Volume 65, Issue 2 p. 109-122

Review Article

Free Access

Medical marijuana for cancer

Joan L. Kramer MD,

Corresponding Author

Joan L. Kramer MD

Medical Editor, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA

Corresponding author: Joan L. Kramer, MD, Medical Content, American Cancer Society, 250 Williams St, NW, Atlanta, GA 30303-1002; [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Joan L. Kramer MD,

Corresponding Author

Joan L. Kramer MD

Medical Editor, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA

Corresponding author: Joan L. Kramer, MD, Medical Content, American Cancer Society, 250 Williams St, NW, Atlanta, GA 30303-1002; [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

First published: 10 December 2014

https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21260

Citations: 97

DISCLOSURES: The author reports no conflicts of interest.

About

Sections

PDF

Tools

Share a link

Email
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
Wechat

Abstract

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE

Marijuana has been used for centuries, and interest in its medicinal properties has been increasing in recent years. Investigations into these medicinal properties has led to the development of cannabinoid pharmaceuticals such as dronabinol, nabilone, and nabiximols. Dronabinol is best studied in the treatment of nausea secondary to cancer chemotherapy and anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for those indications. Nabilone has been best studied for the treatment of nausea secondary to cancer chemotherapy. There are also limited studies of these drugs for other conditions. Nabiximols is only available in the United States through clinical trials, but is used in Canada and the United Kingdom for the treatment of spasticity secondary to multiple sclerosis and pain. Studies of marijuana have concentrated on nausea, appetite, and pain. This article will review the literature regarding the medical use of marijuana and these cannabinoid pharmaceuticals (with emphasis on indications relevant to oncology), as well as available information regarding adverse effects of marijuana use. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65: 109–122. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

Introduction

As more states pass laws legalizing marijuana for medical use, the need for accurate information regarding the therapeutic effects of marijuana grows. Patients and clinicians currently face choices regarding the therapeutic use of both pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical cannabinoid products.

To inform these choices, a review of the published peer-reviewed literature regarding marijuana and cannabinoid pharmaceuticals was undertaken. This review of cannabinoid pharmaceuticals is relevant to patients and clinicians living in areas where these agents are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or corresponding agencies of other nations. This review of marijuana is intended to guide decisions of patients and clinicians living in areas where the recommendation, purchase, possession, and/or use of marijuana are not subject to criminal penalty. This is not meant as a recommendation for the use (or not) of marijuana, or of the legal and regulatory policies surrounding such use.

Background

Marijuana

Marijuana, the dried leaves of the Cannabis sativa plant, has long been used both recreationally and as a medicine.1 (Although more than one species of Cannabis can be used for its psychoactive properties [such as C. afghanica or indica, used to make hashish²] for the purposes of this document, the term “cannabis” will be used to mean Cannabis sativa.) Its use in the United States was curtailed in the early 20th century, first by various state laws and then in 1937 by the Marihuana Tax Act, a federal law. Since that time, although the specific applicable law has changed, the manufacture, importation, possession, use, and distribution of marijuana has remained illegal under federal law. At this time, the US Drug Enforcement Administration lists marijuana and its cannabinoids as Schedule I controlled substances, which means that they cannot legally be prescribed under federal law. Schedule I drugs are said to: 1) have a high potential for abuse; 2) have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and 3) have a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Other Schedule I drugs include heroin and 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine (MDMA or ecstasy), whereas cocaine is a Schedule II controlled substance.3 Although cannabinoids from marijuana are Schedule I substances, some synthetic cannabinoids are not (these are discussed later).

Because marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance, physicians and other health care professionals who write prescriptions for it can be prosecuted under federal law. A number of states have passed laws allowing for the medical use of marijuana. In those states, a health care practitioner provides an “authorization” for that use that, based on previous court action, is considered by the federal courts to be protected physician-patient communication.1

Marijuana can be used to make hashish and hash oil, which contain concentrated cannabinoids (cannabinoids are discussed below). Both marijuana and hash oil can be consumed by inhalation (smoking and vaporizing) and by mouth (drinking it as a tea or eating after it is mixed into foods, such as baked goods).

In addition to the cannabinoids responsible for its psychoactive effects, marijuana smoke contains many of the same chemical constituents as tobacco smoke. Some of these, such as 4-aminobiphenyl, arsenic, benzene, cadmium, formaldehyde, and lead, are known human carcinogens (for some of these, marijuana smoke contains more or less than the smoke of tobacco cigarettes). The smoke also contains toxicants such as ammonia, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and tar. Unlike tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke does not contain nicotine or tobacco-specific nitrosamines (which are derived from nicotine).4 Although in mutagenicity assays marijuana smoke condensates had comparable or even somewhat less mutagenicity than tobacco smoke condensates,5 smoking marijuana is linked to higher carboxyhemoglobin levels, inhaled tar, and tar retained in the lungs compared with smoking filter-tipped cigarettes.6 This may be due to observed differences in smoking behavior, such as puff volume, depth of inhalation, and breath holding.6, 7

Vaporizing marijuana by heating it to temperatures between 180°C and 200°C releases substantial amounts of cannabinoids with only trace amounts of a few other chemicals.8, 9 Vaporization has become an alternative to smoking as a means of inhaling marijuana.

Cannabinoid Receptors and Cannabinoids

Cannabis sativa contains a number of chemical compounds, some of which are classified as cannabinoids. “Cannabinoid” was the term originally used for C21 terpenophenolic compounds originally found in this plant. These compounds were found to activate cannabinoid receptors in the brain, and now this term is also used to describe other compounds that activate those receptors, even if they do not have a similar chemical structure.10 Two major types of cannabinoid receptors have been characterized: CB1 and CB2. CB1 receptors are found mainly in central and peripheral neurons, whereas CB2 receptors are found most often in immune cells. Nevertheless, CB1 receptors can be found in immune cells, whereas CB2 receptors can be found in neurons.10 These receptors, along with endogenous cannabinoid receptor agonists (endocannabinoids, molecules naturally found in and produced by the body that activate these receptors), are known collectively as the endocannabinoid system.10

Although there are more than 60 cannabinoids in marijuana,10 2 in particular have been the subjects of most studies examining medicinal uses: delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC, often referred to just as THC) and cannabidiol (CBD).

THC is often called the major psychoactive component of marijuana because it appears to be responsible for the feeling of “high” reported by consumers of marijuana. In addition to euphoriant properties, it also has analgesic, antiemetic, antiinflammatory, and antioxidant properties.10

CBD is another major cannabinoid found naturally in the marijuana plant. Although CBD has low affinity for CB1 and CB2 receptors, at low concentrations it can antagonize CB1/CB2 agonists and may even behave as an inverse agonist.11 Although in the past it was called “nonpsychoactive,” CBD has anxiolytic and antipsychotic properties. It also has anticonvulsive properties and can counteract some of the psychoactive effects of THC.10, 12 It also has reported efficacy in the treatment of pain, although this may be due more to its anticonvulsive effects than an antinociceptive effect.

Based on a study of marijuana seized in California, the content of THC in marijuana by weight has increased over time, with a median potency increasing from 4.18% in 1996 to 13.95% in 2008. In contrast, the CBD content has gone down, with a resultant increase in the THC:CBD ratio.13 Strains of marijuana with high CBD content and low THC content have been cultivated and have been used by some to treat forms of refractory childhood epilepsy.14, 15 Formal clinical trials of this, however, are lacking.16

Because marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana used for research must be obtained through the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA). Any limits in terms of the strains available through the NIDA limits the research that can be conducted. In July 2014, a representative from the NIDA reported that the THC content in the strains of marijuana currently available for clinical trials ranged from 0.001% to 13%. None of the marijuana available at that time through the NIDA had a “high CBD content,” and was not expected to be available until 2015 (H. Singh, personal communication, July 2014).

