Rate of Second Primary Head and Neck Cancer With Cannabis Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine whether there is an association between cannabis use and developing a second primary cancer in head and neck cancer patients, as well as determining the prevalence of cannabis use amongst head and neck cancer patients. Study design This retrospective cohort study investigated patients from the Hamilton Region Head and Neck Cancer Database who were enrolled prospectively between 2011 and 2015, with follow-up data up to November 2018. Patients were contacted to confirm current cannabis and tobacco smoking status. Setting All patients were enrolled from a single tertiary cancer center in Hamilton, Ontario. Subjects and methods Consecutive patients with a newly diagnosed head and neck cancer were prospectively enrolled between 2011 to 2015. Cannabis users and controls were compared using standard modes of comparison. The odds ratio from a multivariable logistic regression model was then determined. Results A total of 513 patients were included in this study: 59 in the cannabis group and 454 in the control group. In terms of baseline characteristics, there was no significant difference between cannabis users and controls except that cannabis users were more likely to develop primary oropharyngeal cancer (p=0.0046). Two of 59 (3.4%) cannabis users developed a second primary cancer, in comparison to 23 of 454 (5.1%) non-cannabis users. The odds ratio for cannabis use on the second primary cancer was 0.19 (95% CI [0.01-3.20], p=0.25). Conclusion This study suggests that cannabis use behaves differently than tobacco smoking, as the former may not be associated with field cancerization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".