At least 80% of marijuana users in a new study of cancer patients reported improvements in symptoms and quality of life, with patients most commonly using marijuana for pain, nausea, anxiety, depression, appetite and sleep problems.
The study, published today in The Oncologist, surveyed 237 adults receiving radiation therapy at urban and rural oncology practices in Kentucky.
Researchers from the University of Kentucky and Markey Cancer Center examined marijuana use before and after a cancer diagnosis, the symptoms patients sought to manage and their reported quality of life.
Of the 237 participants, 121, or 51%, said they had at some point used marijuana for medicinal purposes without a prescription.
Thirty-five patients, or 14.7%, reported recent marijuana use after receiving their cancer diagnosis, compared with 30 patients, or 12.7%, who reported recent use before their diagnosis. Researchers said the difference was not statistically significant.
Patients most commonly reported using marijuana to address pain, nausea, anxiety, depression, poor appetite and sleep disturbances.
Among marijuana users, at least 80% reported improvements in symptoms and quality of life.
Researchers also found that recent marijuana users were more likely to live in urban areas than rural areas. The study was designed in part to examine differences in marijuana use between urban and rural cancer patients in a region heavily affected by opioid use.
An earlier preliminary analysis of the research, presented at the American Society for Radiation Oncology’s 2024 annual meeting, involved 200 participants. At that stage, 85% of active marijuana users reported a positive change in their overall quality of life.
The final study expanded the sample to 237 patients.
The researchers said self-directed medicinal marijuana use was common across demographic groups and was primarily used for managing cancer- and treatment-related symptoms.
The findings are based on patients’ self-reported experiences and do not establish that marijuana caused the reported improvements. The research was observational rather than a randomized controlled clinical trial.
