In this page, i will review the NIH’s human clinical studies that validate Cannabis as strong and safe medicine. First, a word on Cannabis pharmacology (Section A), then I will review a few of the published risks (Section B) and in a last section, I will delve into it’s treatment plans and medicinal value (Section C)
text under construction
When oral Cannabis is ingested, there is a low (6%–20%) and variable oral bioavailability.[1,2] Peak plasma concentrations of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) occur after 1 to 6 hours and remain elevated with a terminal half-life of 20 to 30 hours. Taken by mouth, delta-9-THC is initially metabolized in the liver to 11-OH-THC, a potent psychoactive metabolite. Inhaled cannabinoids are rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream with a peak concentration in 2 to 10 minutes, declining rapidly for a period of 30 minutes and with less generation of the psychoactive 11-OH metabolite.
Cannabinoids are known to interact with the hepatic cytochrome P450 enzyme system.[3,4] In one study, 24 cancer patients were treated with intravenous irinotecan (600 mg, n = 12) or docetaxel (180 mg, n = 12), followed 3 weeks later by the same drugs concomitant with medicinal Cannabis taken in the form of an herbal tea for 15 consecutive days, starting 12 days before the second treatment. The administration of Cannabis did not significantly influence exposure to and clearance of irinotecan or docetaxel, although the herbal tea route of administration may not reproduce the effects of inhalation or oral ingestion of fat-soluble cannabinoids.
A number of studies have yielded conflicting evidence regarding the risks of various cancers associated with Cannabis smoking.
A pooled analysis of three case-cohort studies of men in northwestern Africa (430 cases and 778 controls) showed a significantly increased risk of lung cancer among tobacco smokers who also inhaled Cannabis.
A large, retrospective cohort study of 64,855 men aged 15 to 49 years from the United States found that Cannabis use was not associated with tobacco-related cancers and a number of other common malignancies. However, the study did find that, among nonsmokers of tobacco, ever having used Cannabis was associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer.
A population-based case-control study of 611 lung cancer patients revealed that chronic low Cannabis exposure was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer or other upper aerodigestive tract cancers and found no positive associations with any cancer type (oral, pharyngeal, laryngeal, lung, or esophagus) when adjusting for several confounders, including cigarette smoking.
A systematic review assessing 19 studies that evaluated premalignant or malignant lung lesions in persons 18 years or older who inhaled Cannabis concluded that observational studies failed to demonstrate statistically significant associations between Cannabis inhalation and lung cancer after adjusting for tobacco use. In the review of the published meta-analyses, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report concluded that there was moderate evidence of no statistical association between Cannabis smoking and the incidence of lung cancer.
Epidemiologic studies examining one association of Cannabis use with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas have also been inconsistent in their findings. A pooled analysis of nine case-control studies from the U.S./Latin American International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology (INHANCE) Consortium included information from 1,921 oropharyngeal cases, 356 tongue cases, and 7,639 controls. Compared with those who never smoked Cannabis, Cannabis smokers had an elevated risk of oropharyngeal cancers and a reduced risk of tongue cancer. These study results both reflect the inconsistent effects of cannabinoids on cancer incidence noted in previous studies and suggest that more work needs to be done to understand the potential role of human papillomavirus infection. A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine case-control studies involving 13,931 participants also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support or refute a positive or negative association between Cannabis smoking and the incidence of head and neck cancers.
With a hypothesis that chronic marijuana use produces adverse effects on the human endocrine and reproductive systems, the association between Cannabis use and incidence of testicular germ cell tumors (TGCTs) has been examined.[12-14] Three population-based case-control studies reported an association between Cannabis use and elevated risk of TGCTs, especially nonseminoma or mixed-histology tumors.[12-14] However, the sample sizes in these studies were inadequate to address Cannabis dose by addressing associations with respect to recency, frequency, and duration of use. These early reports of Cannabis use and TGCTs established the need for larger, well-powered, prospective studies, especially studies evaluating the role of endocannabinoid signaling and cannabinoid receptors in TGCTs.
