Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis Suggests that Cannabis Use May Reduce Cancer Risk in the United States.

Introduction

The impact of Cannabis use on cancer risk is of considerable interest. Cancer is a leading cause of death in the United States and around the world. In the United States alone, >1.7 million diagnoses and 607,000 deaths are projected from cancer in 2019 (Ref. 1 ) and cancer deaths were responsible for $94.4 billion in lost earnings in 2015 (Ref. 2 ). The real costs are much higher than this, however, because even cancer patients who will make a full recovery face lengthy, expensive, and stressful treatment regimens.

The pharmacological activity of Cannabis is primarily due to the presence of phytocannabinoids, a group of lipid-soluble chemicals. These act by mimicking the cannabinoids produced by the endocannabinoid system (ECs), an important physiological signaling system. The cellular and physiological actions of cannabinoids arise from interaction with a variety of widely distributed receptor types, of which cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB 1 ) and cannabinoid receptor type 2 have received the greatest attention. 3

The ECs appears to be dysregulated by the modern American diet. In particular, emerging evidence suggests that an elevated dietary ratio of omega-6/omega-3 fatty acids may lead to excess production of the endocannabinoid signals N-arachidonoylethanolamide and 2-arachidonoylglycerol, leading to overstimulation of CB 1 and contributing in turn to the emerging epidemic of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and associated diseases. 4–6 CB 1 is also stimulated by the exogenous cannabinoid Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive cannabinoid in Cannabis .

Paradoxically, however, acute stimulation of CB 1 is associated with weight gain and antagonists of CB 1 increase metabolic rates, 4–6 yet Cannabis users show decreased body mass index (BMI) relative to nonusers. 4 This may be due to downregulation of CB 1 in Cannabis users, which would desensitize the ECs and counteract the impact of the modern American diet on weight gain. 4

Cannabis has both protumor and antitumor actions. Which effect predominates in Cannabis users? Cannabis is emerging as a palliative option for cancer patients. 7–14 Medical Cannabis use reduces opioid use, 8–11 counteracts multiple side effects of chemotherapy, improves mood and outlook, and provides relief from insomnia. 12–14 If Cannabis causes cancer, these therapeutic benefits might be offset in cancer patients by stimulation of existing tumors or creation of new neoplasms. However, if Cannabis reduces cancer risk, the case for inclusion of Cannabis in therapeutic cancer care strategies is augmented. In addition, if moderate, adult Cannabis use is found to reduce risk of cancer, a leading cause of death, this information must be included in estimates of its impact on public health.

Tumorigenic activity of Cannabis

Cannabis has several tumorigenic properties, manifested when smoked. Cannabis smoke contains carcinogens similar to those in tobacco smoke, including tar and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and these may be at higher concentration than in tobacco smoke. 15 , 16 Users who smoke Cannabis heavily have histological changes, including inflammation, in the lungs and airways resembling those prestaging the initiation of tobacco-related lung cancer. 17 Sharing of joints or pipes is hypothesized to increase risk of human papilloma virus exposure, a significant cause of oral and other cancers. 18 Furthermore, although cannabinoids usually inhibit cancer cells in vitro and in mouse models, 3 they stimulate growth of some cancer cell lines in laboratory studies. 19

Antitumor activity of Cannabis

Actions that reduce cancer risk include reduced risk of obesity and diabetes mellitus (DM), and inhibition of inflammation by cannabinoids. In addition, in laboratory studies, cannabinoids and other compounds in Cannabis directly inhibit cancer initiation, growth, and spread at the cellular level.

Decreased obesity rates in Cannabis users

Obesity increases the risk of cancer. 20–26 Cancers of the breast, colon, and rectum, prostate, esophagus, stomach (cardia), pancreas, uterine corpus, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovary, and thyroid, as well as multiple myeloma, are positively associated with obesity. 20–26 In the United States, between 1982 and 2000, obesity caused about 20% and 14% of cancer deaths in women and men, respectively. 20

Note that obesity rates are substantially higher today than in 2000, and rates of obesity-related cancers are increasing even in young people as the obesity rate continues to rise. 23

The percentage of cancer deaths attributable to obesity are therefore likely to be much higher today than they were in 2003, when the study by Calle et al. was published, 20 even as tobacco use and lung cancer are declining. However, using the numbers from Calle et al., 20 a minimum of 85,000 to 120,000 of the 607,000 cancer deaths projected for 2019 (Ref. 1 ) are caused by obesity. Similarly, an estimated 3.6% of all new cancer cases worldwide are caused by excess body fat. 26

A recent review determined that Cannabis use is associated with reduced obesity risk (mean risk ratio=0.68) and BMI (average decrease in BMI relative to nonusers=6%). 4 Like weight loss following bariatric surgery, 27 reduced obesity rates in response to Cannabis use may decrease cancer risk. Cannabis use protects against nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, 28 a disorder that is strongly associated with obesity and is an independent predictor of gastric and liver cancer, cancer types strongly associated with obesity. 24 , 25 Cannabis users may thus have lower risk of obesity-associated cancer types simply due to decreased risk of obesity.

Decreased inflammation

Chronic inflammation is associated strongly both with obesity and with the initiation and progression of cancer. 27–30 A decrease in BMI of 7%, similar in magnitude to the observed 6% decrease in BMI associated with Cannabis use, 4 decreases proinflammatory and increases anti-inflammatory gene expression in visceral adipose tissue. 31 Cytokines involved in inflammation play a significant role in promoting cancer, and therefore, drugs such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs decrease cancer risk. 32

A number of cannabinoids have anti-inflammatory effects in laboratory studies, and cannabinoids are therefore of interest for development as a therapy option for chronic inflammation, currently an unmet medical need. 33 Thus, Cannabis use may directly inhibit inflammation at the cellular level, and in addition, indirectly reduces inflammation by decreasing BMI and risk of obesity. Both actions should decrease cancer risk. This effect would be offset if inflammatory responses are desensitized with chronic use. 4

Improved insulin sensitivity and decreased risk of DM

Cannabis use is associated with reduced risk of DM, reduced fasting insulin levels, and reduced insulin resistance. 34–38 In contrast, DM and elevated insulin or C-peptide levels are associated with greater cancer risk, and faster growth and aggressiveness of colorectal, pancreatic, liver, postmenopausal breast, and endometrial cancers, and thus increased mortality from these cancers. 39

Probiotic actions of cannabinoids on the gut microbiome

The gut microbial flora interacts closely with the ECs and plays an important role in metabolism. 40 Changes in the intestinal microbial flora, including a shift in the ratio of Firmicutes:Bacteroidetes, are correlated with obesity. These changes are also associated with the initiation and progression of systemic inflammation, and increased risk of colorectal cancer. 41 Cannabinoids oppose this gut dysbiosis. 41 In mice fed a high-fat diet, chronic THC administration not only prevents obesity, but also prevents changes in the gut microbial flora from one characteristic of a lean phenotype to one associated with obesity and increased risk of colorectal cancer. 41

Direct antitumor properties of Cannabis

Multiple chemicals in Cannabis , including psychoactive and nonpsychoactive cannabinoids as well as flavonoids, possess antitumor activity. 42–45 Cannabinoids inhibit tumor initiation, metastasis, vascular adhesiveness, tissue invasiveness, and angiogenesis, while selectively stimulating apoptosis of cancer cells. 3 , 42–44 , 46–56 They thus, by multiple mechanisms, inhibit all stages of cancer initiation, development, growth, and spread. As a result, in laboratory studies and animal models, cannabinoids destroy tumors while leaving surrounding cells unharmed. 42–44 In laboratory studies, cannabinoids inhibit gliomas, thyroid epithelioma, lymphoma, neuroblastoma, and carcinomas of the oral region, lung, skin, uterus, breast, prostate, pancreas, and colon. 42–44 , 46–56

Hypotheses

The impact of Cannabis use on cancer risk will depend on the relative magnitudes of the carcinogenic and antitumor effects, leading to three hypotheses: 1. the carcinogenic effects predominate, leading to greater cancer risk in users; 2. the carcinogenic and antitumor effects cancel each other leading to no net impact (null hypothesis); 3. the antitumor effects predominate, leading to reduced cancer risk in users.