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

THC is highly lipophilic and is water insoluble. It is rapidly absorbed into the blood from inhaled marijuana smoke, with plasma levels becoming detectable within seconds and peak plasma levels noted in fewer than 10 minutes. Peak plasma levels are directly related to the THC content of the marijuana that is smoked.7 The bioavailability of THC from smoking marijuana varies based on depth of inhalation, puff, and breath-holding duration, and is estimated to be between 10% to 35%, with higher systemic bioavailability for heavy users than occasional users. Smoking marijuana through a pipe instead of a cigarette can result in higher THC absorption because this results in less THC loss in sidestream smoke.7

A human study of vaporization of marijuana found that this delivery method yielded similar plasma THC levels compared with marijuana smoking, with lower carbon monoxide levels.9

Characterization of absorption of THC after oral administration has largely been based on studies of the pharmaceutical dronabinol (see below), although there have been a few studies of marijuana in baked goods. Absorption after oral administration has been described as “slow and erratic,” resulting in “low and irregular” plasma levels. THC can be degraded by acid, which could potentially lower the amount available to be absorbed by the stomach. It is known to undergo extensive first-pass metabolism.17 After oral ingestion, plasma levels usually peak after 60 to 120 minutes, although in some subjects it can take as long as 4 hours or more to observe peak plasma levels. Some subjects can even have more than one peak after a single oral dose.7 Bioavailability after oral ingestion is approximately 6%, but with high variability between subjects.7

THC can also be administered via the oral mucosa. Mean plasma levels reached the threshold of detection at 45 minutes after sublingual administration of a whole-plant cannabis extract containing THC (range, 30-120 minutes; the mean peak plasma levels were noted 100-130 minutes after administration [higher concentration drops showed a later peak]).18 In a study comparing the pharmacokinetics of oral THC with those of THC in a whole-plant cannabis extract (nabiximols), the time to maximal concentration was increased in the latter, although the difference was not statistically significant. Delivery via the oral mucosa resulted in slightly increased bioavailabilty compared with ingestion.19 The bioavailability of THC, in terms of peak plasma level and area under the curve, is increased if the oral mucosal spray is administered during a fed state.20

In the blood, 90% of THC is distributed to the plasma, and is mainly bound to plasma proteins such as lipoproteins and albumin. Approximately 10% of THC in the blood is distributed in red blood cells. THC rapidly penetrates highly vascularized tissues including the liver, heart, fat, lung, jejunum, kidney, spleen, mammary gland, placenta, adrenal cortex, muscle, thyroid, and pituitary gland. Only approximately 1% of a dose of THC given intravenously is found in the brain at the time when the psychoactive effects are peaking. Oxidative metabolism of THC yields an active metabolite, 11-hydroxy-delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (11-OH-THC). Over time, THC accumulates in less vascularized tissues and finally in body fat, although the exact composition in body fat is not known and may include hydroxyl metabolites and fatty acid conjugates.7

When marijuana is smoked, THC levels peak within 6 to 10 minutes, whereas 11-OH-THC levels peak within 9 to 23 minutes. After inhalation, maximal psychotropic effects occur after 20 to 30 minutes and continue for 45 to 60 minutes or longer depending on the THC concentration of the marijuana.7

Levels differ after oral ingestion, with peak THC levels occurring hours after ingestion and 11-OH-THC levels that can exceed THC levels. Psychotropic effects are noted within 30 to 90 minutes, peak within 2 to 4 hours, and decline to low levels after 6 hours.7

THC crosses the placenta and can be found in small amounts in breast milk.7

Cannabidiol

CBD is also highly lipophilic. The absorption and kinetics of CBD from inhaled marijuana smoke have been described as being similar to those of THC, with an average systemic bioavailability of 31% in marijuana smokers (range, 11%-45%).7 Again, similar to THC, CBD oral bioavailability is poor, in the range of 13% to 19%.21 Peak plasma levels in one study occurred after 1.3 hours.19 Peak plasma levels are similar when CBD is administered as an oral mucosal spray along with THC; however, the time to maximal concentration is longer.19 The bioavailability of CBD, in terms of peak plasma level and area under the curve, is increased if the oral mucosal spray is administered during a fed state.20

Pharmaceutical Forms of Cannabinoids

Two cannabinoids are approved by the FDA and therefore can be legally prescribed in the United States according to federal law. One, dronabinol, contains the trans isomer of THC dissolved in sesame oil contained within a gelatin capsule. The THC for this drug is synthetically derived. This drug is approved by the FDA approved for 2 indications: 1) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); and 2) anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.22 The second, nabilone, is a synthetic cannabinoid that mimics the action of THC. It is approved by the FDA to treat CINV.23 Both drugs are only available as capsules. Nabilone is classified as a Schedule II controlled substance, whereas dronabinol is classified as a Schedule III controlled substance. The usefulness of these drugs for treating acute nausea and vomiting is hampered by the need for oral administration and absorption from the stomach, as well as the length of time to reach peak plasma levels.

Another cannabinoid pharmaceutical of note is nabiximols. Nabiximols is a whole-plant extract of marijuana, and contains THC and CBD in a 1.08:1.00 ratio. It is administered as an oral mucosal spray.19 This drug is currently in clinical trials in the United States for the treatment of pain, and is approved for use in Canada and parts of Europe for the treatment of spasticity from multiple sclerosis. It is also approved in Canada under the Notice of Compliance with Conditions program for the treatment of some types of pain.

A liquid containing cannabidiol without THC will also soon become available in the United States through a clinical trial to treat Lennox-Gastaut syndrome24 and Dravet syndrome,25 rare forms of childhood-onset epilepsy. A phase 2 clinical trial of this drug in patients with schizophrenia is currently ongoing.26

Review of Potential Medical Uses for Marijuana and Cannabinoids in Cancer

Although categorization of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance can make broad-based research difficult, marijuana, THC, and cannabinoid pharmaceuticals have been studied for a number of medical applications, including the treatment of nausea, pain, anorexia and weight loss, seizures, spasticity, and glaucoma. This review concentrates on the uses of marijuana and cannabinoids that most directly impact the patient with cancer: nausea, pain, and anorexia and weight loss. This is followed by a short review of clinical trials of cannabinoids as anticancer agents.

Methods

To review the evidence for medical uses of marijuana and cannabinoids, a search of PubMed was performed using the search terms “marijuana,” “cannabis,” “delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol,” “dronabinol,” “nabilone,” “nabiximols,” and “cannabidiol.” The PubMed search was initially limited to English-language articles that were clinical trials. The abstracts and articles were then reviewed by hand to find clinical trials that evaluated the use of marijuana or cannabinoids for the treatment of the following: nausea and vomiting, pain, or poor appetite and weight loss. To augment the PubMed search, the reference sections from review articles, meta-analyses, and practice guidelines were reviewed to find additional clinical trials.

Nausea and Vomiting

Marijuana

A search of PubMed found only 2 studies of smoked marijuana in the treatment of CINV. These studies were of similar design, comparing smoked marijuana with placebo with each patient serving as his or her own control. In one study, 15 patients who had been treated with high-dose methotrexate were given both oral THC and smoked marijuana. The THC and smoked marijuana were effective in reducing nausea and vomiting in 14 of 15 patients compared with placebo. This study also examined plasma levels of THC and found a correlation between higher levels and antiemetic effect.27 The second study of 8 patients who received chemotherapy with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide did not demonstrate an improvement in nausea and vomiting with marijuana and oral THC compared with placebo.28

In 2001, an article by Musty and Rossi reviewed a number of studies of marijuana for the treatment of CINV that had been conducted by state health departments, but which had not been reported in publications indexed in PubMed. For some studies, patients were given oral THC supplemented with smoked marijuana. In some studies, oral THC was compared with smoked marijuana. Some studies were not controlled and one had an active control (a phenothiazine) or the active control was oral THC. In these studies, smoked marijuana was found to be more effective than previous treatments for CINV. It was at least as effective as oral THC or a phenothiazine (Table 1).27-29

Table 1. Effect of Smoked Marijuana on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

STUDY	DESIGN	SUBJECTS	N	HOW ADMINISTERED	CONTROL	RESULTS
Chang 1979²⁷	RCT/crossover	Patients receiving high-dose methotrexate	15	Smoked marijuana plus oral THC	Placebo (self)	14 of 15 patients had a reduction in nausea and vomiting compared with placebo
Chang 1981²⁸	RCT/crossover	Patients receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide	8	Smoked marijuana plus oral THC	Placebo (self)	No improvement in nausea and vomiting compared with placebo
Reported in Musty & Rossi 2001²⁹
State of Tennessee	Single arm	Patients treated with cancer chemotherapy and refractory to other antiemetics	28	Smoked	None	22 patients (80%) rated marijuana as very or moderately effective and 23 (85%) rated their side effects as mild
State of Michigan	RCT with crossover possible	Patients treated with cancer chemotherapy	165	Smoked	Thiethylperazine	Little difference compared with control
State of Georgia	RCT	Patients treated with cancer chemotherapy unresponsive to usual antiemetics	119	Smoked	Oral THC	Oral THC and smoked marijuana found to be equally effective
State of New Mexico (1983)	RCT	Patients treated with cancer chemotherapy	142	Smoked	Oral THC	More patients found smoked marijuana more effective than previous agents compared with those receiving oral THC
State of New Mexico (1984)	RCT initially, with crossover and combined treatment possible	Patients treated with cancer chemotherapy	174	Smoked	Oral THC	Few patients continued with oral THC alone; the majority switched to smoked marijuana or combined treatment, which was better than previous therapy for >90% of subjects
New York Department of Health	Single arm	Patients treated with cancer chemotherapy	199	Smoked	None	Smoked marijuana judged to be more effective than previous therapy 93% of time

N, number of subjects in the study; RCT, randomized controlled trial; THC, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

