Back

Comparing cannabinoid extracts for treating cancer-related symptoms: a randomized placebo-controlled, triple-blind aggregate n-of-1 clinical trial

Hawley, P. H.; Wade, K.; Daeninck, P.; Fitzgibbon, E.; Kerba, M.; Goldie, C.; Kopoplovic, I.

2026-06-02 palliative medicine
10.64898/2026.05.31.26354558 medRxiv
Show abstract

Context Despite widespread use of medical cannabinoids for cancer-related symptom management, systematic reviews consistently call for more clinical trial evidence. Objectives This study aimed to determine and explore responses to medical cannabis extracts for cancer-related symptoms using patient-centred methodology. Methods An aggregate N-of-1 study of clinically stable but symptomatic outpatients from 8 Canadian cancer centres, comparing three blinded sublingual extracts (THC; CBD; 1:1) with placebo, self-titrated within a prescribed schedule for four consecutive days each in randomized sequence for up to three cycles (total 16-48 days). The primary outcome was the frequency of at least a 1.4-point (20%) improvement in a 7-point Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for at least one extract over placebo. Results The primary outcome was achieved in 50/89 (56%) participants (p<0.001), with no significant preference of one extract over another on average, but a clear preference between extracts for most individuals. Changes in a modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment score and participant preference (n=91) confirmed these findings. Improved sleep, tiredness and anxiety contributed most to the overall improvement regardless of primary symptom. There were no demographic predictors of response. Mild adverse effects were common with all extracts including placebo but resolved rapidly on dose reduction/cessation. Moderate/severe adverse effects were rare but associated with THC. Conclusions Medical cannabis extracts can be meaningfully beneficial for cancer-related symptoms in approximately 50% of patients, particularly for sleep and related symptoms. A starting dose of 2.5mg of THC/CBD three times a day was well-tolerated. Personalization of treatment is required to optimize response.

Matching journals

The top 13 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 9%
18.6%
2
Palliative Medicine
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.9%
3
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 23%
3.8%
4
Neuropsychopharmacology
134 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.9%
5
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
6
Journal of Psychopharmacology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
7
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
8
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
9
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.9%
10
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
11
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
12
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
13
Pharmaceuticals
33 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.6%
50% of probability mass above
14
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
15
Addiction
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
16
Nicotine and Tobacco Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
17
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
18
ERJ Open Research
44 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
19
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 62%
1.4%
20
Neurotherapeutics
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
21
Sleep
26 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
22
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
23
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
24
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
25
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
26
International Journal of Drug Policy
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
27
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
28
npj Parkinson's Disease
89 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
29
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
30
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%