An analysis of 84,170 participants in the California Men’s Health Study was performed to investigate the association between Cannabis use and the incidence of bladder cancer. During 16 years of follow-up, 89 Cannabis users (0.3%) developed bladder cancer compared with 190 (0.4%) of the men who did not report Cannabis use (P < .001). After adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, and body mass index, Cannabis use was associated with a 45% reduction in bladder cancer incidence (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.33–1.00).
A comprehensive Health Canada monograph on marijuana concluded that while there are many cellular and molecular studies that provide strong evidence that inhaled marijuana is carcinogenic, the epidemiologic evidence of a link between marijuana use and cancer is still inconclusive.
According to the Government’s medicine (that which corresponds to 5 percent of medical reality, See evidence page), there is no proof that cannabis can directly treat cancer. There is also no ongoing clinical trials of Cannabis as a treatment for cancer in humans were identified in a PubMed search. Which is easy to understand why, the Conventional Oncology Cartel has no financial interest in promoting a non patentable plant.
The only published trial of any cannabinoid in patients with cancer is a small pilot study of intratumoral injection of delta-9-THC in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme, which demonstrated no significant clinical benefit.[17,18] In a trial (NCT02255292) conducted in Israel, oral cannabidiol (CBD) was investigated as a single salvage agent for recurrent solid tumors. The study was projected to be completed in 2015; however, no results have been published. A small exploratory phase II study (GWCA1208 Part A [NCT01812603]) was conducted in the United Kingdom that used nabiximols, a 1:1 ratio of THC:CBD in a Cannabis-based medicinal extract oromucosal spray, in conjunction with temozolomide in treating patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. The study enrolled 21 patients. Final results have not been published.
Another Israeli group postulated that the anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects of CBD might make it a valuable adjunct in the treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in patients who have undergone allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The authors investigated CBD 300 mg/d in addition to standard GVHD prophylaxis in 48 adult patients who had undergone transplantation predominantly for acute leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome (NCT01385124 and NCT01596075). The combination of CBD with standard GVHD prophylaxis was found to be safe. Compared with 101 historical controls treated with standard prophylaxis, patients who received CBD appeared to have a lower incidence of grade II to grade IV GVHD, suggesting that a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is warranted.
Antiemetic Effect of Cannabinoids
Despite advances in pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management, nausea and vomiting (N/V) remain distressing side effects for cancer patients and their families. Dronabinol, a synthetically produced delta-9-THC, was approved in the United States in 1986 as an antiemetic to be used in cancer chemotherapy. Nabilone, a synthetic derivative of delta-9-THC, was first approved in Canada in 1982 and is now also available in the United States. Both dronabinol and nabilone have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)for the treatment of N/V associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who have failed to respond to conventional antiemetic therapy. Numerous clinical trials and meta-analyses have shown that dronabinol and nabilone are effective in the treatment of N/V induced by chemotherapy.[23-26] The National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines recommend cannabinoids as breakthrough treatment for chemotherapy-related N/V. The American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) antiemetic guidelines updated in 2017 recommends that the FDA-approved cannabinoids, dronabinol or nabilone, be used to treat N/V that is resistant to standard antiemetic therapies.
One systematic review studied 30 randomized comparisons of delta-9-THC preparations with placebo or other antiemetics from which data on efficacy and harm were available. Oral nabilone, oral dronabinol, and intramuscular levonantradol (a synthetic analog of dronabinol) were tested. Inhaled Cannabis trials were not included. Among all 1,366 patients included in the review, cannabinoids were found to be more effective than the conventional antiemetics prochlorperazine, metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, thiethylperazine, haloperidol, domperidone, and alizapride. Cannabinoids, however, were not more effective for patients receiving very low or very high emetogenic chemotherapy. Side effects included a feeling of being high, euphoria, sedation or drowsiness, dizziness, dysphoria or depression, hallucinations, paranoia, and hypotension.