Adding complexity, the balance between the opposing effects of carcinogens and antitumor compounds may differ among cancer types, and different tissues may be exposed to different concentration ratios of carcinogens and cannabinoids. Tissues of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, and lungs are directly exposed to carcinogens from smoke while other tissues are not. Furthermore, some cell types may be more sensitive to the carcinogenic or antitumor actions than others, and effects of Cannabis use on risk factors, such as obesity or inflammation, also influence the balance between these opposing actions.

Methods

Review of the literature on the effects of Cannabis use on cancer rates

Information sources

PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google scholar were screened for articles presenting data on risk ratios of cancer in Cannabis users and nonusers.

Search strategy

PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched using “( Cannabis or marijuana) AND (cancer) NOT (therapeutic or palliative), most recently in August 2019. Google scholar was also searched for references using the terms “Cannabis and cancer” and “Marijuana and cancer.” Titles were evaluated for relevance, and case studies and those addressing palliative or therapeutic care were rejected. Those potentially reporting risk ratios were selected for further analysis and data extraction. Review and data source articles were also examined for references.

Summary measures

The principal summary measure is the risk ratio of cancer in Cannabis users, relative to nonusers, in the form of adjusted odds ratio (AOR), relative risk (RR), and adjusted hazard ratio (AHR).

Selection of data to use in further analyses

Studies considered for this review included case–control and cohort studies that present risk ratio data (AORs, RR, or AHR), comparing rates of cancer in Cannabis users and nonusers.

Many studies presented multiple values for risk ratios for a single cancer type or site, including values for different user groups (duration of use, frequency of use, quantity of use, etc.) and adjustment for different confounders. The data selected for use in the analysis consisted of ever versus never use, current versus never use, or ever versus nonhabitual use categories, as available ( Table 1 ).

The data from the most fully adjusted model were selected from each study. One study failed to provide a single value for overall user risk, 57 but rather assigned data to distinct groups based on cumulative exposure (i.e., 0 to 1, 1 to <10, 10 to <30, 30 to <60, and ≥60 joint years). For these data, to determine the effects of average use, the values for each usage group were weighted by the number of cases in that group, then the weighted average across user groups was determined and used to provide a summary AOR. The references identified, study population, study type (case–control or cohort), cancer type, adjustments, and comparison type (i.e., ever use vs. never use, etc.) from each reference are summarized in Table 1 . 57–90

Conversion of AOR data to RR data

Risk ratios from the various studies were reported as AOR, RR, or AHR. Odds ratios and RR are similar in value at risk ratios near one, but diverge as risk ratios diverge from one and are therefore not directly comparable. 91 To provide a single measurement unit for analysis, AOR data were converted to RR following Zhang and Kai. 91 HR data are considered equivalent to RR and were not converted. 92

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis of the data was performed with the software program JASP using a Dersimonian–Laird random effects meta-analysis model.

Effect size was calculated as: E f f e c t s i z e E S = ln u s e r p o s u s e r n e g − ln n o n u s e r p o s n o n u s e r n e g

Standard error was calculated as: S t a n d a r d e r r o r = √ 1 u s e r p o s + 1 u s e r n e g + 1 n o n u s e r p o s + 1 n o n u s e r n e g

where userpos and userneg are number of cancer cases and cancer free in Cannabis users, and nonuserpos and nonuserneg are numbers of cancer cases and cancer free in nonusers.

Examination of heterogeneity in the data

Heterogeneity was examined by selectively removing specific blocks of data, including data with high risk of selection bias, high risk of performance bias, and data for specific cancer sites, and by examining data for each category of cancer type or site independently.

Examination of risk of publication bias

Publication bias was investigated by analyzing funnel plot asymmetry using rank correlation in JASP.

Examination of impact of risk of selection and performance bias on heterogeneity

The results of the literature search consist of a series of articles that present risk ratios for cancer in Cannabis users. 57–90 These were screened to identify and remove data with high risk of selection and performance bias, as defined below.

Removal of data with high risk of selection bias

The goal of the study was to examine the data on the risk of cancer due to Cannabis use in the United States. Therefore, data that did not fit this population was determined to be at high risk of selection bias. In the context of this study, high risk of selection bias was defined as failure to adequately adjust for tobacco use. Elimination of studies with high risk of selection bias thus involved eliminating studies that failed to adjust for tobacco use, or those that compared user and nonuser populations that universally or predominantly use tobacco, 62 , 64 , 72 , 73 , 81 , 87 due to the inability to adequately adjust for tobacco use in this scenario.

Data collected in North Africa were determined to be at high risk of selection bias, and were also removed, 60 , 69 , 73 , 83 , 87 because North African Cannabis users consume Cannabis in the form of kiff or hashish, and mix Cannabis with tobacco. 57 These delivery methods are rare in the United States and interfere with adjustment for tobacco as a confounding factor.

Removal of data with high risk of performance bias

Many of the measures used to evaluate risk of performance bias in meta-analyses are not applicable in the current data set, as these data arose from comparison of cancer rates among study populations rather than documentation of changes in response to treatment interventions. Sample size was therefore selected as the most obvious measure of the potential for performance bias. The impact of removal of small sample size data, reporting measures of risk based on 20 or fewer Cannabis -using cases or controls, 63 , 66 , 68 , 70 , 73 , 77–79 , 83 , 88 , 90 was examined. For studies reporting risk ratios for multiple cancer sites, data from each individual cancer site were assessed for number of cases and controls among Cannabis users, and those with fewer than 20 cases or controls were eliminated, while data for sites with more than 20 cases and controls were retained.

The Grubbs test 93 was used to test, for outlier status, the highest and lowest values remaining in the data after removal of data with high risk of selection bias. No outliers were detected.

Examination of data from specific cancer sites

The data were separated into the following five cancer sites: (1) cancers of the head and neck (head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, laryngeal, nasal, nasopharyngeal, oral, pharyngeal, and sinonasal), (2) lung, (3) testicular, (4) obesity related (esophageal, colorectal, breast, prostate, cervical), and (5) other types (melanoma, anal, penile, bladder, glioma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, types that did not fit into the other categories). Each of these subsets was analyzed independently.

Analysis of data

Some studies reported risk ratios for multiple cancer sites (i.e., oral, pharyngeal, laryngeal, etc.). These were considered as independent data points in the analysis. AOR data were converted to RR before statistical analysis. 91 Data were imported into the JASP meta-analysis software in the form of log RR. Means and confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained as log RR values from the meta-analysis software, then converted back to RR. Statistically significant differences in risk were accepted when 95% CIs excluded 1.0, or p <0.05 in the output of the meta-analysis software.

