Characteristics of Cannabis Use Among Head and Neck Cancer Survivors

ABSTRACT

Objective

Understand the characteristics of cannabis use, including frequency, mode, and purpose, among head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors.

Methods

A cross‐sectional survey was distributed using ResearchMatch and online support groups for survivors of HNC. Respondents answered questions regarding demographics, cancer history, cannabis use, and knowledge of cannabis and completed a Short Form‐12 Questionnaire. Multivariate logistic regression and descriptive statistics were utilized for analysis.

Results

Of 92 respondents, 75% were current or former cannabis users and 25% were never users. Cannabis users were less likely to have above‐median household income (OR 0.115, 95% CI 0.0139–0.662) and live outside of the United States (OR 0.0697, 95% CI 0.0026–0.7404) than current or former users. 36.2% and 27.5% of cannabis users reported occasional (1–5 days/month) and daily use, respectively. The most common mode of use was in edible products (46.4%). The most common reasons for use were to treat pain (79.4%), improve sleep (76.5%), cope with stress (64.7%), and recreation (63.6%). 19.2% of respondents reported receiving information regarding cannabis use in relation to cancer. Of those who had received information, the most common sources were a physician treating cancer (38.1%), friends (33.3%), and cancer support groups (33.3%). 45.6% of respondents reported significant or very high interest in receiving information about cannabis use in relation to cancer.

Conclusions

Cannabis use for treatment of cancer‐associated symptoms and recreation is common among HNC survivors. Many survivors are interested in information regarding cannabis use, but few have received information from a reputable source.

Level of Evidence

Level 4.

A cross‐sectional survey of head and neck cancer survivors found that 75% of respondents were current or former cannabis users. The most common reasons for use were to treat pain, improve sleep, cope with stress, and recreation. Though 63% of respondents reported interest in receiving information regarding cannabis use and cancer, less than a fifth of respondents had ever received education.

1. Introduction

Cannabis is the most commonly utilized illicit drug globally, with an estimated 3.8% of the global adult population using cannabis in 2015 [1]. Cannabis use is rising across the United States, in part due to increased legalization of recreational cannabis [2, 3]. While the literature remains conflicted on the relationship between cannabis use and cancer risk, a recent study identified an increased risk of head and neck cancer (HNC) among those with cannabis‐use disorders [4].

There is scant literature regarding cannabis use among cancer patients and survivors, and even less so among HNC patients. Several studies have found that cancer patients and survivors are less likely to use cannabis than those without a cancer history [5, 6]. Yet, many patients with cancer report using cannabis to treat cancer‐associated symptoms, such as pain and nausea [7]. Several studies imply a role for cannabis in the treatment of pain, nausea and vomiting, and anorexia [8, 9]. However, much of the evidence regarding cannabis use is low quality, and some patients experience significant adverse effects [10]. One prospective case‐matched study of patients with HNC found a significant quality of life benefit to cannabis use, including decreased pain, anxiety, and depression and increased appetite and feeling of well‐being [11]. Though the role of cannabis in the management of cancer‐associated symptoms is indeterminate, many cancer patients report a positive attitude towards cannabis as a method of palliation [12].

Patients with HNC face particularly morbid outcomes due to the anatomical location of cancer. Surgery and radiation to the head and neck often leave patients with chronic pain, disfigurement, and diminished speech, swallowing, and respiratory function [13, 14, 15]. Given the unique quality of life challenges faced by HNC survivors, patients often require multi‐modal symptom management even after cancer treatment is complete.

Here, we sought to examine cannabis use among HNC survivors via survey to better understand the rate, frequency, methods, and purpose of cannabis utilization in this population. Furthermore, we questioned from where patients get their information regarding cannabis use in relation to cancer and their interest in learning more about cannabis use. We predict relatively high utilization of cannabis among HNC survivors for symptom management; though sources of information on cannabis use are likely inadequate given the limited studies on the topic.

2. Materials and Methods

This study received exempt approval from the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (UP‐24‐00396).