Another analysis of 15 controlled studies compared nabilone with placebo or available antiemetic drugs. Among 600 cancer patients, nabilone was found to be superior to prochlorperazine, domperidone, and alizapride, with nabilone favored for continuous use.
A Cochrane meta-analysis of 23 randomized RCTs reviewed studies conducted between 1975 and 1991 that investigated dronabinol or nabilone, either as monotherapy or as an adjunct to the conventional dopamine antagonists that were the standard antiemetics at that time. The chemotherapy regimens involved drugs with low, moderate, or high emetic potential. The meta-analysis graded the quality of evidence as low for most outcomes. The review concluded that individuals were more likely to report complete absence of N/V when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo, although they were more likely to withdraw from the study because of an adverse event. Individuals reported a higher preference for cannabinoids than placebo or prochlorperazine. There was no difference in the antiemetic effect of cannabinoids when compared with prochlorperazine. The authors concluded that Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced N/V; however, they cautioned that their assessment may change with the availability of newer antiemetic regimens.
At least 50% of patients who receive moderately emetogenic chemotherapy may experience delayed chemotherapy-induced N/V. Although selective neurokinin 1 antagonists that inhibit substance P have been approved for delayed N/V, a study was conducted before their availability to assess dronabinol, ondansetron, or their combination in preventing delayed-onset chemotherapy-induced N/V. Ondansetron, a serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, is one of the mainstay agents in the current antiemetic armamentarium. In this trial, the primary objective was to assess the response 2 to 5 days after moderately to severely emetogenic chemotherapy. Sixty-one patients were analyzed for efficacy. The total response–a composite endpoint–including nausea intensity, vomiting/retching, and use of rescue medications, was similar with dronabinol (54%), ondansetron (58%), and combination therapy (47%) when compared with placebo (20%). Nausea absence was greater in the active treatment groups (dronabinol 71%, ondansetron 64%, combination therapy 53%) when compared with placebo (15%; P < .05 vs. placebo for all). Occurrence rates for nausea intensity and vomiting/retching episodes were the lowest in patients treated with dronabinol, suggesting that dronabinol compares favorably with ondansetron in this situation where a substance P inhibitor would currently be the drug of choice.
Ten trials have evaluated the efficacy of inhaled Cannabis in chemotherapy-induced N/V.[33-36] In two of the studies, inhaled Cannabis was made available only after dronabinol failure. In the first trial, no antiemetic effect was achieved with marijuana in patients receiving cyclophosphamide or doxorubicin, but in the second trial, a statistically significant superior antiemetic effect of inhaled Cannabis versus placebo was found among patients receiving high-dose methotrexate. The third trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial involving 20 adults in which both inhaled marijuana and oral THC were evaluated. One-quarter of the patients reported a favorable antiemetic response to the cannabinoid therapies. This latter study was reported in abstract form in 1984. A full report, detailing the methods and outcomes apparently has not been published, which limits a thorough interpretation of the significance of these findings.
Newer antiemetics (e.g., 5-HT3 receptor antagonists) have not been directly compared with Cannabis or cannabinoids in cancer patients. However, the Cannabis-extract oromucosal spray, nabiximols, formulated with 1:1 THC:CBD was shown in a small pilot randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial in Spain to treat chemotherapy-related N/V.[Level of evidence: 1iC] ASCO antiemetic guidelines updated in 2017 states that evidence remains insufficient to recommend medical marijuana for either the prevention or treatment of N/V in patients with cancer who receive chemotherapy or radiation therapy.
Anorexia, early satiety, weight loss, and cachexia are problems experienced by cancer patients. Such patients are faced not only with the disfigurement associated with wasting but also with an inability to engage in the social interaction of meals.