Heterogeneity was quantified as I 2 (Ref. 94 ). Effect size was calculated as Hedges g , with correction of bias for small samples for cancer sites with low N following Durlak. 95

Effect size was calculated as Hedges g , defined as: H e d g e s g = m e a n 1 − m e a n 2 p o o l e d S D

Mean 1 is the mean log of RR data (logRR) of users, and mean 2 is 0 (logRR of nonusers, with RR defined as 1.0). Correction for small sample size was performed as: H e d g e s g c o r r = 1 − 3 199 ∗ H e d g e s g

Exposure dependence

Eight articles provided data amenable to analysis of exposure-dependent effects. 57 , 58 , 61 , 75 , 80 , 82 , 84 , 85 These data were expressed in the original articles in a number of distinct units (joint-years, times/week, ounces/week×years, times, quartiles). To analyze exposure dependence, these units were assigned to low, intermediate, intermediate plus, and high-exposure categories, as shown in Table 4 . The mean and 95% CIs of log(RR) were determined for each exposure category, then the data were converted back to RR.

Results

The results of the PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar searches are presented in Figure 1 . The search yielded a total of 34 studies reporting risk ratios, 57–90 and these studies provided 55 risk ratio data points from a variety of cancer sites ( Table 1 ). Five data points did not provide numbers of user and nonuser cancer-positive and cancer-negative patients and could not be used in the JASP meta-analysis.

The remaining 50 data points could be analyzed in the meta-analysis ( Fig. 2A ). These included data from the head and neck ( N =18), esophageal cancer ( N =1), lung ( N =7), melanoma (a single study reported risk separately for men and women; these were treated as independent data points; N =2), prostate ( N =1), colorectal cancer ( N =2), testicular cancer ( N =8), anal cancer (a single study reported risk separately for men and women; these were treated as independent data points, N =2), penis ( N =1), bladder cancer ( N =2), glioma ( N =1), breast cancer ( N =1), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma ( N =3), and cervical cancer ( N =1).

Relative risk

Analysis of the entire data set indicated a trend toward an association with reduced cancer risk in Cannabis users, but this trend was not significant (meta-analytic RR=0.90, 95% CI=0.81–1.01, p =0.065, df =49; Table 2 ). No significant evidence of publication bias was apparent (funnel plot asymmetry p =0.725). Following removal of data for high risk of selection and performance bias (as defined), the remaining data support an association with reduced risk of cancer in Cannabis users (meta-analytic RR=0.86, 95% CI=0.76–0.97, p =0.017, df =23; Table 2 ), with no significant evidence of publication bias (Funnel plot asymmetry p =0.66; Fig. 2B ). Heterogeneity remained high, however ( I 2 =74.9) after removing these data ( Table 2 ).

The entire data set was divided into the following categories of cancer types: (1) head and neck cancers (airways of the head and neck), (2) lung, (3) testes, (4) obesity-related, and (5) other types; these categories were analyzed separately.

Head and neck cancers showed a significant negative association between Cannabis use and cancer risk (meta-analytic RR=0.83, 95% CI=0.72–0.97, N =18, p <0.05; Table 2 ; Fig. 3 ). Analyses of lung cancer data are shown in Figure 4 , testicular cancer data in Figure 5 , cancer types associated with obesity in Figure 6 , and cancer types other than head and neck, lung, testicular, and obesity-related in Figure 7 . The remaining categories showed RR values that were not statistically different from 1. Of the categories, only testicular cancer showed RR >1.0, although this was not significant (meta-analytic RR=1.12, 95% CI=0.9–1.4, N =9, p =0.3; Table 3 ). Elimination of testicular cancers from the data set resulted in a significant decrease in RR in the remaining data (meta-analytic RR=0.87, 95% CI=0.78–0.98, N =41, p <0.025; Table 4 ). None of the other cancer site categories resulted in RR statistically different from one when removed ( Table 4 ).

Analysis of heterogeneity

There was high heterogeneity among the data. 94 The initial data set (including all data) yielded a residual heterogeneity of Q =177.3 ( p <0.001), I 2 =72.4%, df =49 ( Table 2 ; Fig. 2 ). Heterogeneity remained high after removal of studies with high risk of selection and performance bias: Q =91.8 ( p <0.001), I 2 =74.9%, df =23 ( Table 2 ). Heterogeneity was explored further by analyzing each category of cancer types separately, and by determining the impact of removing each category of cancer types on measures of heterogeneity. Among the five categories of cancer types, heterogeneity was high in head and neck cancers and “other” cancer types, and much lower within lung, testicular, and obesity-related cancers ( Table 3 ). Removal of any one category of cancer types failed to substantially reduce heterogeneity ( Table 4 ).

Effect size

Effect size for the entire data set was determined to be small (Hedges g corrected for bias=0.23 (Ref. 95 ). Removal of data with high risk of selection and performance bias resulted in an increase in Hedges g to 0.66, an effect size between medium and large. Following separation of the data into categories, effect size of cancers of the head and neck was moderate (head and neck: Hedges g corrected for bias=0.55) and of obesity-related cancers was between medium and large (Hedges g =0.69). In contrast, effect size was small or negligible for lung, testicular, and other cancer types (0.23, 0.02, and 0.1, respectively; Table 3 ).

Exposure level dependence

Preliminary analysis of exposure-dependent data suggests that all exposure categories are associated with reduced cancer risk ( Fig. 8 ). Column effects (exposure) and row effects (study) were both statistically significant (2—way analysis of variance, column effects: F -value=3.19, p <0.025; row effects: F -value=3.096, p <0.006) suggesting differences in response to exposure as well as to study/cancer type. All exposure categories show significantly reduced risk relative to the no-use category (95% CIs exclude 1.0; Fig. 8 ). There are no significant differences among exposure categories once the no-use category was removed ( p >0.9) suggesting that low and high exposures have similar impact on cancer risk. Most of these data are from cancers of the head and neck, and the risk of selection bias in these data is therefore very high.

Conclusions

The hypothesis that Cannabis use increases cancer risk is not supported by the available data. The data instead show a trend toward a negative association between Cannabis use and cancer risk (all data: meta-analytic RR=0.90, p =0.065, N =50). This trend reaches statistical significance upon removal of data determined to be at high risk of selection and performance bias (meta-analytic RR of remaining data=0.86, p <0.02), or removal of data from testicular cancers (meta-analytic RR of remaining data=0.87, p <0.025).

Of the five categories of cancer sites, only one, testicular cancer, showed an RR value >1, (meta-analytic RR=1.12), although the data did not reach statistical significance ( p >0.3) and the effect size was negligible (Hedges g =0.02). The remaining cancer sites showed nominal RR values <1, but only cancers of the head and neck showed a statistically significant decrease in risk (meta-analytic RR=0.83, p <0.05, N =18) with medium effect size (Hedges g =0.55). This was also the cancer site with the greatest amount of data.

Heterogeneity was high in the data set. Exploration of this heterogeneity suggests that it arises at least in part from differences among cancer sites rather than from selection or performance bias. When the data were separated into sites, heterogeneity remained high in cancers of the head and neck, and “other” sites, but was substantially reduced in cancers of the lungs, testes, and obesity-related cancers.

The current analysis suggests that Cannabis use in the United States may decrease risk of cancer by 10% (meta-analytic RR=0.90). Only testicular cancers show an RR >1.0, although this was not statistically significant. Upon removal of testicular cancers from the data, the remaining data show an RR significantly below 1.0 ( p <0.05; Table 3 ).