2.1. Study Cohort

Study participants were recruited via online HNC support groups and ResearchMatch, a national registry for research volunteer recruitment funded by the National Institute of Health [16]. Posts inviting participation in the online survey were published in 15 Facebook groups for HNC survivors. ResearchMatch has been used to recruit individuals for several similar survey‐based studies [17, 18]. ResearchMatch provides access to over 100,000 volunteers from across the United States but is not necessarily nationally representative. Individuals were considered eligible to participate if they were ≥ 18 years old and self‐reported a history of HNC, including cancer of the oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx, nasal cavity, or nasopharynx.

2.2. Survey Development and Distribution

An anonymous survey approximately 15 min in length was designed using REDCap electronic data capture tools [19]. Informed consent was obtained electronically. Participants reviewed an online consent document and indicated consent by clicking “Agree” before proceeding to the survey. The survey included demographic questions regarding age, sex, marital status, race/ethnicity, highest level of education, household income, and state of residence. Participants were asked about the site of cancer, treatments received, and how long ago their cancer was diagnosed. Participants were then asked to complete the 12‐item Short Form Health Survey (SF‐12) [20]. Finally, participants were asked if they currently (within the past 30 days), formerly, or never used cannabis. Those with current or former cannabis use were asked questions regarding frequency, method, and purpose of cannabis use. All participants were asked if they had previously received information regarding cannabis use and HNC, and if yes, the source of information. The final survey contained a minimum of 31 and a maximum of 51 questions. Survey distribution on ResearchMatch and Facebook began on July 1, 2024, and surveys were collected until December 2, 2024. Two and a half posts per Facebook group were published in intervals of 58 days apart, on average. Individuals were not compensated for participation in the survey. The response rate on ResearchMatch was 9.3% (39/431). The response rate from Facebook groups could not be accurately determined due to significant variation in group size (121 to 8172 members per group, average 2939) and the inability to determine how many people viewed each post.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The primary outcome was the rate of current or former cannabis use among HNC survivors. Secondary outcomes included physical and mental health component scores from the SF‐12, frequency, form, purpose, and timing of cannabis use, and information source regarding cannabis use. Outcomes were analyzed via descriptive statistics. As cannabis use is associated with sociodemographic characteristics, the model used for multivariate logistic regression of demographic factors associated with cannabis use included age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, education level, household income, and geographic region [21]. A separate multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine the association between cannabis use and cancer subsite and treatment. Simple linear regression was used to determine the correlation between physical (PCS) and mental health composite scores (MHS) from the SF‐12. ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's test were utilized to compare SF‐12 scores between current, former, and never cannabis users. Individuals were excluded from analyses if they chose not to respond to a related component of the question. p values less than 0.05 were considered significant. These statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, CA, US) software, version 10.4.1.

For statistically significant odds ratios, E values were calculated to assess potential unmeasured confounding. E values quantify the minimum strength of association that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the exposure and outcome to fully explain away the observed association. E values were computed using the standard formula:

$$E=\mathrm{RR}+\sqrt{\mathrm{RR}\times \left(\mathrm{RR}-1\right)}$$

where RR is the odds ratio (inverted if < 1). Calculations were implemented in Python (version 3.11.13) using custom code.

Multiple imputation with five datasets using a random forest‐based imputation method in Python (miceforest) was used to address missing data. Categorical and continuous variables were defined before imputation. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit separately on each dataset, and pooled odds ratios and 95% CIs were calculated using Rubin's rules. Analyses using Python were conducted on Google Colab, with code available upon request.

3. Results

Study cohort (n = 92) demographics were summarized in Table 1. Study participants were on average 61.0 years old (standard deviation = 11.0 years), predominantly male (53.3%), and White (90.2%). The largest proportion of respondents completed college or university (32.6%), and the majority had a below average (< $74,999) household income (51.1%). The most common cancer subsite was larynx (39.1%), and most participants had surgery (67.4%), radiation (82.6%), and/or chemotherapy (55.4%) as treatment. 46.7% of respondents were current cannabis users, 28.3% former cannabis users, and 25.0% never users.

TABLE 1.

Cohort demographics.

