“This study investigated efficient extraction methods for cannabinoids and terpenes from the above-ground parts of Futura 75, focusing on two techniques: pressurized extraction and magnetic stirrer-assisted extraction. The effects of solvent type, temperature, time, and pressure were evaluated using five organic solvents and two binary solvent systems.

Cannabinoid profiles of obtained extracts were analyzed using gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC-MS), while terpene profiles were characterized through solid-phase microextraction (SPME) combined with GC-MS. Next, two selected extracts with the highest content of cannabinoid and terpene fractions (Futu1 and Futu2) were tested for antiproliferative activity toward cancer cell lines (MV4-11, AGS, HT-29, MDA-MB-468, MCF-7) and their cytotoxicity was evaluated on non-tumorigenic MCF-10A cells. Extract Futu1 contained 51.57% cannabinoids, 9.8% monoterpenes, and 90.2% sesquiterpenes in the terpene fraction. Futu2 exhibited a higher proportion of monoterpenes in the terpene fraction (19.6% monoterpenes and 80.4% sesquiterpenes) and consisted of 49.49% cannabinoids.

Both extracts exhibited higher selectivity for cancer cells over non-tumorigenic cells, with Futu2 demonstrating stronger antiproliferative properties.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40142100/

“Cannabis sativa L., commonly known as hemp, belongs to the Cannabaceae family, which includes two primary cannabis varieties: hemp (Cannabis sativa L. var. sativa) and marijuana (Cannabis sativa L. var. indica).”

“The effects of two selected extracts from the Futura 75 hemp variety—containing cannabinoids and terpene fractions with differing monoterpene-to-sesquiterpene ratios—were investigated for their potential to inhibit cancer cell growth and their safety concerning healthy breast cells. The results indicate that while the extracts are less active than the tested individual cannabinoids, they exhibit significantly higher selectivity toward cancer cells compared to non-tumorigenic cells. Furthermore, the extract with a higher monoterpene content (Futu 2) demonstrated slightly stronger antiproliferative activity.”

https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/30/6/1325

“Background: Oncology providers often lack the confidence to make clinical recommendations about medical cannabis (MC). This study aimed to develop and evaluate the feasibility of implementing an educational curriculum on the use of MC in patient care for oncology trainees.

Methods: A multidisciplinary team designed an educational curriculum for MC use in oncology. The curriculum was piloted as a 1-hour interactive webinar across 8 United States-based hematology/oncology fellowship programs between 2022 and 2023. Incentivized surveys measuring feasibility outcomes, including cultural attitudes/norms, acceptability, compatibility, and self-efficacy (a composite index of self-confidence in discussing MC efficacy, risks, modes of use, and role in symptom management), were distributed before, immediately after, and 12 weeks post-webinar.

Results: Of 103 trainees, 75 (72.8%) completed the pretraining survey and 66 (64.1%) completed the posttraining survey. Most respondents believed discussions about the role of MC in symptom management were valuable (n=56; 74.7%), though few (14.7%) believed trainees were expected to engage in such discussions. Most participants rated the curriculum as helpful (92.4%), beneficial for oncology trainees (84.8%), and likely to be recommended to colleagues (87.9%). Post-webinar, 78.8% of participants reported an increased likelihood of initiating discussions with patients regarding MC. There were significant improvements in the composite self-confidence index from pre- to post-webinar (2.7% vs 65.2%; P<.001), which persisted in the follow-up surveys (n=36; response rate, 34.9%).

Conclusions: This multisite study demonstrates the feasibility of implementing a novel curriculum focused on MC for oncology trainees. These findings can guide the design of a prospective, multi-institutional study to evaluate knowledge expansion, retention, and behavioral changes resulting from the intervention.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40073833/

“Our prior work demonstrated that training in MC use for patients with cancer is an area of unmet need among hematology/oncology trainees. The current study demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of developing and delivering a virtual webinar curriculum on MC for hematology/oncology fellows. Most trainees enjoyed the format and found the content useful and applicable to their practice and education. We observed sustained improvements in self-reported confidence in conducting clinical discussions across all domains included in the curriculum. Furthermore, participants reported increased discussions about MC with patients following the training, aligning with recent expert consensus guidelines. Future efforts should focus on refining this curriculum based on emerging data in the field, developing similar interventions for other oncology health care professionals, and exploring strategies to sustain these educational initiatives. Such efforts are essential to ensure broad implementation, maximize knowledge retention, and facilitate meaningful behavioral changes in real-world clinical practice.”

https://jnccn.org/view/journals/jnccn/23/3/article-p82.xml

“Objective: Despite increasing use of medical cannabis to manage cancer-related symptoms, U.S. payers do not reimburse medical cannabis, leaving patients responsible for all associated costs. We assessed how self-reported financial well-being is associated with patterns of cannabis consumption, out-of-pocket costs, and impact on symptoms in patients with cancer.

Method: From December 2021 to January 2022, we surveyed patients with cancer enrolled in the Minnesota Medical Cannabis Program. The mailed survey included cancer history, cannabis use history, symptom changes and sociodemographic questions including income and perceived financial wellness. We conducted descriptive analyses.

Results: Of 797 eligible adults, 220 (28%) responded to the survey. Two hundred eleven answered a question about current household income as living comfortably (LC, 45%; n = 95) or not living comfortably (NLC, 55%; n = 116). The NLC group reported lower incomes (47% vs 8% with annual incomes <$50,000) and were typically younger, unmarried, unemployed, or disabled. NLC group purchased more vaporizers (48% vs 27%), used products high in THC (92% vs 82%), and reported higher cannabis costs (40% vs 21% spending $200+/month). The NLC group more often stopped or used cannabis less frequently than they would like (54% versus 32%), frequently citing costs as a reason (85% vs 39%). Both NLC and LC groups typically used cannabis daily and reported a high degree of symptom improvement.

Conclusions: Patients with cancer using cannabis report significant improvements in cancer-related symptoms. High out-of-pocket costs for cannabis may be especially burdensome among those already financially struggling, raising questions about affordability of and equitable access to this therapy.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39968481/

https://publications.sciences.ucf.edu/cannabis/index.php/Cannabis/article/view/243