If cancer types do respond differently to Cannabis use, the overall impact of Cannabis use on cancer will depend on the impact of Cannabis use on each cancer type, and the number of cases of and deaths from each cancer type in the population. For example, there are ∼1.7 million cancer cases, and 600,000 deaths, in the United States in 2019 (Ref. 1 ). Of these, ∼7900 cases and 370 deaths are from testicular cancer (2013 data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/Vitalstatsonline.htm ).

The current analysis suggests an association of Cannabis use with a substantial decrease in risk of nontesticular cancers, with moderate effect size, and a nonsignificant increase in risk of testicular cancer, with negligible effect size. This suggests that Cannabis use may substantially decrease the death rate from cancer in the United States. However, the available data provide little confidence in this conclusion. There appear to be different responses among cancer types, and there are no data, or few/poor data, available for many cancer types.

There is high heterogeneity among studies that is not explained by chance, and no studies estimate the RR of all cancer types in Cannabis users relative to nonusers. Cancers of the head and neck, with the lowest meta-analytic RR of any cancer type, are over-represented in the data, and cancers associated with obesity are under-represented. Furthermore, the data used are epidemiological, rather than experimental, and thus can show association but not causation. It is therefore necessary to exercise caution in interpreting these data. Nevertheless, data suggest that Cannabis use may decrease the risk of cancer in the United States.

Decreased cancer risk in Cannabis users should not be surprising, as Cannabis and cannabinoids decrease obesity, inhibit chronic inflammation, reduce fasting insulin levels and insulin sensitivity, and have direct antitumor actions. Furthermore, the airways and bladder would be exposed to the highest levels of carcinogens from Cannabis smoke, yet risk of cancers of the oral, pharyngeal and laryngeal regions, and the bladder are significantly decreased in Cannabis users (current analysis and Ref. 85 ). This demonstrates that the anticancer effects of Cannabis outweigh the carcinogenic effects even in the airways and bladder, where carcinogen exposure is high.

It is possible that the actual decrease in cancer risk due to Cannabis use is even greater than the estimated 10% decrease in risk emerging from the current analysis, as few data are available for the impact of Cannabis use on the RR of cancers that are not exposed to the carcinogens of smoke, for example, those associated with obesity. Cannabis users show decreased BMI and obesity rates. 4 , 97 This decrease is known to be associated with decreased risk of obesity-related diseases, including DM and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. 34–38 , 104

Many cancer types are positively associated with obesity, including cancers of the liver, breast, colon and rectum, prostate, stomach (cardia), pancreas, uterine corpus, gallbladder, esophagus, kidney, ovary, and thyroid, as well as multiple myeloma. 20–26 Cannabis use 4 , 97 may decrease the risk of these obesity-related cancer types simply due to the reduction in BMI associated with Cannabis use. In addition, however, most of these cancer types are known to be inhibited or destroyed by cannabinoids in laboratory studies. 47–56 Cannabis use is therefore very likely to be associated with a substantial reduction in the risk of, and mortality from, obesity-related cancers.

Unfortunately, no recent data, and few data overall, are available for the RR of obesity-related cancers in Cannabis users. Data providing risk ratios for obesity-related cancers are limited to six data points from two studies. The first study, using data from the early 1990s in California, provided data for esophageal (RR=0.67), colorectal (RR men=0.9, RR women=0.6), prostate (RR=1.3), and breast (RR=1.0) cancers. 84 Another study, from 2006, also included data on esophageal cancer (AOR=0.67, RRconv=0.69). 57 These data provide a mean meta-analytic RR of 0.89, 95% CI=0.72–1.09. While not statistically significant, this is consistent with decreased risk. Note that these are likely to underestimate the impact today, as the obesity rate in the United States was about 25% lower at the time these data were collected than it is today (data from CDC).

Data can be used to provide a rough, preliminary estimate of the potential magnitude of the impact of Cannabis use on cancer diagnoses and deaths. This can be obtained as the product of the annual number of cancer deaths or diagnoses, the fraction of the population using Cannabis , and the decrease in risk of cancer in Cannabis users (1 minus the RR). There are projected to be 1.7 million diagnoses and 607,000 deaths from cancer in the United States in 2019 (Ref. 1 ). According to current census data, the U.S. population age 18 years and above is ∼255 million. A recent poll suggests that 55 million, or about 21%, of these people use Cannabis , and 35 million, or ∼14%, are regular users. 96 If the 10% decrease in cancer risk indicated by the current analysis is accurate, and applies across all cancer types, then Cannabis use would prevent as many as 23,800 to 35,700 cancer diagnoses (1,700,000×0.14 or 0.21×0.10), and 8498 to 12,747 cancer deaths (607,000×0.14 or 0.21×0.10) each year.

Some cancer types are relatively common while others are rare, and some types have much greater mortality rates than others. In the current data set, only testicular cancers show a trend to increasing risk in Cannabis users, and testicular cancer is a relatively uncommon cancer with a high survival rate. Furthermore, there is high heterogeneity in the data and no data are available for many cancers. The actual impact of Cannabis use on cancer cases and deaths therefore cannot be estimated with any degree of confidence with the data available at this time. However, given the large number of cancer diagnoses, and the large numbers of people using Cannabis , even a moderate impact on cancer risk will have significant public health implications.

There is increasing awareness that Cannabis provides therapeutic medical benefits. By decreasing risk of cancer, obesity, and DM, 4 , 34–38 , 97 leading causes of premature death and disability, it is becoming clear that Cannabis use may also meet the definition of preventive medicine. Like all medicines, Cannabis has harmful effects, especially if misused. However, Cannabis use rarely results in fatalities, and is thus safer than many pharmaceuticals. 98–103 Therefore, moderate, adult Cannabis use may be associated with a net improvement in public health.

Exposure level dependence

Even the lowest category of use appears to be associated with a significant decrease in cancer risk ( Fig. 4 ). This resembles data in which individuals using Cannabis only one to four times per month show decreased BMI and obesity risk relative to nonusers, 34 due at least in part by long-lasting downregulation of CB 1 in response to Cannabis use. 4 Thus, use of Cannabis only one to four times per month may be sufficient to significantly reduce risk of cancer, DM, and fatty liver disease while avoiding the harmful effects of heavy or frequent use.

How does the current analysis compare with previous studies?

Several prior reviews and meta-analyses have addressed the relationship between Cannabis use and cancer risk. 105–110 Three of these reviews detected no association between Cannabis use and cancer risk, 105 , 108 , 109 one hypothesized a decrease in risk 106 and two concluded that Cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of cancer, 107 , 110 of the testes and lungs, respectively.

The current review differed by being the only study to convert AOR data to RR before analysis, then use log RR data in a meta-analyses. The current review also differs from those studies by including all available cancer data, rather than focusing on a specific cancer type. The current study is also the only one to determine the impact of removing studies with high risk of selection bias or those with low sample sizes among Cannabis users or controls. The differences in data selection criteria and treatment of the data resulted in differences in summary measures of risk among these studies.

Implications for use of Cannabis as a cancer cure or treatment

There is an emerging trend in which patients turn away from more mainstream chemotherapy methods and instead attempt to use Cannabis as a stand-alone cancer cure. 111 The current analysis does not support average recreational levels of Cannabis use as an effective stand-alone cure for cancer. However, the results do suggest that, in addition to providing significant improvements in the quality of life of cancer patients, adding Cannabis therapy to established cancer treatment regimens may well improve treatment efficacy without stimulating tumor growth.