	N (%)
	All, N = 92	Current and former cannabis users, N = 69	Never cannabis users, N = 23	SD
Age, mean (standard deviation)	61.0 (11.0)	60.6 (11.3)	62.2 (10.0)	0.15
Sex
Male	49 (53.3)	38 (55.1)	11 (47.8)	0.15
Female	43 (46.7)	31 (44.9)	12 (52.2)	0.15
Race
White	83 (90.2)	63 (91.3)	20 (87.0)	0.14
Non‐White	9 (9.78)	6 (8.70)	3 (13.0)	0.14
Marital status
Partnered	69 (75.0)	52 (75.4)	17 (73.9)	0.03
Not partnered	23 (25.0)	17 (24.6)	6 (26.1)	0.03
Education level
Less than high school	2 (2.17)	1 (1.45)	1 (4.35)	0.17
High school or GED	18 (19.6)	15 (2.17)	3 (13.0)	0.42
Some college or university	30 (32.6)	22 (31.9)	8 (34.8)	0.06
College or university	29 (31.5)	22 (31.9)	7 (30.4)	0.03
Graduate school	11 (12.0)	8 (11.6)	63 (13.0)	0.04
Other or no response	2 (2.17)	1 (1.45)	1 (4.35)	0.17
Annual household income
< $74,999/year	47 (51.1)	38 (55.1)	9 (39.1)	0.26
> $75,000/year	42 (45.7)	30 (43.5)	12 (52.3)	0.18
No response	3 (3.26)	1 (1.45)	2 (8.70)	0.33
Geographic region
US Northeast	7 (7.60)	6 (8.70)	1 (4.35)	0.18
US Midwest	23 (25.0)	19 (27.5)	4 (17.4)	0.24
US South	22 (23.9)	18 (26.1)	4 (17.4)	0.21
US West	16 (17.4)	13 (18.8)	0 (13.0)	0.16
Non US	24 (26.1)	13 (18.8)	11 (47.8)	0.65
Cancer subsite
Oral cavity	22 (23.9)	16 (23.2)	6 (26.1)	0.07
Pharynx and oropharynx	29 (31.5)	20 (29.0)	9 (39.1)	0.07
Larynx	36 (39.1)	29 (42.0)	7 (30.4)	0.24
Other or multiple	5 (5.43)	4 (5.80)	1 (4.35)	0.07
Cancer treatment
Surgery	62 (67.4)	48 (69.6)	14 (60.9)	0.23
Chemotherapy	51 (55.4)	37 (53.6)	14 (60.9)	0.15
Radiation	76 (82.6)	58 (84.1)	18 (78.3)	0.15
Immunotherapy	9 (9.78)	6 (8.70)	3 (13.0)	0.15
Other	3 (3.26)	3 (4.35)	0 (0.00)	0.30
None	2 (2.17)	2 (2.90)	0 (0.00)	0.24
Cannabis use
Current (within last 30 days)	43 (46.7)	—	—	—
Former	26 (28.3)	—	—	—
Never	23 (25.0)	—	—	—

Abbreviation: SD = standardized difference.

Multivariate logistic regression of demographic factors found that respondents with above average household income were less likely to use cannabis (OR 0.1145, 95% CI 0.01386–0.6620, p = 0.0254). The E value for the point estimate and lower limit of the confidence interval was 16.95 and 143.8, respectively, suggesting that an unmeasured confounder would need to be strongly associated with both income and cannabis use to explain away this association. Participants living outside of the United States were also significantly less likely to be current or former cannabis users (OR 0.0697, 95% CI 0.00261–0.7404, p = 0.0497). The E value for the point estimate and lower limit of the confidence interval was 28.173 and 765.78, respectively, suggesting another robust association. No other demographic factor, including age, sex, race, marital status, or education level, was associated with the likelihood of cannabis use (Table 2). In multivariable logistic regression models using imputed data, above average income > $75,000 was significantly associated with decreased odds of cannabis use (OR 0.1300, 95% CI 0.248–0.5392, p = 0.0085). Although the association between living outside the United States and never using cannabis did not reach statistical significance in this model, the observed effect suggests a potentially meaningful relationship (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.004–0.78, p = 0.054) (Table S1). Multivariate logistic regression of cancer factors found that cancer subsite and treatment history was not associated with the likelihood of cannabis use (Table 3).

TABLE 2.

Multivariate logistic regression of demographic factors associated with current or former cannabis use (N = 92).