Three controlled trials demonstrated that oral THC has variable effects on appetite stimulation and weight loss in patients with advanced malignancies and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. One study evaluated the efficacy of dronabinol alone or with megestrol acetate compared with that of megestrol acetate alone for managing cancer-associated anorexia. In this randomized, double-blind study of 469 adults with advanced cancer and weight loss, patients received 2.5 mg of oral THC twice daily, 800 mg of oral megestrol daily, or both. Appetite increased by 75% in the megestrol group and weight increased by 11%, compared with a 49% increase in appetite and a 3% increase in weight in the oral THC group after 8 to 11 weeks of treatment. These two differences were statistically significant. Furthermore, the combined therapy did not offer additional benefits beyond those provided by megestrol acetate alone. The authors concluded that dronabinol did little to promote appetite or weight gain in advanced cancer patients compared with megestrol acetate. However, a smaller, placebo-controlled trial of dronabinol in cancer patients demonstrated improved and enhanced chemosensory perception in the cannabinoid group—food tasted better, appetite increased, and the proportion of calories consumed as protein was greater than in the placebo recipients.
In a randomized clinical trial, researchers compared the safety and effectiveness of orally administered Cannabis extract (2.5 mg THC and 1 mg CBD), THC (2.5 mg), or placebo for the treatment of cancer-related anorexia-cachexia in 243 patients with advanced cancer who received treatment twice daily for 6 weeks. Results demonstrated that although these agents were well tolerated by these patients, no differences were observed in patient appetite or quality of life among the three groups at this dose level and duration of intervention.
Another clinical trial that involved 139 patients with HIV or AIDS and weight loss found that, compared with placebo, oral dronabinol was associated with a statistically significant increase in appetite after 4 to 6 weeks of treatment. Patients receiving dronabinol tended to have weight stabilization, whereas patients receiving placebo continued to lose weight.
In trials conducted in the 1980s that involved healthy control subjects, inhaling Cannabis led to an increase in caloric intake, mainly in the form of between-meal snacks, with increased intakes of fatty and sweet foods.[42,43]
No published studies have explored the effect of inhaled Cannabis on appetite in cancer patients.
Pain management improves a patient’s quality of life throughout all stages of cancer. Through the study of cannabinoid receptors, endocannabinoids, and synthetic agonists and antagonists, the mechanisms of cannabinoid-induced analgesia have been analyzed.[Level of evidence:1iC] The CB1 receptor is found in the central nervous system (CNS) and in peripheral nerve terminals. CB2 receptors are located mainly in peripheral tissue and are expressed in only low amounts in the CNS. Whereas only CB1 agonists exert analgesic activity in the CNS, both CB1 and CB2 agonists have analgesic activity in peripheral tissue.[46,47]
Cancer pain results from inflammation, invasion of bone or other pain-sensitive structures, or nerve injury. When cancer pain is severe and persistent, it is often resistant to treatment with opioids.
Two studies examined the effects of oral delta-9-THC on cancer pain. The first, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving ten patients, measured both pain intensity and pain relief. It was reported that 15 mg and 20 mg doses of the cannabinoid delta-9-THC were associated with substantial analgesic effects, with antiemetic effects and appetite stimulation.
In a follow-up, single-dose study involving 36 patients, it was reported that 10 mg doses of delta-9-THC produced analgesic effects during a 7-hour observation period that were comparable to 60 mg doses of codeine, and 20 mg doses of delta-9-THC induced effects equivalent to 120 mg doses of codeine. Higher doses of THC were found to be more sedative than codeine.