Limitations

At present, reliable estimates of RR are not available for most cancer types, and no risk data at all are available for many cancer types while certain cancer types (head and neck, lung, testicular) are over-represented in the data. Few data are available for cancer types correlated with obesity, and Cannabis use is associated with reduced risk of obesity. 4 No single study addresses the relationship between Cannabis use and the overall risk of cancer. Instead, available studies focus on one or several specific cancer types. Furthermore, the data are associative, rather than a result of controlled clinical trials or interventions. Therefore, the overall impact of Cannabis use on cancer risk cannot be determined with confidence using the available data.

A statistically significant decrease in risk (at p <0.05) was not apparent in the original data set, but emerges after elimination of data with high risk of selection and performance bias, as defined. The elimination of these data was to accomplish two explicit goals. The first goal is to specifically determine the likely impact of Cannabis use on cancer risk in the United States. This was accomplished by rejecting data from North Africa, where Cannabis is consumed with tobacco, 57 and data that failed to adjust for tobacco use, as these data conflate the effects of tobacco use with the impact of Cannabis itself. The second goal was to increase the accuracy and reduce the variance of the results by reducing the risk of performance bias introduced by small sample sizes. This may have eliminated data from rare cancers. Elimination of data for testicular cancers in the examination of heterogeneity also resulted in a significant decrease in risk in the remaining data.

A limitation to using the results to estimate the overall impact on cancer rates and deaths arises because the overall impact of Cannabis use on risk of cancer depends on its impact on risk of each individual cancer type, and the frequency of that cancer type in the population. For example, if Cannabis increases risk of a rare cancer, but decreases the risk of a common cancer by an equal amount, the overall effect would be an overall decrease in cancer diagnoses in the population, and vice versa. Similarly, effects of Cannabis use on risk of cancer types with high mortality rates are more significant than effects on risk of less-aggressive cancers or cancers for which established treatment methods are more successful.

The risk ratios used in the analysis arise from self-report data. These are not optimal as patients may be reluctant to divulge Cannabis use. Furthermore, much of the data used in the analysis are from comparisons of ever users versus never users, and so by implication includes people with little or no recent exposure to Cannabis . However, Ngueta and Ndjaboue 38 observed lingering impacts of Cannabis use on obesity rates that remained after long-term abstinence, and it is possible that the same is true of cancer, especially considering the strong links between obesity and cancer. 20–27 Furthermore, a subset of the data was amenable to exposure dependence analysis, and includes respondents who used Cannabis at high levels, or for long periods of time (30 years or more). These data did not show appreciably different risk in low and high exposure categories of users ( Fig. 8 ).

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Rhonda Culbertson, IUSB librarian, for help designing literature search strategies. Jordan Zaderej, IUSB student, for discussions of inflammation as a contributor to comorbidities of obesity.

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

This research was supported by a sabbatical leave from Indiana University South Bend. No other funding support was utilized in this project.

References

1. Siegel RL , Miller KD , Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2019 . CA Cancer J Clin . 2019 ; 69 : 7 – 34 . 30620402 10.3322/caac.21551

2. Islami F , Miller KD , Siegel RL , et al. National and state estimates of lost earnings from cancer deaths in the United States . JAMA Oncol . 2019 ; 5 : e191460 . 31268465 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1460 PMC6613311

3. Velasco G , Sánchez C , Guzmán M . Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents . Nat Rev Cancer . 2012 ; 12 : 436 – 444 . 22555283 10.1038/nrc3247

4. Clark TM , Jones JM , Hall AG , et al. Theoretical explanation for reduced body mass index and obesity rates in Cannabis users . Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2018 ; 3 : 259 – 271 . 10.1089/can.2018.0045 PMC6340377 30671538

5. Bisogno T , Maccarrone M . Endocannabinoid signaling and its regulation by nutrients . BioFactors . 2014 ; 40 : 373 – 380 . 24753395 10.1002/biof.1167

6. Mazier W , Saucisse N , Gatta-Cherifi B , et al. The endocannabinoid system: pivotal orchestrator of obesity and metabolic disease . Trends Endocrinol Metab . 2015 ; 26 : 524 – 537 . 26412154 10.1016/j.tem.2015.07.007

7. Martell K , Fairchild A , LeGerrier B , et al. Rates of Cannabis use in patients with cancer . Curr Oncol . 2018 ; 25 : 219 – 225 . 29962840 10.3747/co.25.3983 PMC6023560

8. Boehnke KF , Litinas E , Clauw DJ . Medical Cannabis use is associated with decreased opiate medication use in a retrospective cross-sectional survey of patients with chronic pain . J Pain . 2016 ; 17 : 739 – 744 . 27001005 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.03.002

9. Haroutounian S , Ratz Y , Ginosar Y , et al. The effect of medicinal Cannabis on pain and quality-of-life outcomes in chronic pain . Clin J Pain . 2016 ; 32 : 1036 – 1043 . 26889611 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000364

10. Bradford AC , Bradford WD , Abraham A , et al. Association between US state medical Cannabis laws and opioid prescribing in the Medicare Part D population . JAMA Intern Med . 2018 ; 178 : 667 – 672 . 29610897 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0266 PMC6145794

11. Wen H , Hockenberry JM . Association of medical and adult-use marijuana laws with opioid prescribing for Medicaid enrollees . JAMA Intern Med . 2018 ; 178 : 673 – 679 . 29610827 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.1007 PMC6145792

12. Carter GT , Flanagan AM , Earleywine M , et al. Cannabis in palliative medicine: improving care and reducing opioid-related morbidity . Am J Hosp Palliat Care . 2011 ; 28 : 297 – 303 . 21444324 10.1177/1049909111402318

13. Chakravarti B , Ravi J , Ganju RK . Cannabinoids as therapeutic agents in cancer: current status and future implications . Oncotarget . 2014 ; 5 : 5852 – 5872 . 25115386 10.18632/oncotarget.2233 PMC4171598

14. Ostadhadi S , Rahmatollahi M , Dehpour AR , et al. Therapeutic potential of cannabinoids in counteracting chemotherapy-induced adverse effects: an exploratory review . Phytother Res . 2015 ; 29 : 332 – 338 . 25504799 10.1002/ptr.5265

15. Wu TC , Tashkin DP , Djahed B , et al. Pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco . N Engl J Med . 1988 ; 318 : 347 – 351 . 3340105 10.1056/NEJM198802113180603

16. Melamede R. Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic . Harm Reduct J . 2005 ; 2 : 21 . 16232311 10.1186/1477-7517-2-21 PMC1277837

17. Fligiel SE , Roth MD , Kleerup EC , et al. Tracheobronchial histopathology in habitual smokers of cocaine, marijuana, and/or tobacco . Chest . 1997 ; 112 : 319 – 326 . 9266864 10.1378/chest.112.2.319

18. Zwenger SR. Bogarting that joint might decrease oral HPV among Cannabis users . Curr Oncol . 2009 ; 16 : 5 – 7 . 20016740 10.3747/co.v16i6.429 PMC2794675

19. Takeda S , Yamamoto I , Watanabe K . Modulation of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol-induced MCF-7 breast cancer cell growth by cyclooxygenase and aromatase . Toxicology . 2009 ; 259 : 25 – 32 . 19428940 10.1016/j.tox.2009.01.024