Characteristics	Odds ratio	95% CI	p
Age	0.9611	(0.8923–1.024)	0.2512
Sex
Male	Ref
Female	0.5490	(0.1340–2.097)	0.3850
Race
White	Ref
Non‐White	0.2752	(0.0336–2.266)	0.2189
Marital status
Partnered	Ref
Not partnered	0.2870	(0.04410–1.587)	0.1623
Education level
Less than high school	Ref
High school or GED	3.960	(0.10310–168.4)	0.4275
Some college or university	1.728	(0.04767–64.42)	0.7446
College or university	2.398	(0.07234–81.55)	0.5887
Graduate school	3.757	(0.08504–178.3)	0.4662
Other or no response	5.291	(0.00148–3674)	0.5785
Household income
< $74,999/year	Ref
> $75,000/year	0.1145	(0.01386–0.6620)	0.0254
No response	0.08041	(0.04556–2.779)	0.1701
Geographic region
Northeast USA	Ref
Midwest USA	0.5402	(0.02106–6.383)	0.6495
South USA	1.444	(0.05451–19.54)	0.7918
West USA	1.568	(0.05763–27.23)	0.7541
Non US	0.06973	(0.00261–0.7404)	0.0497

Note: Bold values indicate statistically significant p < 0.05 values.

TABLE 3.

Multivariate logistic regression of cancer factors associated with cannabis use (N = 92).

Characteristics	Odds ratio	95% CI	p
Cancer subsite
Oral cavity	Ref
Pharynx	0.8048	(0.2185–2.826)	0.7362
Larynx	1.551	(0.3695–6.554)	0.5441
Other or multiple	2.804	(0.2320–77.96)	0.4588
Surgery
−	Ref
+	1.281	(0.4273–3.724)	0.6506
Chemotherapy
−	Ref
+	0.9079	(0.2398–3.258)	0.8829
Radiation
−	Ref
+	2.246	(0.5321–9.306)	0.2581
Immunotherapy
−	Ref
+	0.5714	(0.1192–3.181)	0.4905

The average (standard deviation) PCS of current, former, and never cannabis users was 41.8 (11.5), 38.2 (10.5), and 41.1 (7.38), respectively. The average (SD) MCS of current, former, and never cannabis users was 41.5 (11.1), 46.8 (9.98), and 47.4 (10.3), respectively. There were no significant differences between PCS and MCS among cannabis use groups (Figure 1). PCS and MCS did not have significant correlations overall or among any cannabis use group (Figure S1).

FIGURE 1.

Physical and mental health composite scores for current, former, and never users of cannabis, as measured by Short Form‐12 Questionnaire. Box plot representing the distribution of (A) physical health component score and (B) mental health component score among respondents who are current, former, and never users of cannabis (N = 92). Lower and upper fences are 25th and 75th percentiles with the median in between. Mean is represented by + and whiskers represent the range.

Most cannabis users were occasional (1–5 days per month) users (36.2%), and over a quarter (27.4%) reported daily use. Edible cannabis products (46.4%) were the most common form of use, followed by smoking (29.0%). Most respondents reported cannabis use prior to cancer diagnosis, with only 18.8% of the cohort initiating cannabis use following cancer diagnosis. The most common purpose for cancer use was to treat cancer‐related symptoms (33.3%) with 18.8% of patients using cannabis both to treat cancer‐related symptoms and for recreation, and 18.8% of patients using cannabis only for recreation (Table 4).

TABLE 4.

Characteristics of cannabis use among current and former cannabis users (N = 69).

Characteristics	N (%)
Frequency of use
Occasional (1–5 days/month)	25 (36.2)
Moderate (6–15 days/month)	9 (13.0)
Frequent (16–29 days/month)	14 (20.3)
Daily	19 (27.5)
No response	2 (2.90)
Mode of use
Smoking	20 (29.0)
Eating	32 (46.4)
Vaporizing	6 (8.70)
Other	11 (15.9)
Cannabis use in relation to HNC diagnosis
Used cannabis both prior to and after cancer diagnosis	37 (53.6)
Used cannabis only prior to cancer diagnosis	15 (21.7)
Used cannabis only after cancer diagnosis	13 (18.8)
No answer	4 (5.80)
Purpose of cannabis use
Medicinal (cancer‐related symptoms)	23 (33.3)
Medicinal (non‐cancer‐related symptoms)	6 (8.69)
Medicinal (cancer‐related symptoms) and recreational use	13 (18.8)
Medicinal (non‐cancer‐related symptoms) and recreational use	14 (20.3)
Recreational use only	13 (18.8)

The most common reported reasons for cannabis use were to treat pain (79.4%), improve sleep (76.4%), cope with stress (64.7%), recreation (63.6%), and improve mood (53.1%). 16.7% of respondents reported using cannabis to cure cancer (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2.

Reasons for cannabis use. Proportion of respondents who are either current or former cannabis users (N = 34) who responded “yes” to each given reason for using cannabis.

Among all respondents, just 20.7% stated they had received any kind of information regarding cannabis use following cancer diagnosis. Of those who had received information, the most common sources were physicians treating cancer (42.1%) followed by friends (36.8%), cancer support groups (36.8%), social media (26.3%), and internet searches (26.3%) (Figure 3). Interest in receiving more information regarding cannabis use and cancer varied, with 16.3% of respondents having no interest, 20.7% having mild interest, 17.4% having moderate interest, 23.9% having significant interest, and 21.7% having very high interest (Figure 4).

FIGURE 3.

Information source regarding cannabis use. Proportion of respondents (N = 21) who responded “yes” to each given information source regarding cannabis use following cancer diagnosis.

FIGURE 4.

Self‐reported Interest in education on cannabis use during/after cancer diagnosis. Proportion of respondents (N = 92) reporting their interest in receiving information regarding cannabis use during and/or after cancer diagnosis according to Likert‐like scale.

4. Discussion

This cross‐sectional survey study examined the characteristics of cannabis use among HNC survivors. In a cohort of 92 participants, 46.7% reported current (within the past 30 days) cannabis use and 28.3% reported former cannabis use. Of all cannabis users, most (72.4%) continued or initiated cannabis use after cancer diagnosis. Given the previously reported high prevalence of cannabis use among survivors of HNC, understanding the frequency, methods, and purposes for cannabis use is an important steppingstone to providing appropriate education surrounding cannabis use following cancer treatment.

Our study identified several sociodemographic factors associated with cannabis use. Above median household income (> $75,000/year) was associated with significantly lower likelihood of cannabis use compared to below median income. Cannabis use is more prevalent among individuals with low income and low educational attainment in the United States [22]. These results indicate that sociodemographic factors that affect cannabis use in the general US population are likely at play among cancer survivors. Additionally, respondents living outside of the United States were significantly less likely to use cannabis. Several studies indicate an increase in cannabis use in the United States following recent efforts to legalize and decriminalize cannabis [23, 24]. However, significant variation in legalization and access to cannabis internationally likely contributes to this result.

The most common frequency of use among cannabis users was occasional (1–5 days per month) with 36.2% of respondents; though over a quarter of respondents reported daily use. A majority of cannabis users reported cannabis use prior to cancer diagnosis, with just 18.8% of respondents initiating use after cancer diagnosis. In line with other studies regarding cannabis use among cancer patients, the most frequent mode of use was as an edible product followed by smoking [25, 26]. Though the literature remains unclear, inhalation of smoked marijuana raises concerns of damage to the respiratory system [27, 28]. While most epidemiological studies have found no link between occasional or moderate inhalation of smoked cannabis and cancer risk, the carcinogenic effects of frequent long‐term smoked cannabis remains unclear [29, 30, 31].

The primary reported purpose for cannabis use among our cohort was for treatment of cancer‐related symptoms, pain being the most common. Cannabis is an increasingly popular method of pain management among cancer patients [32, 33]. Yet the evidence of its efficacy in treating cancer‐associated pain remains mixed [34, 35]. A small survey‐based study of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients suggested that cannabis was an effective method for pain control among those receiving radiotherapy [36]. Furthermore, legalization of cannabis has been suggested as an avenue towards reducing opioid usage, especially in the context of the current US opioid epidemic [37]. Though our study, and others, indicate that cancer patients are interested in substituting cannabis for prescription pain medications, there is not yet evidence that cannabis is as effective in managing pain or that legalization of cannabis has significantly impacted the number of opioid prescriptions [38, 39, 40].

Other common reasons reported for cannabis use were to improve sleep, cope with stress, and improve mood. Though this result is recapitulated by several other survey‐based studies with the same finding, there is limited evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for any of these symptoms in cancer patients [26, 41, 42]. Thus, both the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) do not recommend the use of cannabis for any cancer‐directed therapy, at least until there is more evidence of its efficacy and safety [43, 44].