Another study examined the effects of a plant extract with controlled cannabinoid content in an oromucosal spray. In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the THC:CBD nabiximols extract and THC extract alone were compared in the analgesic management of patients with advanced cancer and with moderate-to-severe cancer-related pain. Patients were assigned to one of three treatment groups: THC:CBD extract, THC extract, or placebo. The researchers concluded that the THC:CBD extract was efficacious for pain relief in advanced cancer patients whose pain was not fully relieved by strong opioids. In a randomized, placebo-controlled, graded-dose trial, opioid-treated cancer patients with poorly controlled chronic pain demonstrated significantly better control of pain and sleep disruption with THC:CBD oromucosal spray at lower doses (1–4 and 6–10 sprays/day), compared with placebo. Adverse events were dose related, with only the high-dose group (11–16 sprays/day) comparing unfavorably with the placebo arm. These studies provide promising evidence of an adjuvant analgesic effect of THC:CBD in this opioid-refractory patient population and may provide an opportunity to address this significant clinical challenge. An open-label extension study of 43 patients who had participated in the randomized trial found that some patients continued to obtain relief of their cancer-related pain with long-term use of the THC:CBD oromucosal spray without increasing their dose of the spray or the dose of their other analgesics.
A randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study of nabiximols in 16 patients with chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain showed no significant difference between the treatment and placebo groups. A responder analysis, however, demonstrated that five patients reported a reduction in their pain of at least 2 points on an 11-point scale, suggesting that a larger follow-up study may be warranted.
An observational study assessed the effectiveness of nabilone in advanced cancer patients who were experiencing pain and other symptoms (anorexia, depression, and anxiety). The researchers reported that patients who used nabilone experienced improved management of pain, nausea, anxiety, and distress when compared with untreated patients. Nabilone was also associated with a decreased use of opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentin, dexamethasone, metoclopramide, and ondansetron.
Animal studies have suggested a synergistic analgesic effect when cannabinoids are combined with opioids. The results from one pharmacokinetic interaction study have been reported. In this study, 21 patients with chronic pain were administered vaporized Cannabis along with sustained-release morphine or oxycodone for 5 days. The patients who received vaporized Cannabis and sustained-release morphine had a statistically significant decrease in their mean pain score over the 5-day period; those who received vaporized Cannabis and oxycodone did not. These findings should be verified by further studies before recommendations favoring such an approach are warranted in general clinical practice.
Neuropathic pain is a symptom cancer patients may experience, especially if treated with platinum-based chemotherapy or taxanes. Two RCTs of inhaled Cannabis in patients with peripheral neuropathy or neuropathic pain of various etiologies found that pain was reduced in patients who received inhaled Cannabis, compared with those who received placebo.[56,57] Two additional trials of inhaled Cannabis have also demonstrated the benefit of Cannabis over placebo in HIV-associated neuropathic pain.[58,59]
Anxiety and Sleep
In a small pilot study of analgesia involving ten patients with cancer pain, secondary measures showed that 15 mg and 20 mg doses of the cannabinoid delta-9-THC were associated with anxiolytic effects.[Level of evidence: 1iC]
A small placebo-controlled study of dronabinol in cancer patients with altered chemosensory perception also noted increased quality of sleep and relaxation in THC-treated patients.[Level of evidence: 1iC]
Patients often experience mood elevation after exposure to Cannabis, depending on their previous experience. In a five-patient case series of inhaled Cannabis that examined analgesic effects in chronic pain, it was reported that patients who self-administered Cannabis had improved mood, improved sense of well-being, and less anxiety.
Another common effect of Cannabis is sleepiness. A small placebo-controlled study of dronabinol in cancer patients with altered chemosensory perception also noted increased quality of sleep and relaxation in THC-treated patients.