20. Calle EE , Rodriguez C , Walker-Thurmond K , et al. Overweight, obesity, and mortality from cancer in a prospectively studied cohort of U.S . adults . N Engl J Med . 2003 ; 348 : 1625 – 1638 . 12711737 10.1056/NEJMoa021423

21. Taghizadeh N , Boezen HM , Schouten JP , et al. BMI and lifetime changes in BMI and cancer mortality risk . PLoS One . 2015 ; 10 : e0125261 . 25881129 10.1371/journal.pone.0125261 PMC4399977

22. Renehan AG , Tyson M , Egger M , et al. Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies . Lancet . 2008 ; 371 : 569 – 578 . 18280327 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60269-X

23. Sung H , Siegel RL , Rosenberg PS , et al. Emerging cancer trends among young adults in the USA: analysis of a population-based cancer registry . Lancet Public Health . 2019 ; 4 : e137 – e147 . 30733056 10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30267-6

24. Hamaguchi M , Hashimoto Y , Obora A , et al. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease with obesity as an independent predictor for incident gastric and colorectal cancer: a population-based longitudinal study . BMJ Open Gastroenterol . 2019 ; 6 : e000295 . 10.1136/bmjgast-2019-000295 PMC6577367 31275587

25. Guh DP , Zhang W , Bansback N , et al. The incidence of co-morbidities related to obesity and overweight: a systematic review and meta-analysis . BMC Public Health . 2009 ; 9 : 88 . 19320986 10.1186/1471-2458-9-88 PMC2667420

26. Arnold M , Pandeya N , Byrnes G , et al. Global burden of cancer attributable to high body-mass index in 2012: a population-based study . Lancet Oncol . 2015 ; 16 : 36 – 46 . 25467404 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71123-4 PMC4314462

27. Deng T , Lyon CJ , Bergin S , et al. Obesity, inflammation, and cancer . Annu Rev Pathol-Mech . 2016 ; 11 : 421 – 449 . 10.1146/annurev-pathol-012615-044359 27193454

28. Vázquez-Bourgon J , de la Foz VOG , Suarez-Pereira I , et al. Cannabis consumption and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease . A three years longitudinal study in first episode non-affective psychosis patients. Prog Neuro-Psychoph . 2019 ; 95 : 109677 . 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2019.109677 31228640

29. Munn LL. Cancer and inflammation . WIREs Syst Biol Med . 2017 ; 9 : e1370 . 10.1002/wsbm.1370 PMC5561333 27943646

30. Shoelson SE , Herrero L , Naaz A . Obesity, inflammation, and insulin resistance . Gastroenterology . 2007 ; 132 : 2169 – 2180 . 17498510 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.03.059

31. Clement K , Viguerie N , Poitou C , et al. Weight loss regulates inflammation related genes in white adipose tissue of obese subjects . FASEB J . 2004 ; 18 : 1657 – 1669 . 15522911 10.1096/fj.04-2204com

32. Crusz SM , Balkwill FR . Inflammation and cancer: advances and new agents . Nat Rev Clin Oncol . 2015 ; 12 : 584 – 596 . 26122183 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.105

33. Zurier RB , Burstein SH . Cannabinoids, inflammation, and fibrosis . FASEB J . 2016 ; 30 : 3682 – 3689 . 27435265 10.1096/fj.201600646R

34. Rajavashisth TB , Shaheen M , Norris KC , et al. Decreased prevalence of diabetes in marijuana users: cross-sectional data from the National health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III . BMJ Open . 2012 ; 2 : e000494 . 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000494 PMC3289985 22368296

35. Ngueta G , Bélanger RE , Laouan-Sidi EA , et al. Cannabis use in relation to obesity and insulin resistance in the Inuit population . Obesity . 2015 ; 23 : 290 – 295 . 25557382 10.1002/oby.20973

36. Alshaarawy O , Anthony JC . Cannabis smoking and serum C-reactive protein: a quantile regressions approach based on NHANES 2005–2010 . Drug Alcohol Depen . 2015 ; 147 : 203 – 207 . 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.11.017 PMC4297696 25529540

37. Penner EA , Buettner H , Mittleman MA . The impact of marijuana use on glucose, insulin, and insulin resistance among US adults . Am J Med . 2013 ; 126 : 583 – 589 . 23684393 10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.03.002

38. Ngueta G , Ndjaboue R . Lifetime marijuana use in relation to insulin resistance in lean, overweight, and obese US adults . J Diabetes . 2019 ; 12 : 38 – 47 . 31152633 10.1111/1753-0407.12958

39. Tsilidis KK , Kasimis JC , Lopez DS , et al. Type 2 diabetes and cancer: umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies . BMJ . 2015 ; 350 : g7607 . 25555821 10.1136/bmj.g7607

40. Cani PD , Plovier H , Van Hul M , et al. Endocannabinoids—at the crossroads between the gut microbiota and host metabolism . Nat Rev Endocrinol . 2016 ; 12 : 133 . 26678807 10.1038/nrendo.2015.211

41. Cluny NL , Keenan CM , Reimer RA , et al. Prevention of diet-induced obesity effects on body weight and gut microbiota in mice treated chronically with Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol . PLoS One . 2015 ; 10 : e0144270 . 26633823 10.1371/journal.pone.0144270 PMC4669115

42. Guzman M. Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents . Nat Rev Cancer . 2003 ; 3 : 745 . 14570037 10.1038/nrc1188

43. McAllister SD , Soroceanu L , Desprez PY . The antitumor activity of plant-derived non-psychoactive cannabinoids . J Neuroimmune Pharm . 2015 ; 10 : 255 – 267 . 10.1007/s11481-015-9608-y PMC4470774 25916739

44. Galve-Roperh I , Sánchez C , Cortéz ML , et al. Anti- tumoral action of cannabinoids: involvement of sustained ceramide accumulation and extracellular signal-regulated kinase activation . Nat Med . 2000 ; 6 : 313 – 319 . 10700234 10.1038/73171

45. Moreau M , Ibeh U , Decosmo K , et al. Flavonoid derivative of Cannabis demonstrates therapeutic potential in preclinical models of metastatic pancreatic cancer . Front Oncol . 2019 ; 9 : 660 . 31396485 10.3389/fonc.2019.00660 PMC6663976

46. Fraguas-Sánchez AI , Martín-Sabroso C , Torres-Suárez AI . Insights into the effects of the endocannabinoid system in cancer: a review . Br J Pharmacol . 2018 ; 175 : 2566 – 2580 . 29663308 10.1111/bph.14331 PMC6003657

47. Carracedo A , Gironella M , Lorente M , et al. Cannabinoids induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells via endoplasmic reticulum stress–related genes . Cancer Res . 2006 ; 66 : 6748 – 6755 . 16818650 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-0169

48. Cianchi F , Papucci L , Schiavone N , et al. Cannabinoid receptor activation induces apoptosis through tumor necrosis factor α-mediated ceramide de novo synthesis in colon cancer cells . Clin Cancer Res . 2008 ; 14 : 7691 – 7700 . 19047095 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0799

49. Dando I , Donadelli M , Costanzo C , et al. Cannabinoids inhibit energetic metabolism and induce AMPK-dependent autophagy in pancreatic cancer cells . Cell Death Dis . 2013 ; 4 : e664 . 23764845 10.1038/cddis.2013.151 PMC3698539