It's unsurprising that many respondents in this survey turn to cannabis as a method of symptom control following HNC treatment. HNC survivors face significant morbidity, including chronic pain, disfigurement of the head and neck, altered speech and swallow function, and anxiety and depression [14, 45]. Symptom relief for these patients is often particularly difficult given the anatomical location of the cancer, resulting in post‐treatment disfigurement and loss of function. These known sequelae of HNC treatment may explain why our cohort's overall PHS and MHS on the SF‐12 were below the United States average. However, there were no significant differences in PHS or MHS according to cannabis use. Furthermore, a majority of respondents reported using cannabis, at least in part, for recreation. As such, cancer survivors may choose to use cannabis recreationally despite the lack of evidence regarding its role in symptom control. Thus, there is a need to clarify the safety profile of cannabis use in this population aside from its role in palliation.

A striking finding of this survey is that 16.7% of respondents reported using cannabis to cure cancer. Despite no evidence to support this fact, several survey‐based studies have reported that a large proportion (up to 62%) of cancer patients use cannabis to treat or cure cancer [25, 46, 47]. Several studies report an effect of cannabis on the survival and viability of HNC in vitro, which may explain, in part, why patients believe cannabis to have curative effects [48, 49, 50, 51]. However, these findings have not been supported by any clinical study. There is a clear need for improved physician‐patient communication and education about the role of cannabis in cancer treatment, especially with regards to the strength and limitations of the current literature. Furthermore, 45.6% of respondents reported either a significant or very high interest in receiving information about cannabis use during and/or after cancer diagnosis. Of the minority of respondents who reported receiving any information regarding cannabis use and cancer, many did get information from a physician, either an oncologist or primary care provider. Still, a substantial portion of respondents turned to other sources for information, including social media, support groups, and internet searches. This finding illustrates that many patients may be relying on sources that are not evidence‐based for their decisions on cannabis use. Indeed, online sources are often unverified, misleading, and speculative, and rarely come with a warning precaution [52]. Though patients often seek advice from their medical teams regarding cannabis use, they often feel the information they receive is inadequate or incomplete [53, 54, 55]. Improved physician‐patient communication regarding cannabis may decrease reliance on unverified information sources and provide patients with better access to evidence‐based guidelines [56].

Our study has several notable limitations. Though multiple statistical methods support the robustness of our findings, these methods of analysis are limited by small sample size. Respondents were recruited from a variety of online support groups and through ResearchMatch, but results are not generalizable to the entire population of HNC survivors. We were also unable to determine the response rate from Facebook groups; though we can presume it is lower than the response rate on ResearchMatch. As the survey was delivered only in English, we likely missed populations who may have different patterns of cannabis usage due to cultural differences. This study is likely limited by sampling bias as it relied on self‐report of cannabis use, and it is highly likely that those who were more interested in cannabis use were more likely to respond to the survey. However, this did result in a large sample of cannabis users with HNC, resulting in increased ability to examine cannabis usage patterns while still maintaining a substantial proportion of former and never users. This survey was also limited by its use of multiple‐choice options, which—though informed by a literature review—may have restricted participants' ability to fully express their opinions on these topics. Finally, like all surveys, this survey may be limited by recall bias and inaccuracies secondary to self‐reporting.

5. Conclusion

This study demonstrates that a substantial proportion of HNC survivors use or have used cannabis for both treatment of cancer‐associated symptoms and for recreation. Many HNC survivors continue to use cannabis following the diagnosis of cancer, and many are interested in receiving more information regarding cannabis use during and after cancer treatment. The findings of this survey indicate that there is a substantial interest in education regarding evidence‐based use of cannabis in the treatment of cancer‐associated symptoms among survivors of HNC. Furthermore, there is a need for more high‐quality research on the efficacy of cannabis in the treatment of cancer‐related pain and other symptoms to better inform best clinical recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Data S1: Supporting Information.

Wenger T. A., Gallagher T. J., and Kokot N. C., “Characteristics of Cannabis Use Among Head and Neck Cancer Survivors,” Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 10, no. 4 (2025): e70244, 10.1002/lio2.70244.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.