Pharmaceuticals

The efficacy of oral THC in patients with CINV has been demonstrated in a number of studies of dronabinol. Some of these studies were placebo controlled30-33 and in 2 studies each patient acted as his or her own control.30, 32 In some studies, dronabinol was compared with an active control (prochlorperazine,31, 33-38 haloperidol,37, 39 metoclopramide,34, 40 or ondansetron41). In one study, although dronabinol was effective, some patients preferred the placebo due to side effects.32 The combination of dronabinol and prochlorperazine was found to be more helpful than either drug alone in one study,42 whereas the combination of dronabinol and ondansetron was not found to be better than either drug alone for delayed emesis in another study.41 Dronabinol was also efficacious for nausea secondary to radiotherapy in one study.43

The effect of nabiximols on delayed emesis after chemotherapy (generally moderately emetogenic regimens) was examined in a placebo-controlled study of 16 patients. In this pilot study, nabiximols was superior to placebo for delayed emesis, but was no more helpful than placebo for acute emesis (ie, emesis occurring within the first 24 hours of chemotherapy).44

The efficacy of nabilone in patients with CINV has also been explored in a number of studies. Many of these studies used a crossover design. Nabilone was found to be superior to placebo in 3 studies.45-47 A number of studies also compared single-agent nabilone with active controls such as metoclopramide,48 prochlorperazine,49-55 domperidone,56, 57 and alizapride,55, 58 and found that nabilone was at least as effective and sometimes more effective than the control drug. However, nabilone was associated with more severe central nervous system side effects than the comparator drugs such as drowsiness, postural dizziness and hypotension, lightheadedness, euphoria,53, 56, 58, 59 and, rarely, hallucinations.49, 55

Administering nabilone in combination with dexamethasone was found to be superior to nabilone alone in the treatment of CINV. The combination also had fewer side effects.59 However, the combination of nabilone and prochlorperazine was not found to be superior to nabilone alone in one study.60 This combination was inferior to dexamethasone plus metoclopramide for emesis after cisplatin-containing chemotherapy in another study.61

Nabilone was also found to be as effective as metoclopramide for the treatment of radiation-induced emesis in one study, although nabilone treatment was linked to an increased incidence and severity of adverse reactions.62 In another study, it was found to be as effective as metoclopramide in the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting in women who underwent abdominal hysterectomies.63

Pain

Marijuana

A few studies to date have explored the effects of smoked marijuana on experimentally induced pain. Smoked marijuana improved pain tolerance in one study.64 In another study, smoked marijuana decreased pain sensitivity and intensity and improved pain tolerance in pain induced by the cold pressor test, in which the subject places his or her hand in water at a temperature of 4°C.65 In another study, smoked marijuana had antinociceptive effects based on increased latency of finger withdrawal from radiant heat stimulation compared with placebo.66 In a study that induced pain by injecting capsaicin intradermally, medium-dose marijuana decreased pain, whereas a higher dose increased pain (Table 2).64-72

Table 2. Effect of Smoked Marijuana on Pain

STUDY	DESIGN	SUBJECTS	N	HOW ADMINISTERED	CONTROL	TEST	RESULTS
Milstein 1975⁶⁴	RCT	Both experienced marijuana users and non-users of marijuana	32	Smoke inhaled via smoking device	Placebo	Pain tolerance: pressure algometer (metal rod putting pressure on the thumb)	Increased pain tolerance with marijuana compared with placebo, with a larger effect for experienced users compared with nonexperienced
Cooper 2013⁶⁵	RCT	Daily marijuana smokers	30	Smoked marijuana and oral THC	Placebo	Cold pressor test	Marijuana and oral THC decreased pain sensitivity, increased pain tolerance, and decreased subjective ratings of pain intensity
Greenwald & Stitzer 2000⁶⁶	RCT	Male regular marijuana users	5	Smoked	Placebo	Finger withdrawal from radiant heat stimulation	Significant dose-dependent antinociception (increased finger withdrawal latency)
Wallace 2007⁶⁷	RCT	Healthy volunteers	15	Smoked	Placebo	Intradermal capsaicin	No effect with marijuana that was 2% THC by weight, decreased pain with marijuana that was 4% THC by weight, and increased pain with marijuana that was 8% THC by weight
Ware 2010⁶⁸	RCT	Adults with posttraumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain	21	Smoked	Placebo		A single inhalation of 25 mg of 9.4% THC marijuana 3 times daily for 5 d reduced the intensity of pain and improved sleep
Ellis 2009⁶⁹	RCT/crossover	Adults with HIV-associated distal sensory predominant polyneuropathy refractory to at least 2 previous analgesic classes	28	Smoked	Placebo		Greater pain relief with marijuana than placebo and more subjects had at least 30% pain relief with marijuana compared with placebo (46% vs 18%)
Abrams 2007⁷⁰	RCT	Adults with painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy	50	Smoked	Placebo	Brush and von Frey hair stimuli	Marijuana reduced daily and chronic pain more than placebo; also reduced hyperalgesia as measured by brush and von Frey hair stimuli tests
Wilsey 2013⁷¹	RCT/crossover	Adults with central and peripheral neuropathic pain	39	Vaporized	Placebo		Analgesia with both 3.53% THC-by-weight marijuana and 1.29% THC-by-weight marijuana compared with placebo with no significant difference noted between the doses/concentrations
Abrams 2011⁷²	Single arm	Adults with chronic pain being treated with slow-release opiates	21	Vaporized	None		Pain decreased with no effect on plasma opioid levels

HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; N, number of subjects in the study; RCT, randomized controlled trial; THC, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

Studies of smoked marijuana in patients with pain that was not experimentally induced have concentrated on those with neuropathic pain. In one study, the pain was postsurgical or posttraumatic.68 In others, study subjects had painful human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated sensory neuropathy.69, 70 In all of these studies, smoked marijuana was found to be better than placebo in relieving pain. Another study examined the effects of marijuana that was vaporized (and not smoked) and found that it too was better than placebo at relieving neuropathic pain (patients had central or peripheral neuropathic pain that was resistant to standard treatments).71 A small study examined the effects of vaporized cannabis on pain in individuals taking extended-release opiates for chronic pain. It found that pain improved with the administration of vaporized cannabis, whereas there was no change in plasma opioid levels.72

Pharmaceuticals

Only a few studies using nabiximols to treat cancer pain have been published to date. One study randomized patients with cancer pain despite treatment with opioids to either nabiximols, oromucosal THC, or placebo and found that nabiximols improved pain scores better than placebo, whereas the difference between THC and placebo did not reach statistical significance.73 In a continuation of this study, patients receiving nabiximols continued to have pain relief, as well as improvements in insomnia and fatigue, without a need to increase their doses over time.74 Another study of patients with advanced cancer with pain refractory to opioids found that patients receiving low and medium doses reported improved analgesia compared with placebo.75

For neuropathic pain, the results of studies of nabiximols have been mixed. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot trial, nabiximols was not found to be superior to placebo for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain. However, because 5 of the 16 patients reported significant pain relief (greater than 2 points on a numeric scale), the authors concluded that further study was warranted.76 The effect of nabiximols on central neuropathic pain was considered to be equivocal in one randomized study, because it was not significantly better than placebo during the treatment phase but showed superiority over placebo in the withdrawal phase.77 Nabiximols did improve central neuropathic pain from multiple sclerosis in another randomized trial,78 and pain relief persisted in the open-label continuation study.79 This drug was not better than placebo in the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in one study.80 It was, however, better than placebo in the treatment of neuropathic pain that was unilateral and peripheral in origin in another study.81 In that study, the origins of the neuropathy included trauma, postinfectious neuropathy, vascular neuropathy, and idiopathic neuropathy.

In a study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, nabiximols was found to improve pain and sleep quality better than placebo.82

Dronabinol has also been studied for pain. In one small study, 5 of 13 patients with chronic nonmalignant pain reported “adequate response” to dronabinol.83 Another study of patients with chronic nonmalignant pain who were already being treated with opioids found that dronabinol provided additional pain relief and was better than placebo.84 A study of patients with cancer pain found that THC at a dose of 10 mg had a mild analgesic effect.85 In a placebo-controlled dose escalation study, pain relief over that of the placebo was noted only at doses of 15 mg and 20 mg. These doses produced substantial sedation and “mental clouding.”86 This drug was not found to be better than placebo, however, in the treatment of postoperative pain in a study of women after abdominal hysterectomy.87

An open-label study of dronabinol among patients with neuropathic pain did not find that the drug was beneficial in terms of pain relief, allodynia, quality of life, anxiety/depression, or function.88 A small pilot study of 7 patients found that dronabinol was no better than diphenhydramine for the treatment of central neuropathic pain from spinal cord injury.89 This drug was, however, better than placebo in treating central neuropathic pain from multiple sclerosis.90 In patients with spasticity and pain from spinal cord injury, THC was compared with codeine and placebo. Both THC and codeine improved pain, but only THC improved spasticity.91

THC when given intravenously had variable effects on pain caused by dental extraction in a small study. The majority of subjects preferred placebo over THC in this study due to side effects.92

Nabilone improved pain from diabetic neuropathy in one placebo-controlled study.93 Another study compared nabilone with gabapentin as add-on treatment for peripheral neuropathic pain, and found that both treatments improved pain to a similar extent.94 This drug was not better than placebo in treating chronic neuropathic pain in one study.95 Nabilone was more helpful than ibuprofen in treating headaches from medication overuse.96 It was also more helpful than placebo in treating pain related to fibromyalgia.97

Nabilone reduced spasticity-related pain in patients with upper motor neuron disease in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trial.98 The drug also reduced spasticity in a small randomized, double-blinded, crossover pilot study of patients with spinal cord injury.99

The drug was not, however, helpful in the treatment of patients with acute postoperative pain, and in fact was linked to worsening of pain scores.100 It was also not found to be helpful in the treatment of capsaicin-induced pain and hyperalgesia.101 In another study of experimentally induced pain, it was only helpful in one aspect (reduced temporal summation) in women but not in men.102

Treatment of Poor Appetite and Weight Loss

Marijuana

Smoked marijuana caused an increase in caloric intake in studies of healthy volunteers.103, 104 Studies of the effects of smoked marijuana on appetite have focused on individuals with HIV. HIV-positive clinic patients who report using marijuana indicate that it helps with appetite and nausea (as well as other symptoms).105 In placebo-controlled studies of HIV-positive chronic marijuana smokers, smoking marijuana led to an increase in food intake.106, 107 This may be mediated through increases in the hormones ghrelin and leptin, as well as decreases in peptide tyrosine tyrosine, which help regulate appetite (Table 3).103-108

Table 3. Effect of Smoked Marijuana on Appetite and Weight Loss

STUDY	DESIGN	SUBJECTS	N	HOW ADMINISTERED	CONTROL	RESULTS
Foltin 1986¹⁰³	RCT/crossover	Healthy volunteers	9	Smoked	Placebo	Single marijuana cigarette had no effect on caloric intake, but 2 to 3 cigarettes were found to increase the average daily caloric intake
Hart 2002¹⁰⁴	Staggered double-dummy	Healthy marijuana smokers	11	Smoked	Oral THC and placebo	Both smoked marijuana and oral THC were found to increase food intake
Woolridge 2005¹⁰⁵	Cross-sectional questionnaire	HIV-positive outpatients	523			27% of patients surveyed used marijuana; 97% reported that marijuana improved appetite
Haney 2005¹⁰⁶	Staggered double-dummy	HIV-positive marijuana smokers with and without muscle wasting	30 (15 in each group)	Smoked	Oral THC and placebo	Smoked marijuana and oral THC improved caloric intake compared with placebo in the group with muscle wasting but not in the group without muscle wasting
Haney 2007¹⁰⁷	RCT/crossover	HIV-positive marijuana smokers	10	Smoked	Oral THC and placebo	Smoked marijuana and oral THC increased caloric intake and weight in a dose-dependent manner compared with placebo

HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; N, number of subjects in the study; RCT, randomized controlled trial; THC, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

Oral THC (as dronabinol) has been studied in the treatment of anorexia and wasting associated with HIV. It seemed to be comparable to smoked marijuana in its effect on food intake and body weight in previous studies.106, 107 In a study comparing it with megestrol acetate, it was inferior to the 750-mg dose of megestrol acetate and was not linked to weight gain.109 In a study comparing it with a placebo in patients with HIV, many of whom had experienced weight loss, this drug was linked to improvements in appetite and nausea, although there was no significant effect on weight noted.110 In a continuation of that study, weight remained stable in patients being treated with dronabinol.111

In patients with cancer, one study indicated that dronabinol could improve altered taste sensations.112 In a phase 2 study, it did seem to help with appetite in patients with cancer, but it did not prove to be better than placebo in a double-blind trial.113 In a study of patients with cancer who were undereating or had weight loss in which dronabinol was compared with megestrol acetate, a greater percentage of patients treated with megestrol acetate reported appetite improvement and weight gain compared with patients treated with dronabinol.114

Dronabinol also improved food intake and decreased disturbed behavior in a small study of elderly patients with presumed Alzheimer disease.115

Cannabinoids as Antineoplastic Agents

Cannabinoid receptors have been found on cancer cells,116 and cannabinoids have shown evidence of antitumoral effects in vivo and in vitro in preclinical studies116 in glioma,117 hepatocellular carcinoma,118 prostate cancer,119 lung cancer,120 cholangiocarcinoma,121 breast cancer,122 and melanoma.123 Clinical trials, however, have been limited. A small phase 1 study in patients with glioma demonstrated that THC could be administered safely intratumorally.124 Another study found that a cannabis tea did not affect the pharmacokinetics of the chemotherapy agents docetaxel or irinotecan.¹²⁵ Studies of cannabinoids in the treatment of patients with glioma are currently ongoing.126, 127

Potential Harms of Marijuana

Cancer

Because smoked marijuana contains carcinogens, it does have the potential to cause cancer. Few studies, however, have examined this. Most of the studies that have looked for a link between marijuana smoking and cancer have been case-control studies in which individuals with cancer were compared with those without the disease. In these studies, tobacco smoking was found to be an important confounder. In addition, the retrospective nature of these studies leads to a potential of recall bias.

Although one case-control study did show a link between marijuana smoking and incidence of head and neck cancer,128 many others did not.129-132

For lung cancer, a case-control study found no link to marijuana smoking (even for those smoking more than one marijuana cigarette per day for 30 years) after adjustment for confounders such as cigarette smoking.132 Another case-control study, set in Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria, found a higher risk of lung cancer in marijuana smokers; however, the results are difficult to interpret because all of those who smoked marijuana in the study also smoked tobacco.133 A recent cohort study of military conscripts indicated a higher risk of lung cancer in individuals who indicated that they had smoked marijuana more than 50 times at the time of their baseline examination. The elevated risk persisted after adjustment for baseline smoking status (among factors). However, this study only collected information at a single time point.134

In terms of other cancers, 2 case-control studies found an increased risk of testicular cancer among users of marijuana,135, 136 and a hospital-based case-control study found a link between habitual marijuana use and transitional cell carcinomas.137 Again, however, both the patients with cancer and the controls had high rates of tobacco use (greater than 90%).

There are no published studies of oral marijuana ingestion and cancer risk, nor are there any studies of vaporized marijuana and cancer risk.

Lung Problems

Marijuana smoking can cause injury to the large airways and an increase in the symptoms of chronic bronchitis. However, these effects subside after discontinuation of use, and there is no clear link between smoking marijuana and the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.138

Neuropsychiatric

Studies have found acute effects of marijuana that include a reduction in performance at tests measuring memory, attention, reaction time, tracking, and motor function, which are THC dose-dependent. These effects are highest during the first hour for smoked marijuana, and at 1 to 2 hours after oral intake. The effects dissipate to the point of becoming undetectable after 3 to 4 hours. However, differences in cognitive effects are noted with differences in the frequency and chronicity of marijuana use. For example, daily smokers showed greater impairment than those who smoked on average once a month on tests of attentional and executive functions after a minimum of 19 hours of abstinence. In addition, current heavy users can show cognitive impairment for up to 7 days after last use. Studies have indicated that heavy users, while achieving higher THC levels from an equivalent amount of marijuana, demonstrate less impairment in some tests, indicating the development of tolerance for some of the cognitive effects of marijuana intoxication.139-141

Although marijuana intoxication often leads to a feeling of euphoria, some individuals experience feelings of anxiety and/or paranoia, with hallucinations and other psychotic symptoms also being described. Generally, these symptoms resolve within minutes or hours, but in some subjects have lasted for days.142 Although schizophrenic patients report using marijuana to “self-medicate,” controlled studies of THC in patients with schizophrenia demonstrated that it can exacerbate schizophrenic symptoms.143 Studies have also linked cannabis use with an earlier age of onset and an increased incidence of schizophrenia and other psychoses.143 Some studies have found a potential genetic basis for this.143 In fact, a recent study found a link between a genetic predisposition toward schizophrenia and an increased use of cannabis in healthy individuals.144

Other

Similar to other intoxicants, marijuana can impair driving skills and increase the risk of motor vehicle accidents.145 Marijuana can also worsen impairment from alcohol,146 including impairment of driving tasks.147, 148

In one study, women who used marijuana during pregnancy were more likely to have a stillbirth.^149,152 The use of marijuana during pregnancy has also been linked to adverse neurobehavioral effects in the offspring.150

Long-term recreational cannabis use has been linked to a rare condition known as cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. The risk of relapse is high unless the patient stops using cannabis.151

Summary

Both cannabis and cannabinoid pharmaceuticals can be helpful for a number of problems, including many affecting patients with cancer. There have been fewer studies of marijuana than cannabinoid pharmaceuticals, perhaps in part due to regulatory restrictions, and what studies of marijuana have been conducted to date had a tendency to enroll small numbers of patients. Gaps in the available evidence likely adversely influence the quality of decisions by patients and clinicians. Additional high-quality studies of marijuana and cannabinoid pharmaceuticals in the treatment of a number of medical conditions would better elucidate the clinical effects of the various strains of marijuana and the bioactive compounds found within it. Such studies could also assess how best to administer marijuana and its bioactive components. The differences in pharmacokinetics between oral ingestion and inhalation may mean differences in clinical effect for different indications. For example, given the limitations inherent in using oral medications to treat nausea and vomiting, inhalation of marijuana or a cannabinoid may be better than oral ingestion in treating this condition. However, because marijuana smoke contains toxins and carcinogens, vaporization may be preferable as a way to inhale because it has less potential for harm. There is also a need for high-quality studies of the long-term effects of marijuana and its cannabinoids. Given the problems with confounding and potential recall bias in case-control studies examining cancer outcomes, these outcomes may be better examined through prospective cohort studies.

References

1 Aggarwal SK, Carter GT, Sullivan MD, ZumBrunnen C, Morrill R, Mayer JD. Medicinal use of cannabis in the United States: historical perspectives, current trends, and future directions. J Opioid Manag. 2009; 5: 153-168.
10.5055/jom.2009.0016
PubMedGoogle Scholar
2 Clarke RC, Watson DP. Cannabis and natural cannabis medicines. In M Elsohly, ed. Marijuana and the Cannabinoids. Totowa, NJ: Human Press; 2007: 1-16.
10.1007/978-1-59259-947-9_1
Google Scholar
3Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC Chapter 13 (1970).

Google Scholar
4 Moir D, Rickert WS, Levasseur G, et al. A comparison of mainstream and sidestream marijuana and tobacco cigarette smoke produced under two machine smoking conditions. Chem Res Toxicol. 2008; 21: 494-502.
10.1021/tx700275p
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
5 Busch FW, Seid DA, Wei ET. Mutagenic activity of marihuana smoke condensates. Cancer Lett. 1979; 6: 319-324.
10.1016/S0304-3835(79)80088-9
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
6 Wu TC, Tashkin DP, Djahed B, Rose JE. Pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco. N Engl J Med. 1988; 318: 347-351.
10.1056/NEJM198802113180603
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
7 Grotenhermen F. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cannabinoids. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2003; 42: 327-360.
10.2165/00003088-200342040-00003
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
8 Gieringer D, St. Laurent J, Goodrich S. Cannabis vaporizer combines efficient delivery of THC with effective suppression of pyrolytic compounds. J Cannabis Ther. 2004; 4: 7-27.
10.1300/J175v04n01_02
CASGoogle Scholar
9 Abrams DI, Vizoso HP, Shade SB, Jay C, Kelly ME, Benowitz NL. Vaporization as a smokeless cannabis delivery system: a pilot study. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007; 82: 572-578.
10.1038/sj.clpt.6100200
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
10 Brenneisen R. Chemistry and analysis of phytocannabinoids and other cannabis constituents. In: M Elsohly, ed. Marijuana and the Cannabinoids. Totowa, NJ: Human Press; 2007: 17-51.
10.1007/978-1-59259-947-9_2
Google Scholar
11 Pertwee RG. The diverse CB1 and CB2 receptor pharmacology of three plant cannabinoids: delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol and delta9-tetrahydrocannabivarin. Br J Pharmacol. 2008; 153: 199-215.
10.1038/sj.bjp.0707442
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
12 Bhattacharyya S, Morrison PD, Fusar-Poli P, et al. Opposite effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on human brain function and psychopathology. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010; 35: 764-774.
10.1038/npp.2009.184
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
13 Burgdorf JR, Kilmer B, Pacula RL. Heterogeneity in the composition of marijuana seized in California. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011; 117: 59-61.
10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.11.031
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
14 French M. Moms' Marijuana-for-Kids Campaign Seeks to Quiet Epilepsy. bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-28/moms-marijuana-for-kids-campaign-seeks-to-quiet-epilepsy.html. Accessed August 14, 2014.

Google Scholar
15 Young S. Marijuana Stops Child's Severe Seizures. cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/. Accessed August 14, 2014.

Google Scholar
16 Gloss D, Vickrey B. Cannabinoids for epilepsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 3: CD009270.

PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
17 Ohlsson A, Lindgren JE, Wahlen A, Agurell S, Hollister LE, Gillespie HK. Plasma delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations and clinical effects after oral and intravenous administration and smoking. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1980; 28: 409-416.
10.1038/clpt.1980.181
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
18 Guy GW, Flint ME. A single centre, placebo-controlled, four period, crossover, tolerability study assessing pharmacodynamic effects, pharmacokinetic characteristics and cognitive profiles of a single dose of three formulations of cannabis based medicine extracts (CBMEs) (GWPD9901), plus a two period tolerability study comparing pharmacodynamic effects and pharmacokinetic characteristics of a single dose of a cannabis based medicine extract given via two administration routes (GWPD9901 EXT). J Cannabis Ther. 2003 ( 3/4): 35-77.

Google Scholar
19 Karschner EL, Darwin WD, Goodwin RS, Wright S, Huestis MA. Plasma cannabinoid pharmacokinetics following controlled oral delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol and oromucosal cannabis extract administration. Clin Chem. 2011; 57: 66-75.
10.1373/clinchem.2010.152439
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
20 Stott CG, White L, Wright S, Wilbraham D, Guy GW. A phase I study to assess the effect of food on the single dose bioavailability of the THC/CBD oromucosal spray. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013; 69: 825-834.
10.1007/s00228-012-1393-4
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
21 Mechoulam R, Parker LA, Gallily R. Cannabidiol: an overview of some pharmacological aspects. J Clin Pharmacol. 2002; 42(suppl 11): 11S-19S.
10.1002/j.1552-4604.2002.tb05998.x
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
22AbbVie Inc. Marinol [package insert]. North Chicago, IL: AbbVie Inc; 2013. rxabbvie.com/pdf/marinol_PI.pdf. Accessed May 14, 2014.

Google Scholar
23 Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc. Cesamet [package insert]. Somerset, NJ: Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc; 2011. cesamet.com/pdf/Cesamet_PI_50_count.pdf. Accessed May 14, 2014.

Google Scholar
24ClinicalTrials.gov. A Study to Investigate the Efficacy and Safety of Cannabidiol (GWP42003-P; CBD) as Adjunctive Treatment for Seizures Associated With Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome in Children and Adults [Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02224560]. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02224560. Accessed October 14, 2014.

Google Scholar
25ClinicalTrials.gov. A Dose-ranging Pharmacokinetics and Safety Study of GWP42003-P in Children With Dravet Syndrome [Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT 02091206]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02091206. Accessed October 14, 2014.

Google Scholar
26Clinicaltrials.gov. A Study of GWP42003 as Adjunctive Therapy in the First Line Treatment of Schizophrenia or Related Psychotic Disorder [Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02006628]. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02006628. Accessed October 14, 2014.

Google Scholar
27 Chang 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. 1979; 91: 819-824.
10.7326/0003-4819-91-6-819
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
28 Chang 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. 1981; 47: 1746-1751.
10.1002/1097-0142(19810401)47:7<1746::AID-CNCR2820470704>3.0.CO;2-4
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
29 Musty RE, Rossi R. Effects of smoked cannabis and oral Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol on nausea and emesis after cancer chemotherapy: a review of state clinical trials. J Cannabis Ther. 2001; 1: 29-56.
10.1300/J175v01n01_03
CASGoogle Scholar
30 Sallan SE, Zinberg NE, Frei E 3rd. Antiemetic effect of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 1975; 293: 795-797.
10.1056/NEJM197510162931603
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
31 Frytak S, Moertel CG, O'Fallon JR, et al. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol as an antiemetic for patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. A comparison with prochlorperazine and a placebo. Ann Intern Med. 1979; 91: 825-830.
10.7326/0003-4819-91-6-825
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
32 Kluin-Neleman JC, Neleman FA, Meuwissen OJ, Maes RA. Delta 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as an antiemetic in patients treated with cancer chemotherapy; a double-blind cross-over trial against placebo. Vet Hum Toxicol. 1979; 21: 338-340.

CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
33 Orr LE, McKernan JF, Bloome B. Antiemetic effect of tetrahydrocannabinol. Compared with placebo and prochlorperazine in chemotherapy-associated nausea and emesis. Arch Intern Med. 1980; 140: 1431-1433.
10.1001/archinte.1980.00330220019010
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
34 Ekert H, Waters KD, Jurk IH, Mobilia J, Loughnan P. Amelioration of cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Med J Aust. 1979; 2: 657-659.
10.5694/j.1326-5377.1979.tb127271.x
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
35 Sallan SE, Cronin C, Zelen M, Zinberg NE. Antiemetics in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer: a randomized comparison of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and prochlorperazine. N Engl J Med. 1980; 302: 135-138.
10.1056/NEJM198001173020302
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
36 Ungerleider JT, Andrysiak T, Fairbanks L, Goodnight J, Sarna G, Jamison K. Cannabis and cancer chemotherapy: a comparison of oral delta-9-THC and prochlorperazine. Cancer. 1982; 50: 636-645.
10.1002/1097-0142(19820815)50:4<636::AID-CNCR2820500404>3.0.CO;2-4
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
37 McCabe M, Smith FP, Macdonald JS, Woolley PV, Goldberg D, Schein PS. Efficacy of tetrahydrocannabinol in patients refractory to standard antiemetic therapy. Invest New Drugs. 1988; 6: 243-246.
10.1007/BF00175407
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
38 Lane M, Smith FE, Sullivan RA, Plasse TF. Dronabinol and prochlorperazine alone and in combination as antiemetic agents for cancer chemotherapy. Am J Clin Oncol. 1990; 13: 480-484.
10.1097/00000421-199012000-00006
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
39 Neidhart JA, Gagen MM, Wilson HE, Young DC. Comparative trial of the antiemetic effects of THC and haloperidol. J Clin Pharmacol. 1981; 21(suppl 8-9): 38S-42S.
10.1002/j.1552-4604.1981.tb02571.x
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
40 Colls BM, Ferry DG, Gray AJ, Harvey VJ, McQueen EG. The antiemetic activity of tetrahydrocannabinol versus metoclopramide and thiethylperazine in patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy. N Z Med J. 1980; 91: 449-451.

CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
41 Meiri 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. 2007; 23: 533-543.
10.1185/030079907X167525
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
42 Lane M, Vogel CL, Ferguson J, et al. Dronabinol and prochlorperazine in combination for treatment of cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1991; 6: 352-359.
10.1016/0885-3924(91)90026-Z
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
43 Ungerleider JT, Andrysiak TA, Fairbanks LA, Tesler AS, Parker RG. Tetrahydrocannabinol vs. prochlorperazine. The effects of two antiemetics on patients undergoing radiotherapy. Radiology. 1984; 150: 598-599.
10.1148/radiology.150.2.6318262
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
44 Duran M, Perez 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. 2010; 70: 656-663.
10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03743.x
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
45 Jones SE, Durant JR, Greco FA, Robertone A. A multi-institutional Phase III study of nabilone vs. placebo in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Cancer Treat Rev. 1982; 9(suppl B): 45-48.
10.1016/S0305-7372(82)80035-2
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
46 Levitt M. Nabilone vs. placebo in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients. Cancer Treat Rev. 1982; 9(suppl B): 49-53.
10.1016/S0305-7372(82)80036-4
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
47 Wada JK, Bogdon DL, Gunnell JC, Hum GJ, Gota CH, Rieth TE. Double-blind, randomized, crossover trial of nabilone vs. placebo in cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Treat Rev. 1982; 9(suppl B): 39-44.
10.1016/S0305-7372(82)80034-0
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
48 Crawford SM, Buckman R. Nabilone and metoclopramide in the treatment of nausea and vomiting due to cisplatinum: a double blind study. Med Oncol Tumor Pharmacother. 1986; 3: 39-42.

CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
49 Herman TS, Einhorn LH, Jones SE, et al. Superiority of nabilone over prochlorperazine as an antiemetic in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 1979; 300: 1295-1297.
10.1056/NEJM197906073002302
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
50 Steele N, Gralla RJ, Braun DW Jr, Young CW. Double-blind comparison of the antiemetic effects of nabilone and prochlorperazine on chemotherapy-induced emesis. Cancer Treat Rep. 1980; 64: 219-224.

CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
51 Einhorn LH, Nagy C, Furnas B, Williams SD. Nabilone: an effective antiemetic in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Pharmacol. 1981; 21(suppl 8-9): 64S-69S.
10.1002/j.1552-4604.1981.tb02576.x
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
52 Johansson R, Kilkku P, Groenroos M. A double-blind, controlled trial of nabilone vs. prochlorperazine for refractory emesis induced by cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Treat Rev. 1982; 9(suppl B): 25-33.
10.1016/S0305-7372(82)80032-7
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
53 Ahmedzai S, Carlyle DL, Calder IT, Moran F. Anti-emetic efficacy and toxicity of nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, in lung cancer chemotherapy. Br J Cancer. 1983; 48: 657-663.
10.1038/bjc.1983.247
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
54 Chan HS, Correia JA, MacLeod SM. Nabilone versus prochlorperazine for control of cancer chemotherapy-induced emesis in children: a double-blind, crossover trial. Pediatrics. 1987; 79: 946-952.

CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
55 Niiranen A, Mattson K. A cross-over comparison of nabilone and prochlorperazine for emesis induced by cancer chemotherapy. Am J Clin Oncol. 1985; 8: 336-340.
10.1097/00000421-198508000-00013
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
56 Dalzell AM, Bartlett H, Lilleyman JS. Nabilone: an alternative antiemetic for cancer chemotherapy. Arch Dis Child. 1986; 61: 502-505.
10.1136/adc.61.5.502
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
57 Pomeroy M, Fennelly JJ, Towers M. Prospective randomized double-blind trial of nabilone versus domperidone in the treatment of cytotoxic-induced emesis. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1986; 17: 285-288.
10.1007/BF00256701
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
58 Niederle N, Schutte J, Schmidt CG. Crossover comparison of the antiemetic efficacy of nabilone and alizapride in patients with nonseminomatous testicular cancer receiving cisplatin therapy. Klin Wochenschr. 1986; 64: 362-365.
10.1007/BF01728184
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
59 Niiranen A, Mattson K. Antiemetic efficacy of nabilone and dexamethasone: a randomized study of patients with lung cancer receiving chemotherapy. Am J Clin Oncol. 1987; 10: 325-329.
10.1097/00000421-198708000-00014
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
60 Cunningham D, Forrest GJ, Soukop M, Gilchrist NL, Calder IT, McArdle CS. Nabilone and prochlorperazine: a useful combination for emesis induced by cytotoxic drugs. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985; 291: 864-865.
10.1136/bmj.291.6499.864
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
61 Cunningham D, Bradley CJ, Forrest GJ, et al. A randomized trial of oral nabilone and prochlorperazine compared to intravenous metoclopramide and dexamethasone in the treatment of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy regimens containing cisplatin or cisplatin analogues. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1988; 24: 685-689.
10.1016/0277-5379(88)90300-8
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
62 Priestman SG, Priestman TJ, Canney PA. A double-blind randomised cross-over comparison of nabilone and metoclopramide in the control of radiation-induced nausea. Clin Radiol. 1987; 38: 543-544.
10.1016/S0009-9260(87)80151-4
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
63 Lewis IH, Campbell DN, Barrowcliffe MP. Effect of nabilone on nausea and vomiting after total abdominal hysterectomy. Br J Anaesth. 1994; 73: 244-246.
10.1093/bja/73.2.244
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
64 Milstein SL, MacCannell K, Karr G, Clark S. Marijuana-produced changes in pain tolerance. Experienced and non-experienced subjects. Int Pharmacopsychiatry. 1975; 10: 177-182.
10.1159/000468188
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
65 Cooper ZD, Comer SD, Haney M. Comparison of the analgesic effects of dronabinol and smoked marijuana in daily marijuana smokers. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2013; 38: 1984-1992.
10.1038/npp.2013.97
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
66 Greenwald MK, Stitzer ML. Antinociceptive, subjective and behavioral effects of smoked marijuana in humans. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000; 59: 261-275.
10.1016/S0376-8716(99)00128-3
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
67 Wallace M, Schulteis G, Atkinson JH, et al. Dose-dependent effects of smoked cannabis on capsaicin-induced pain and hyperalgesia in healthy volunteers. Anesthesiology. 2007; 107: 785-796.
10.1097/01.anes.0000286986.92475.b7
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
68 Ware MA, Wang T, Shapiro S, et al. Smoked cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ. 2010; 182: E694-E701.
10.1503/cmaj.091414
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
69 Ellis RJ, Toperoff W, Vaida F, et al. Smoked medicinal cannabis for neuropathic pain in HIV: a randomized, crossover clinical trial. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009; 34: 672-680.
10.1038/npp.2008.120
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
70 Abrams DI, Jay CA, Shade SB, et al. Cannabis in painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Neurology. 2007; 68: 515-521.
10.1212/01.wnl.0000253187.66183.9c
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
71 Wilsey B, Marcotte T, Deutsch R, Gouaux B, Sakai S, Donaghe H. Low-dose vaporized cannabis significantly improves neuropathic pain. J Pain. 2013; 14: 136-148.
10.1016/j.jpain.2012.10.009
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
72 Abrams DI, Couey P, Shade SB, Kelly ME, Benowitz NL. Cannabinoid-opioid interaction in chronic pain. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011; 90: 844-851.
10.1038/clpt.2011.188
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
73 Johnson JR, Burnell-Nugent M, Lossignol D, Ganae-Motan ED, Potts R, Fallon MT. 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. 2010; 39: 167-179.
10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.06.008
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
74 Johnson JR, Lossignol D, Burnell-Nugent M, Fallon MT. 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. 2013; 46: 207-218.
10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.07.014
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
75 Portenoy 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. 2012; 13: 438-449.
10.1016/j.jpain.2012.01.003
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
76 Lynch 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. 2014; 47: 166-173.
10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.02.018
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
77 Langford RM, Mares J, Novotna A, et al. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of THC/CBD oromucosal spray in combination with the existing treatment regimen, in the relief of central neuropathic pain in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol. 2013; 260: 984-997.
10.1007/s00415-012-6739-4
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
78 Rog DJ, Nurmikko TJ, Friede T, Young CA. Randomized, controlled trial of cannabis-based medicine in central pain in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2005; 65: 812-819.
10.1212/01.wnl.0000176753.45410.8b
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
79 Rog DJ, Nurmikko TJ, Young CA. Oromucosal delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol for neuropathic pain associated with multiple sclerosis: an uncontrolled, open-label, 2-year extension trial. Clin Ther. 2007; 29: 2068-2079.
10.1016/j.clinthera.2007.09.013
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
80 Selvarajah D, Gandhi R, Emery CJ, Tesfaye S. Randomized placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial of cannabis-based medicinal product (Sativex) in painful diabetic neuropathy: depression is a major confounding factor. Diabetes Care. 2010; 33: 128-130.
10.2337/dc09-1029
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
81 Nurmikko TJ, Serpell MG, Hoggart B, Toomey PJ, Morlion BJ, Haines D. Sativex successfully treats neuropathic pain characterised by allodynia: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Pain. 2007; 133: 210-220.
10.1016/j.pain.2007.08.028
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
82 Blake DR, Robson P, Ho M, Jubb RW, McCabe CS. Preliminary assessment of the efficacy, tolerability and safety of a cannabis-based medicine (Sativex) in the treatment of pain caused by rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006; 45: 50-52.
10.1093/rheumatology/kei183
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
83 Haroutiunian S, Rosen G, Shouval R, Davidson E. Open-label, add-on study of tetrahydrocannabinol for chronic nonmalignant pain. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2008; 22: 213-217.
10.1080/15360280802251215
PubMedGoogle Scholar
84 Narang S, Gibson D, Wasan AD, et al. Efficacy of dronabinol as an adjuvant treatment for chronic pain patients on opioid therapy. J Pain. 2008; 9: 254-264.
10.1016/j.jpain.2007.10.018
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
85 Noyes R Jr, Brunk SF, Avery DA, Canter AC. The analgesic properties of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and codeine. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1975; 18: 84-89.
10.1002/cpt197518184
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
86 Noyes R Jr, Brunk SF, Baram DA, Canter A. Analgesic effect of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. J Clin Pharmacol. 1975; 15: 139-143.
10.1002/j.1552-4604.1975.tb02348.x
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
87 Buggy DJ, Toogood L, Maric S, Sharpe P, Lambert DG, Rowbotham DJ. Lack of analgesic efficacy of oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in postoperative pain. Pain. 2003; 106: 169-172.
10.1016/S0304-3959(03)00331-2
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
88 Attal N, Brasseur L, Guirimand D, Clermond-Gnamien S, Atlami S, Bouhassira D. Are oral cannabinoids safe and effective in refractory neuropathic pain? Eur J Pain. 2004; 8: 173-177.
10.1016/S1090-3801(03)00084-3
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
89 Rintala DH, Fiess RN, Tan G, Holmes SA, Bruel BM. Effect of dronabinol on central neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: a pilot study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010; 89: 840-848.
10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181f1c4ec
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
90 Svendsen KB, Jensen TS, Bach FW. Does the cannabinoid dronabinol reduce central pain in multiple sclerosis? Randomised double blind placebo controlled crossover trial. BMJ. 2004; 329: 253.
10.1136/bmj.38149.566979.AE
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
91 Maurer M, Henn V, Dittrich A, Hofmann A. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol shows antispastic and analgesic effects in a single case double-blind trial. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1990; 240: 1-4.
10.1007/BF02190083
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
92 Raft D, Gregg J, Ghia J, Harris L. Effects of intravenous tetrahydrocannabinol on experimental and surgical pain. Psychological correlates of the analgesic response. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1977; 21: 26-33.
10.1002/cpt197721126
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
93 Toth C, Mawani S, Brady S, et al. An enriched-enrolment, randomized withdrawal, flexible-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel assignment efficacy study of nabilone as adjuvant in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. Pain. 2012; 153: 2073-2082.
10.1016/j.pain.2012.06.024
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
94 Bestard JA, Toth CC. An open-label comparison of nabilone and gabapentin as adjuvant therapy or monotherapy in the management of neuropathic pain in patients with peripheral neuropathy. Pain Pract. 2011; 11: 353-368.
10.1111/j.1533-2500.2010.00427.x
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
95 Frank B, Serpell MG, Hughes J, Matthews JN, Kapur D. Comparison of analgesic effects and patient tolerability of nabilone and dihydrocodeine for chronic neuropathic pain: randomised, crossover, double blind study. BMJ. 2008; 336: 199-201.
10.1136/bmj.39429.619653.80
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
96 Pini LA, Guerzoni S, Cainazzo MM, et al. Nabilone for the treatment of medication overuse headache: results of a preliminary double-blind, active-controlled, randomized trial. J Headache Pain. 2012; 13: 677-684.
10.1007/s10194-012-0490-1
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
97 Skrabek RQ, Galimova L, Ethans K, Perry D. Nabilone for the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia. J Pain. 2008; 9: 164-173.
10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.002
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
98 Wissel J, Haydn T, Muller J, et al. Low dose treatment with the synthetic cannabinoid Nabilone significantly reduces spasticity-related pain: a double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over trial. J Neurol. 2006; 253: 1337-1341.
10.1007/s00415-006-0218-8
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
99 Pooyania S, Ethans K, Szturm T, Casey A, Perry D. A randomized, double-blinded, crossover pilot study assessing the effect of nabilone on spasticity in persons with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010; 91: 703-707.
10.1016/j.apmr.2009.12.025
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
100 Beaulieu P. Effects of nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, on postoperative pain. Can J Anaesth. 2006; 53: 769-775.
10.1007/BF03022793
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
101 Kalliomaki J, Philipp A, Baxendale J, Annas P, Karlsten R, Segerdahl M. Lack of effect of central nervous system-active doses of nabilone on capsaicin-induced pain and hyperalgesia. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2012; 39: 336-342.
10.1111/j.1440-1681.2012.05674.x
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
102 Redmond WJ, Goffaux P, Potvin S, Marchand S. Analgesic and antihyperalgesic effects of nabilone on experimental heat pain. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008; 24: 1017-1024.
10.1185/030079908X280635
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
103 Foltin RW, Brady JV, Fischman MW. Behavioral analysis of marijuana effects on food intake in humans. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1986; 25: 577-582.
10.1016/0091-3057(86)90144-9
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
104 Hart CL, Ward AS, Haney M, Comer SD, Foltin RW, Fischman MW. Comparison of smoked marijuana and oral Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol in humans. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2002; 164: 407-415.
10.1007/s00213-002-1231-y
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
105 Woolridge E, Barton S, Samuel J, Osorio J, Dougherty A, Holdcroft A. Cannabis use in HIV for pain and other medical symptoms. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005; 29: 358-367.
10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2004.07.011
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
106 Haney M, Rabkin J, Gunderson E, Foltin RW. Dronabinol and marijuana in HIV(+) marijuana smokers: acute effects on caloric intake and mood. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2005; 181: 170-178.
10.1007/s00213-005-2242-2
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
107 Haney M, Gunderson EW, Rabkin J, et al. Dronabinol and marijuana in HIV-positive marijuana smokers. Caloric intake, mood, and sleep. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007; 45: 545-554.
10.1097/QAI.0b013e31811ed205
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
108 Riggs PK, Vaida F, Rossi SS, et al. A pilot study of the effects of cannabis on appetite hormones in HIV-infected adult men. Brain Res. 2012; 1431: 46-52.
10.1016/j.brainres.2011.11.001
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
109 Timpone JG, Wright DJ, Li N, et al. The safety and pharmacokinetics of single-agent and combination therapy with megestrol acetate and dronabinol for the treatment of HIV wasting syndrome. The DATRI 004 Study Group. Division of AIDS Treatment Research Initiative. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1997; 13: 305-315.
10.1089/aid.1997.13.305
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
110 Beal 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. 1995; 10: 89-97.
10.1016/0885-3924(94)00117-4
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
111 Beal JE, Olson R, Lefkowitz L, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of dronabinol for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-associated anorexia. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997; 14: 7-14.
10.1016/S0885-3924(97)00038-9
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
112 Brisbois 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. 2011; 22: 2086-2093.
10.1093/annonc/mdq727
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
113 Cannabis-In-Cachexia-Study-Group, Strasser F, Luftner D, 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. 2006; 24: 3394-3400.
10.1200/JCO.2005.05.1847
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
114 Jatoi 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. 2002; 20: 567-573.
10.1200/JCO.2002.20.2.567
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
115 Wade DT, Makela P, Robson P, House H, Bateman C. Do cannabis-based medicinal extracts have general or specific effects on symptoms in multiple sclerosis? A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study on 160 patients. Mult Scler. 2004; 10: 434-441.
10.1191/1352458504ms1082oa
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
116 Velasco G, Sanchez C, Guzman M. Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012; 12: 436-444.
10.1038/nrc3247
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
117 Rocha FC, Dos Santos Junior JG, Stefano SC, da Silveira DX. Systematic review of the literature on clinical and experimental trials on the antitumor effects of cannabinoids in gliomas. J Neurooncol. 2014; 116: 11-24.
10.1007/s11060-013-1277-1
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
118 Pourkhalili N, Ghahremani MH, Farsandaj N, et al. Evaluation of anti-invasion effect of cannabinoids on human hepatocarcinoma cells. Toxicol Mech Methods. 2013; 23: 120-126.
10.3109/15376516.2012.730559
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
119 De Petrocellis L, Ligresti A, Schiano Moriello A, et al. Non-THC cannabinoids inhibit prostate carcinoma growth in vitro and in vivo: pro-apoptotic effects and underlying mechanisms. Br J Pharmacol. 2013; 168: 79-102.
10.1111/j.1476-5381.2012.02027.x
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
120 Ramer R, Bublitz K, Freimuth N, et al. Cannabidiol inhibits lung cancer cell invasion and metastasis via intercellular adhesion molecule-1. FASEB J. 2012; 26: 1535-1548.
10.1096/fj.11-198184
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
121 Leelawat S, Leelawat K, Narong S, Matangkasombut O. The dual effects of delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol on cholangiocarcinoma cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration. Cancer Invest. 2010; 28: 357-363.
10.3109/07357900903405934
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
122 Qamri Z, Preet A, Nasser MW, et al. Synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists inhibit tumor growth and metastasis of breast cancer. Mol Cancer Ther. 2009; 8: 3117-3129.
10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0448
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
123 Blazquez C, Carracedo A, Barrado L, et al. Cannabinoid receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma. FASEB J. 2006; 20: 2633-2635.
10.1096/fj.06-6638fje
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
124 Guzman M, Duarte MJ, Blazquez C, et al. A pilot clinical study of Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Br J Cancer. 2006; 95: 197-203.
10.1038/sj.bjc.6603236
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
125 Engels FK, de Jong FA, Sparreboom A, et al. Medicinal cannabis does not influence the clinical pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and docetaxel. Oncologist. 2007; 12: 291-300.
10.1634/theoncologist.12-3-291
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
126Clinicaltrials.gov. A Safety Study of Sativex in Combination With Dose-intense Temozolomide in Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma [Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01812603]. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01812603. Accessed October 14, 2014.

Google Scholar
127Clinicaltrials.gov. A Safety Study of Sativex Compared With Placebo (Both With Dose-intense Temozolomide) in Recurrent Glioblastoma Patients [Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01812616]. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01812616. Accessed October 14, 2014.

Google Scholar
128 Zhang ZF, Morgenstern H, Spitz MR, et al. Marijuana use and increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999; 8: 1071-1078.

CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
129 Liang C, McClean MD, Marsit C, et al. A population-based case-control study of marijuana use and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2009; 2: 759-768.
10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-09-0048
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
130 Berthiller J, Lee YC, Boffetta P, et al. Marijuana smoking and the risk of head and neck cancer: pooled analysis in the INHANCE consortium. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009; 18: 1544-1551.
10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0845
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
131 Aldington S, Harwood M, Cox B, et al; Cannabis and Respiratory Disease Research Group. Cannabis use and cancer of the head and neck: case-control study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008; 138: 374-380.
10.1016/j.otohns.2007.12.002
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
132 Hashibe 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. 2006; 15: 1829-1834.
10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0330
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
133 Berthiller 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. 2008; 3: 1398-1403.
10.1097/JTO.0b013e31818ddcde
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
134 Callaghan RC, Allebeck P, Sidorchuk A. Marijuana use and risk of lung cancer: a 40-year cohort study. Cancer Causes Control. 2013; 24: 1811-1820.
10.1007/s10552-013-0259-0
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
135 Lacson JC, Carroll JD, Tuazon E, Castelao EJ, Bernstein L, Cortessis VK. Population-based case-control study of recreational drug use and testis cancer risk confirms an association between marijuana use and nonseminoma risk. Cancer. 2012; 118: 5374-5383.
10.1002/cncr.27554
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
136 Daling JR, Doody DR, Sun X, et al. Association of marijuana use and the incidence of testicular germ cell tumors. Cancer. 2009; 115: 1215-1223.
10.1002/cncr.24159
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
137 Chacko JA, Heiner JG, Siu W, Macy M, Terris MK. Association between marijuana use and transitional cell carcinoma. Urology. 2006; 67: 100-104.
10.1016/j.urology.2005.07.005
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
138 Tashkin DP. Effects of marijuana smoking on the lung. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2013; 10: 239-247.
10.1513/AnnalsATS.201212-127FR
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
139 Theunissen EL, Kauert GF, Toennes SW, et al. Neurophysiological functioning of occasional and heavy cannabis users during THC intoxication. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2012; 220: 341-350.
10.1007/s00213-011-2479-x
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
140 Ramaekers JG, Kauert G, Theunissen EL, Toennes SW, Moeller MR. Neurocognitive performance during acute THC intoxication in heavy and occasional cannabis users. J Psychopharmacol. 2009; 23: 266-277.
10.1177/0269881108092393
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
141 Hart CL, van Gorp W, Haney M, Foltin RW, Fischman MW. Effects of acute smoked marijuana on complex cognitive performance. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001; 25: 757-765.
10.1016/S0893-133X(01)00273-1
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
142 Atakan Z, Bhattacharyya S, Allen P, et al. Cannabis affects people differently: inter-subject variation in the psychotogenic effects of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study with healthy volunteers. Psychol Med. 2013; 43: 1255-1267.
10.1017/S0033291712001924
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
143 D'Souza DC, Sewell RA, Ranganathan M. Cannabis and psychosis/schizophrenia: human studies. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2009; 259: 413-431.
10.1007/s00406-009-0024-2
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
144 Power RA, Verweij KJ, Zuhair M, et al. Genetic predisposition to schizophrenia associated with increased use of cannabis. Mol Psychiatry. 2014; 19: 1201-1204.
10.1038/mp.2014.51
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
145 Asbridge M, Hayden JA, Cartwright JL. Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: systematic review of observational studies and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2012; 344: e536.
10.1136/bmj.e536
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
146 Ramaekers JG, Theunissen EL, de Brouwer M, Toennes SW, Moeller MR, Kauert G. Tolerance and cross-tolerance to neurocognitive effects of THC and alcohol in heavy cannabis users. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011; 214: 391-401.
10.1007/s00213-010-2042-1
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
147 Ronen A, Chassidim HS, Gershon P, et al. The effect of alcohol, THC and their combination on perceived effects, willingness to drive and performance of driving and non-driving tasks. Accid Anal Prev. 2010; 42: 1855-1865.
10.1016/j.aap.2010.05.006
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
148 Sewell RA, Poling J, Sofuoglu M. The effect of cannabis compared with alcohol on driving. Am J Addict. 2009; 18: 185-193.
10.1080/10550490902786934
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
149 Varner MW, Silver RM, Rowland Hogue CJ, et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network. Association between stillbirth and illicit drug use and smoking during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 113-125.
10.1097/AOG.0000000000000052
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
150 Morris CV, DiNieri JA, Szutorisz H, Hurd YL. Molecular mechanisms of maternal cannabis and cigarette use on human neurodevelopment. Eur J Neurosci. 2011; 34: 1574-1583.
10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07884.x
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
151 Galli JA, Sawaya RA, Friedenberg FK. Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. Curr Drug Abuse Rev. 2011; 4: 241-249.
10.2174/1874473711104040241
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume65, Issue2

March/April 2015

Pages 109-122

Medical marijuana for cancer

Abstract

Introduction

Background

Marijuana

Cannabinoid Receptors and Cannabinoids

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

Cannabidiol

Pharmaceutical Forms of Cannabinoids

Review of Potential Medical Uses for Marijuana and Cannabinoids in Cancer

Methods

Nausea and Vomiting

Marijuana

Pharmaceuticals

Pain

Marijuana

Pharmaceuticals

Treatment of Poor Appetite and Weight Loss

Marijuana

Cannabinoids as Antineoplastic Agents

Potential Harms of Marijuana

Cancer

Lung Problems

Neuropsychiatric

Other

Summary

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Medical marijuana for cancer

Abstract

Introduction

Background

Marijuana

Cannabinoid Receptors and Cannabinoids

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

Cannabidiol

Pharmaceutical Forms of Cannabinoids

Review of Potential Medical Uses for Marijuana and Cannabinoids in Cancer

Methods

Nausea and Vomiting

Marijuana

Pharmaceuticals

Pain

Marijuana

Pharmaceuticals

Treatment of Poor Appetite and Weight Loss

Marijuana

Cannabinoids as Antineoplastic Agents

Potential Harms of Marijuana

Cancer

Lung Problems

Neuropsychiatric

Other

Summary

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information