50. Donadelli M , Dando I , Zaniboni T , et al. Gemcitabine/cannabinoid combination triggers autophagy in pancreatic cancer cells through a ROS-mediated mechanism . Cell Death Dis . 2011 ; 2 : e152 . 21525939 10.1038/cddis.2011.36 PMC3122066

51. 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 . 19887554 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0448 PMC4128286

52. Olea-Herrero N , Vara D , Malagarie-Cazenave S , et al. Inhibition of human tumour prostate PC-3 cell growth by cannabinoids R (+)-Methanandamide and JWH-015: involvement of CB 2 . British J Cancer . 2009 ; 101 : 940 . 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605248 PMC2743360 19690545

53. Vara D , Salazar M , Olea-Herrero N , et al. Anti-tumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma: role of AMPK-dependent activation of autophagy . Cell Death Diff . 2011 ; 18 : 1099 . 10.1038/cdd.2011.32 PMC3131949 21475304

54. Patsos HA , Hicks DJ , Dobson RR , et al. The endogenous cannabinoid, anandamide, induces cell death in colorectal carcinoma cells: a possible role for cyclooxygenase 2 . Gut . 2005 ; 54 : 1741 – 1750 . 16099783 10.1136/gut.2005.073403 PMC1774787

55. Xian XS , Park H , Choi MG , et al. Cannabinoid receptor agonist as an alternative drug in 5-fluorouracil-resistant gastric cancer cells . Anticancer Res . 2013 ; 33 : 2541 – 2547 . 23749906

56. Fonseca BM , Correia-da-Silva G , Teixeira NA . Cannabinoid-induced cell death in endometrial cancer cells: involvement of TRPV1 receptors in apoptosis . J Physiol Biochem . 2018 ; 74 : 261 – 272 . 29441458 10.1007/s13105-018-0611-7

57. 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 . 17035389 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0330

58. Aldington S , Harwood M , Cox B , et al. Cannabis use and risk of lung cancer: a case-control study . Eur Respir J . 2008 ; 31 : 280 – 286 . 18238947 10.1183/09031936.00065707 PMC2516340

59. Aldington S , Harwood M , Cox B , et al. Cannabis use and cancer of the head and neck: case-control study . Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 2008 ; 138 : 374 – 380 . 18312888 10.1016/j.otohns.2007.12.002 PMC2277494

60. Berthiller J , Straif K , Boniol M , et al. Cannabis smoking and risk of lung cancer in men . A pooled analysis of three studies in Magreb. J Thor Onc . 2008 ; 3 : 1398 – 1403 . 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31818ddcde 19057263

61. Berthiller J , Yuan-chin AL , 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 . 19423532 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0845 PMC3046921

62. Callaghan RC , Allebeck P , Sidorchuk A . Marijuana use and risk of lung cancer: a 40-year cohort study . Cancer Cause Control . 2013 ; 24 : 1811 – 1820 . 10.1007/s10552-013-0259-0 23846283

63. Callaghan RC , Allebeck P , Akre O , et al. Cannabis use and incidence of testicular cancer: a 42-year follow-up of Swedish men between 1970 and 2011 . Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev . 2017 ; 26 : 1644 – 1652 . 29093004 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0428 PMC5812006

64. Chacko JA , Heiner JG , Siu W , et al. Association between marijuana use and transitional cell carcinoma . Urology . 2006 ; 67 : 100 – 104 . 16413342 10.1016/j.urology.2005.07.005

65. Chao C , Jacobson LP , Jenkins FJ , et al. Recreational drug use and risk of Kaposi's sarcoma in HIV-and HHV-8- coinfected homosexual men . AIDS Res Hum Retrov . 2009 ; 25 : 149 – 156 . 10.1089/aid.2008.0196 PMC2981355 19108691

66. Daling JR , Weiss NS , Hislop TG , et al. Sexual practices, sexually transmitted diseases, and the incidence of anal cancer . N Engl J Med . 1987 ; 317 : 973 – 977 . 2821396 10.1056/NEJM198710153171601

67. Daling JR , Doody DR , Xiaofei Sun BS , et al. Association of marijuana use and the incidence of testicular germ cell tumors . Cancer . 2009 ; 115 : 1215 – 1223 . 19204904 10.1002/cncr.24159 PMC2759698

68. Efird JT , Friedman GD , Sidney S , et al. The risk for malignant primary adult-onset glioma in a large, multiethnic, managed-care cohort: cigarette smoking and other lifestyle behaviors . J Neuro-Oncol . 2004 ; 68 : 57 – 69 . 10.1023/b:neon.0000024746.87666.ed 15174522

69. Feng BJ , Khyatti M , Ben-Ayoub W , et al. Cannabis , tobacco and domestic fumes intake are associated with nasopharyngeal carcinoma in North Africa . Brit J Cancer . 2009 ; 101 : 1207 – 1212 . 19724280 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605281 PMC2768108

70. Gillison ML , D'Souza G , Westra W , et al. Distinct risk factor profiles for human papillomavirus type 16–positive and human papillomavirus type 16–negative head and neck cancers . J Nat Cancer Inst . 2008 ; 100 : 407 – 420 . 18334711 10.1093/jnci/djn025

71. Han B , Gfroerer JC , Colliver JD . Associations between duration of illicit drug use and health conditions: results from the 2005–2007 national surveys on drug use and health . Ann Epidemiol . 2010 ; 20 : 289 – 297 . 20171900 10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.01.003

72. Holly EA , Lele C , Bracci PM , et al. Case-control study of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among women and heterosexual men in the San Francisco Bay Area, California . Am J Epidemiol . 1999 ; 150 : 375 – 389 . 10453814 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010017

73. Hsairi M , Achour N , Zouari B , et al. Etiologic factors in primary bronchial carcinoma in Tunisia . La Tunise Medicale . 1993 ; 71 : 265 – 268 . 8212345

74. Lacson JCA , Carroll JD , Tauzon E , et al. 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 . 22965656 10.1002/cncr.27554 PMC3775603

75. 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 . 2009 ; 2 : 759 – 768 . 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-09-0048 PMC2812803 19638490

76. Llewellyn CD , Linklater K , Bell J , et al. Squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity in patients aged 45 years and under: a descriptive analysis of 116 cases diagnosed in the South East of England from 1990 to 1997 . Oral Oncol . 2003 ; 39 : 106 – 114 . 12509963 10.1016/s1368-8375(02)00026-x

77. Llewellyn CD , Linklater K , Bell J , et al. An analysis of risk factors for oral cancer in young people: a case control study . Oral Oncol . 2004 ; 40 : 304 – 313 . 14747062 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2003.08.015

78. Llewellyn CD , Johnson NW , Sarnakulasuriya S . Risk factors for oral cancer in newly diagnosed patients aged 45 years and younger: a case-control study in Southern England . Oral Path Med . 2004 ; 33 : 525 – 532 . 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2004.00222.x 15357672

79. Maden C , Sherman KJ , Beckmann AM , et al. History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer . J Natl Cancer Inst . 1993 ; 85 : 19 – 24 . 8380060 10.1093/jnci/85.1.19

80. Marks MA , Chaturvedi AK , Kelsey K , et al. Association of marijuana smoking with oropharyngeal and oral tongue cancers: pooled analysis from the INHANCE consortium . Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev . 2014 ; 23 : 160 – 171 . 24351902 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0181 PMC3947141

