (p for trend = 0.381). Our findings suggest that greater than one hour of habitual social jetlag is associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer. Longitudinal studies with repeated measures of social jetlag and large samples with sufficient advanced prostate cancer cases are needed to confirm these findings.

Deep periocular cancers can be difficult to plan and treat with radiation, given the difficulties in apposing bolus to skin, and the proximity to the retina and other optic structures. We sought to compare the combination of electrons and orthovoltage therapy (OBE) with existing modalities for these lesions. Four cases—a retro-orbital melanoma (Case 1) and basal cell carcinomas, extending across the eyelid (Case 2) or along the medial canthus (Cases 3–4)—were selected for comparison. In each case, radiotherapy plans for electron only, 70% electron and 30% orthovoltage (OBE), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), conformal arc, and protons were compared. Dose–volume histograms for planning target volume coverage and selected organs at risk (OARs) were then calculated. The V_90% coverage of the planning target volume was >98% for electrons, VMAT, conformal arc and proton plans and 90.2% and 89.5% in OBE plans for Cases 2 and 3, respectively. The retinal V_80% was >98% in electron, VMAT and proton plans and 79.4%; and 87.1% in OBE and conformal arcs for Case 2 and 91.3%, 36.4%, 56.9%, 52.4% and 43.7% for Case 3 in electrons, OBE, VMAT, conformal arc and proton plans, respectively. Protons provided superior coverage, homogeneity and OAR sparing, compared with all other modalities. However, given its simplicity and widespread availability, OBE is a potential alternative treatment option for moderately deep lesions where bolus placement is difficult.