References and Precision Notes
1Adams IB, Martin BR: Cannabis: pharmacology and toxicology in animals and humans. Addiction 91 (11): 1585-614, 1996. [PUBMED Abstract]
2Agurell S, Halldin M, Lindgren JE, et al.: Pharmacokinetics and metabolism of delta 1-tetrahydrocannabinol and other cannabinoids with emphasis on man. Pharmacol Rev 38 (1): 21-43, 1986. [PUBMED Abstract]
3Yamamoto I, Watanabe K, Narimatsu S, et al.: Recent advances in the metabolism of cannabinoids. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 27 (8): 741-6, 1995. [PUBMED Abstract]
4Engels FK, de Jong FA, Sparreboom A, et al.: Medicinal cannabis does not influence the clinical pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and docetaxel. Oncologist 12 (3): 291-300, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
5Berthiller J, Straif K, Boniol M, et al.: Cannabis smoking and risk of lung cancer in men: a pooled analysis of three studies in Maghreb. J Thorac Oncol 3 (12): 1398-403, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
6Sidney S, Quesenberry CP Jr, Friedman GD, et al.: Marijuana use and cancer incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes Control 8 (5): 722-8, 1997. [PUBMED Abstract]
7Hashibe M, Morgenstern H, Cui Y, et al.: Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: results of a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15 (10): 1829-34, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
8Mehra R, Moore BA, Crothers K, et al.: The association between marijuana smoking and lung cancer: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 166 (13): 1359-67, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
9National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2017.
10Marks MA, Chaturvedi AK, Kelsey K, et al.: Association of marijuana smoking with oropharyngeal and oral tongue cancers: pooled analysis from the INHANCE consortium. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 23 (1): 160-71, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
11de Carvalho MF, Dourado MR, Fernandes IB, et al.: Head and neck cancer among marijuana users: a meta-analysis of matched case-control studies. Arch Oral Biol 60 (12): 1750-5, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
12Daling JR, Doody DR, Sun X, et al.: Association of marijuana use and the incidence of testicular germ cell tumors. Cancer 115 (6): 1215-23, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]
13Trabert B, Sigurdson AJ, Sweeney AM, et al.: Marijuana use and testicular germ cell tumors. Cancer 117 (4): 848-53, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
14Lacson JC, Carroll JD, Tuazon E, et al.: Population-based case-control study of recreational drug use and testis cancer risk confirms an association between marijuana use and nonseminoma risk. Cancer 118 (21): 5374-83, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
15Thomas AA, Wallner LP, Quinn VP, et al.: Association between cannabis use and the risk of bladder cancer: results from the California Men’s Health Study. Urology 85 (2): 388-92, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
16Health Canada: Marihuana (Marijuana, Cannabis): Dried Plant for Administration by Ingestion or Other Means. Ottawa, Canada: Health Canada, 2010. Available onlineExit Disclaimer
. Last accessed October 18, 2017.
17Guzmán M, Duarte MJ, Blázquez C, et al.: A pilot clinical study of Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Br J Cancer 95 (2): 197-203, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
18Velasco G, Sánchez C, Guzmán M: Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents. Nat Rev Cancer 12 (6): 436-44, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
19Yeshurun M, Shpilberg O, Herscovici C, et al.: Cannabidiol for the Prevention of Graft-versus-Host-Disease after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Results of a Phase II Study. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 21 (10): 1770-5, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
20Singh Y, Bali C: Cannabis extract treatment for terminal acute lymphoblastic leukemia with a Philadelphia chromosome mutation. Case Rep Oncol 6 (3): 585-92, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
21Foroughi M, Hendson G, Sargent MA, et al.: Spontaneous regression of septum pellucidum/forniceal pilocytic astrocytomas–possible role of Cannabis inhalation. Childs Nerv Syst 27 (4): 671-9, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
22Sutton IR, Daeninck P: Cannabinoids in the management of intractable chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and cancer-related pain. J Support Oncol 4 (10): 531-5, 2006 Nov-Dec. [PUBMED Abstract]
23Ahmedzai S, Carlyle DL, Calder IT, et al.: Anti-emetic efficacy and toxicity of nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, in lung cancer chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 48 (5): 657-63, 1983. [PUBMED Abstract]
24Chan HS, Correia JA, MacLeod SM: Nabilone versus prochlorperazine for control of cancer chemotherapy-induced emesis in children: a double-blind, crossover trial. Pediatrics 79 (6): 946-52, 1987. [PUBMED Abstract]
25Johansson R, Kilkku P, Groenroos M: A double-blind, controlled trial of nabilone vs. prochlorperazine for refractory emesis induced by cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Treat Rev 9 (Suppl B): 25-33, 1982. [PUBMED Abstract]
26Niiranen A, Mattson K: A cross-over comparison of nabilone and prochlorperazine for emesis induced by cancer chemotherapy. Am J Clin Oncol 8 (4): 336-40, 1985. [PUBMED Abstract]
27National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Antiemesis. Version 2.2017. Fort Washington, Pa: National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2017. Available online with free registrationExit Disclaimer
. Last accessed November 14, 2017.
28Hesketh PJ, Kris MG, Basch E, et al.: Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 35 (28): 3240-3261, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
29Tramèr MR, Carroll D, Campbell FA, et al.: Cannabinoids for control of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: quantitative systematic review. BMJ 323 (7303): 16-21, 2001. [PUBMED Abstract]
30Ben Amar M: Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. J Ethnopharmacol 105 (1-2): 1-25, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
31Smith LA, Azariah F, Lavender VT, et al.: Cannabinoids for nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (11): CD009464, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
32Meiri E, Jhangiani H, Vredenburgh JJ, et al.: Efficacy of dronabinol alone and in combination with ondansetron versus ondansetron alone for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Curr Med Res Opin 23 (3): 533-43, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
33Chang AE, Shiling DJ, Stillman RC, et al.: A prospective evaluation of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol as an antiemetic in patients receiving adriamycin and cytoxan chemotherapy. Cancer 47 (7): 1746-51, 1981. [PUBMED Abstract]
34Chang AE, Shiling DJ, Stillman RC, et al.: Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol as an antiemetic in cancer patients receiving high-dose methotrexate. A prospective, randomized evaluation. Ann Intern Med 91 (6): 819-24, 1979. [PUBMED Abstract]
35Levitt M, Faiman C, Hawks R, et al.: Randomized double blind comparison of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and marijuana as chemotherapy antiemetics. [Abstract] Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 3: A-C354, 91, 1984.
36Musty RE, Rossi R: Effects of smoked cannabis and oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on nausea and emesis after cancer chemotherapy: a review of state clinical trials. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 1 (1): 29-56, 2001. Also available onlineExit Disclaimer
. Last accessed October 18, 2017.
37Duran M, Pérez E, Abanades S, et al.: Preliminary efficacy and safety of an oromucosal standardized cannabis extract in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Br J Clin Pharmacol 70 (5): 656-63, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
38Jatoi A, Windschitl HE, Loprinzi CL, et al.: Dronabinol versus megestrol acetate versus combination therapy for cancer-associated anorexia: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group study. J Clin Oncol 20 (2): 567-73, 2002. [PUBMED Abstract]
39Brisbois TD, de Kock IH, Watanabe SM, et al.: Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol may palliate altered chemosensory perception in cancer patients: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial. Ann Oncol 22 (9): 2086-93, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
40Strasser F, Luftner D, Possinger K, et al.: Comparison of orally administered cannabis extract and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in treating patients with cancer-related anorexia-cachexia syndrome: a multicenter, phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial from the Cannabis-In-Cachexia-Study-Group. J Clin Oncol 24 (21): 3394-400, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
41Beal JE, Olson R, Laubenstein L, et al.: Dronabinol as a treatment for anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS. J Pain Symptom Manage 10 (2): 89-97, 1995. [PUBMED Abstract]
42Foltin RW, Brady JV, Fischman MW: Behavioral analysis of marijuana effects on food intake in humans. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 25 (3): 577-82, 1986. [PUBMED Abstract]
43Foltin RW, Fischman MW, Byrne MF: Effects of smoked marijuana on food intake and body weight of humans living in a residential laboratory. Appetite 11 (1): 1-14, 1988. [PUBMED Abstract]
44Aggarwal SK: Cannabinergic pain medicine: a concise clinical primer and survey of randomized-controlled trial results. Clin J Pain 29 (2): 162-71, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
45Walker JM, Hohmann AG, Martin WJ, et al.: The neurobiology of cannabinoid analgesia. Life Sci 65 (6-7): 665-73, 1999. [PUBMED Abstract]
46Calignano A, La Rana G, Giuffrida A, et al.: Control of pain initiation by endogenous cannabinoids. Nature 394 (6690): 277-81, 1998. [PUBMED Abstract]
47Fields HL, Meng ID: Watching the pot boil. Nat Med 4 (9): 1008-9, 1998. [PUBMED Abstract]
48Noyes R Jr, Brunk SF, Baram DA, et al.: Analgesic effect of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. J Clin Pharmacol 15 (2-3): 139-43, 1975 Feb-Mar. [PUBMED Abstract]
49Noyes R Jr, Brunk SF, Avery DA, et al.: The analgesic properties of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and codeine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 18 (1): 84-9, 1975. [PUBMED Abstract]
50Johnson JR, Burnell-Nugent M, Lossignol D, et al.: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of THC:CBD extract and THC extract in patients with intractable cancer-related pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 39 (2): 167-79, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
51Portenoy RK, Ganae-Motan ED, Allende S, et al.: Nabiximols for opioid-treated cancer patients with poorly-controlled chronic pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled, graded-dose trial. J Pain 13 (5): 438-49, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
52Johnson JR, Lossignol D, Burnell-Nugent M, et al.: An open-label extension study to investigate the long-term safety and tolerability of THC/CBD oromucosal spray and oromucosal THC spray in patients with terminal cancer-related pain refractory to strong opioid analgesics. J Pain Symptom Manage 46 (2): 207-18, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
53Lynch ME, Cesar-Rittenberg P, Hohmann AG: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot trial with extension using an oral mucosal cannabinoid extract for treatment of chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 47 (1): 166-73, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
54Maida V, Ennis M, Irani S, et al.: Adjunctive nabilone in cancer pain and symptom management: a prospective observational study using propensity scoring. J Support Oncol 6 (3): 119-24, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
55Abrams DI, Couey P, Shade SB, et al.: Cannabinoid-opioid interaction in chronic pain. Clin Pharmacol Ther 90 (6): 844-51, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
56Wilsey B, Marcotte T, Deutsch R, et al.: Low-dose vaporized cannabis significantly improves neuropathic pain. J Pain 14 (2): 136-48, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
57Wilsey B, Marcotte T, Tsodikov A, et al.: A randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of cannabis cigarettes in neuropathic pain. J Pain 9 (6): 506-21, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
58Abrams DI, Jay CA, Shade SB, et al.: Cannabis in painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Neurology 68 (7): 515-21, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
59Ellis RJ, Toperoff W, Vaida F, et al.: Smoked medicinal cannabis for neuropathic pain in HIV: a randomized, crossover clinical trial. Neuropsychopharmacology 34 (3): 672-80, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]
60Noyes R Jr, Baram DA: Cannabis analgesia. Compr Psychiatry 15 (6): 531-5, 1974 Nov-Dec. [PUBMED Abstract]
Text under construction
1Adams IB, Martin BR: Cannabis: pharmacology and toxicology in animals and humans. Addiction 91 (11): 1585-614, 1996. [PUBMED Abstract]
2Grotenhermen F, Russo E, eds.: Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, 2002.
3Sutton IR, Daeninck P: Cannabinoids in the management of intractable chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and cancer-related pain. J Support Oncol 4 (10): 531-5, 2006 Nov-Dec. [PUBMED Abstract]
4Guzmán M: Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents. Nat Rev Cancer 3 (10): 745-55, 2003. [PUBMED Abstract]