81. Nelson RA , Levine AM , Marks G , et al. Alcohol, tobacco and recreational drug use and the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma . Br J Cancer . 1997 ; 76 : 1532 – 1537 . 9400954 10.1038/bjc.1997.590 PMC2228171

82. Rosenblatt KA , Daling JR , Chen C , et al. Marijuana use and risk of oral squamous cell carcinoma . Cancer Res . 2004 ; 64 : 4049 – 4054 . 15173020 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-3425

83. Sasco AJ , Merrill RM , Dari I , et al. A case-control study of lung cancer in Casablanca, Morocco . Cancer Causes Control . 2002 ; 13 : 609 – 616 . 12296508 10.1023/a:1019504210176

84. Sidney S , Quesenberry CP , Friedman GD . Marijuana use and cancer incidence (California, United States) . Cancer Causes Control . 1997 ; 8 : 722 – 728 . 9328194 10.1023/a:1018427320658

85. Thomas AA , Wallner LP , Quinn VP , et al. Association between Cannabis use and the risk of bladder cancer: results from the California Men's Health Study . Urology . 2015 ; 85 : 388 – 393 25623697 10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.060

86. Trabert B , Sigurdson AJ , Sweeney AM , et al. Marijuana use and testicular germ cell tumors . Cancer . 2011 ; 117 : 848 – 853 . 20925043 10.1002/cncr.25499 PMC3017734

87. Voirin N , Berthiller J , Benhaïm-Luzon V , et al. Risk of lung cancer and past use of Cannabis in Tunisia . J Thorac Oncol . 2006 ; 1 : 577 – 579 . 17409920

88. Zhang Z-F , 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 . 10613339

89. Zhang LR , Morgenstern H , Greenland S , et al. Cannabis smoking and lung cancer risk: pooled analysis in the International Lung Cancer Consortium . Int J Cancer . 2015 ; 136 : 894 – 903 . 24947688 10.1002/ijc.29036 PMC4262725

90. Zhu K , Levine RS , Brann EA , et al. Case-control study evaluating the homogeneity and heterogeneity of risk factors between sinonasal and nasopharyngeal cancers . Internet J Cancer . 2002 ; 99 : 119 – 123 . 10.1002/ijc.10311 11948502

91. Zhang J , Kai FY . What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes . JAMA . 1998 ; 280 : 1690 – 1691 . 9832001 10.1001/jama.280.19.1690

92. Stare J , Maucort-Boulch D . Odds ratio, hazard ratio, and relative risk . Metodološki Zvezki . 2016 ; 13 : 59 – 67 .

93. Grubbs F. Procedures for detecting outlying observations in samples . Technometrics . 1969 ; 11 : 1 – 21 .

94. Higgins JP , Thompson SG . Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis . Stat Med . 2002 ; 21 : 1539 – 1558 . 12111919 10.1002/sim.1186

95. Durlak JA. How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes . J Pediatr Psychol . 2009 ; 34 : 917 – 928 . 19223279 10.1093/jpepsy/jsp004

96. Yahoo News/Marist Poll . Available at: http://maristpoll.marist.edu/yahoo-newsmarist-poll/#sthash.oD494aaA.dpbs . Accessed August 10 , 2020 .

97. Le Strat Y , Le Foll B . Obesity and Cannabis use: results from 2 representative national surveys . Am J Epidemiol . 2011 ; 174 : 929 – 933 . 21868374 10.1093/aje/kwr200

98. Meier MH , Caspi A , Cerda M , et al. Associations between Cannabis use and physical health problems in early midlife a longitudinal comparison of persistent Cannabis vs tobacco users . JAMA Psychiat . 2016 ; 73 : 731 – 740 . 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.0637 PMC4936934 27249330

99. Bechtold J , Simpson T , White HR , et al. Chronic adolescent marijuana use as a risk factor for physical and mental health problems in young adult men . Psychol Addict Behav . 2015 ; 29 : 552 . 26237286 10.1037/adb0000103 PMC4586320

100. Fuster D , Cheng DM , Allensworth-Davies D , et al. No detectable association between frequency of marijuana use and health or healthcare utilization among primary care patients who screen positive for drug use . J Gen Intern Med . 2014 ; 29 : 133 – 139 . 24048656 10.1007/s11606-013-2605-z PMC3889953

101. Calabria B , Degenhardt L , Hall W , et al. Does Cannabis use increase the risk of death? Systematic review of epidemiological evidence on adverse effects of Cannabis use . Drug Alcohol Rev . 2010 ; 29 : 318 – 330 . 20565525 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00149.x

102. Gmel G , Kuendig H , Rehm J , et al. Alcohol and Cannabis use as risk factors for injury–a case-crossover analysis in a Swiss hospital emergency department . BMC Public Health . 2009 ; 9 : 40 .101. 19178706 10.1186/1471-2458-9-40 PMC2654886

103. Jones CM , Mack KA , Paulozzi LJ . Pharmaceutical overdose deaths, United States, 2010 . JAMA . 2013 ; 309 : 657 – 659 . 23423407 10.1001/jama.2013.272

104. Adejumo AC , Alliu S , Ajayi TO , et al. Cannabis use is associated with reduced prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a cross-sectional study . PLoS One . 2017 ; 12 : e0176416 . 28441459 10.1371/journal.pone.0176416 PMC5404771

105. Huang Z-F , Zhang Z-F , Tashkin DP , et al. An epidemiologic review of marijuana and cancer: an update . Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev . 2015 ; 24 : 15 – 31 . 25587109 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-1026 PMC4302404

106. Chen AL , Chen TJ , Braverman ER , et al. Hypothesizing that marijuana smokers are at a significantly lower risk of carcinogenicity relative to tobacco-non-marijuana smokers: evidenced based on statistical reevaluation of current literature . J Psychoactive Drugs . 2008 ; 40 : 263 – 272 . 19004418 10.1080/02791072.2008.10400641

107. Gurney J , Shaw C , Stanley J , et al. Cannabis exposure and risk of testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis . BMC Cancer . 2015 ; 15 : 897 . 26560314 10.1186/s12885-015-1905-6 PMC4642772

108. De Carvalho MFF , Dourado MR , Fernandes IB , et al. Head and neck cancer among marijuana users: a meta-analysis of matched case–control studies . Archives Oral Biol . 2015 ; 60 : 1750 – 1755 . 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2015.09.009 26433192

109. Mehra R , Moore BA , Crothers K , et al. The association between marijuana smoking and cancer . A systematic review. Arch Intern Med . 2006 ; 166 : 1359 – 1367 . 16832000 10.1001/archinte.166.13.1359

110. Borki R , Fenane H , Harrak L . Cannabis smoking and risk of lung cancer-A systematic review and meta-analysis . Int J Med Surgery . 2014 ; 1 : 31 – 37 .

111. Shi S , Brant AR , Sabolch A , et al. False news of a Cannabis cancer cure . Cureus . 2019 ; 11 : e3918 . 30931189 10.7759/cureus.3918 PMC6426557

Cite this article as: Clark TM (2020) Scoping review and meta-analysis suggests that Cannabis use may reduce cancer risk in the United States, Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research 6:5, 413–434, DOI: 10.1089/can.2019.0095.

Abbreviations Used

adjusted hazard ratio

adjusted odds ratio

body mass index

cannabinoid receptor type 1

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

confidence interval

diabetes mellitus

endocannabinoid system

head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

human papilloma virus

log of RR data

relative risk

relative risk converted from AOR data

squamous cell carcinoma

Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol