Content uploaded by Francisco Carlos Machado Rocha
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Francisco Carlos Machado Rocha on Mar 09, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Therapeutic use of Cannabis sativa on
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among
cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analysis
F.C. MACHADO ROCHA, msc,phd student,Department of Psychiatry, Paulista School of Medicine, Federal
University of São Paulo, São Paulo, S.C. STÉFANO, phd,psychologist,Department of Psychiatry, Paulista
School of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, R. DE CÁSSIA HAIEK, msc,psychologist,
Department of Psychiatry, Paulista School of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo,
L.M.Q. ROSA OLIVEIRA, student of medicine,Paulista School of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo,
São Paulo, & D.X. DA SILVEIRA, phd,professor,Department of Psychiatry, Paulista School of Medicine,
Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
MACHADO ROCHA F.C., STÉFANO S.C., DE CÁSSIA HAIEK R., ROSA OLIVEIRA L.M.Q. & DA SILVEIRA
D.X. (2008) European Journal of Cancer Care 17, 431–443
Therapeutic use of Cannabis sativa on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among cancer patients:
systematic review and meta-analysis
This paper aims to evaluate the anti-emetic efficacy of cannabinoids in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy
using a systematic review of literature searched within electronic databases such as PUBMED, EMBASE,
PSYCINFO, LILACS, and ‘The Cochrane Collaboration Controlled Trials Register’. Studies chosen were
randomized clinical trials comprising all publications of each database until December 2006. From 12 749
initially identified papers, 30 fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review, with demonstration of superiority
of the anti-emetic efficacy of cannabinoids compared with conventional drugs and placebo. The adverse effects
were more intense and occurred more often among patients who used cannabinoids. Five meta-analyses were
carried out: (1) dronabinol versus placebo [n=185; relative risk (RR) =0.47; confidence interval (CI) =0.19–
1.16]; (2) Dronabinol versus neuroleptics [n=325; RR =0.67; CI =0.47–0.96; number needed to treat
(NNT) =3.4]; (3) nabilone versus neuroleptics (n=277; RR =0.88; CI =0.72–1.08); (4) levonantradol versus
neuroleptics (n=194; RR =0.94; CI =0.75–1.18); and (5) patients’ preference for cannabis or other drugs
(n=1138; RR =0.33; CI =0.24–0.44; NNT =1.8). The superiority of the anti-emetic efficacy of cannabinoids
was demonstrated through meta-analysis.
Keywords: cancer,cannabis,chemotherapy,meta-analysis,randomized clinical trial,systematic review.
INTRODUCTION
Marijuana has been used by throughout human
history for many purposes (Karniol 2000). It was
listed on the American pharmacopoeia until 1944
(Bonnie & Whitebread 1974), when it was removed due to
political pressure to ban its use in the US (Walsh et al.
2003).
Although marijuana has not returned to the American
pharmacopoeia, in 1986 the Food and Drug Administra-
tion authorised the use of its active element, delta-9-
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), for medical purposes (Walsh
et al. 2003) to treat nausea and vomiting side effects in
patients receiving chemotherapy.
Correspondence address: Francisco Carlos Machado Rocha, Rua Joaquim
de Almeida, número 81, Bairro: Mirandópolis, São Paulo, SP, CEP 04050-
010, Brazil (e-mail: franciscocmrocha@uol.com.br).
Accepted 2 November 2007
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2008.00917.x
European Journal of Cancer Care, 2008, 17, 431–443
Review article
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Cannabinoids interact with various neurotransmitters
and neuromodulators, such as gamma-aminobutyric
acid (GABA), histamine, serotonin, dopamine, glutamate,
norepinephrine, prostaglandins and opioid peptides (Gro-
tenhermen 2002b).
Aside from these neurotransmitters, there seems to exist
in the brain a ‘cannabinoid system’ (Karniol 2000). This
system probably interacts with the classic neurotransmis-
sion systems to produce the pharmacological actions of
Cannabis sativa (Pertwee 1990; Adams & Martin 1996;
Mallet & Beninger 1996; Felder & Glass 1998). The exist-
ence of a cannabinoid neurotransmission system in the
central nervous system, the function of which is still
unknown, opens a wide potential for the discovery of
therapeutic drugs with action on it (Karniol 2000).
Nausea and vomiting, which can be ‘acute’, ‘retarded’
or ‘anticipatory’ reactions (Fiori & Gralla 1984), are the
chemotherapy side effects considered by patients as the
most stressful (Barowski 1984). Up to three-fourths of all
cancer patients experience chemotherapy-related emesis
(Schwartzberg 2007). Chemotherapy-induced nausea and
vomiting also have the potential to cause depression,
anxiety and a feeling of helplessness (Wilcox et al. 1982;
Dodds 1985).
Today, there are three synthetic cannabinoid drugs that
have been evaluated in clinical trials for the treatment of
nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy:
delta-9-THC, nabilone and levonantradol (Walsh et al.
2003).
Up until now, two medications, Marinol (dronabinol,
delta-9-THC) and Cesamet (nabilone), have been approved
to be prescribed for nausea and vomiting associated with
chemotherapy in cancer patients. Marinol has also been
approved for use in cases of anorexia and cachexia in AIDS
patients (Grotenhermen 2002a).
This study describes a systematic research for evalua-
tion of cannabis as a therapeutic agent for treating
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer
patients.
OBJECTIVE
This review aims to evaluate, through a systematic litera-
ture review, interventions using C. sativa in the treat-
ment of nausea and vomiting in patients with any type of
cancer receiving chemotherapy, tested in randomized
clinical trials and compared with any type of control
group.
METHODS
Systematic review
Criteria for inclusion in this review
Type of study All randomized clinical trials about the
subject published in the literature were objects for this
study.
Type of participant People with any type of cancer receiv-
ing chemotherapeutic treatment, irrespective of gender,
age and place of treatment. The chemotherapeutic schemes
included those of low, moderate and high emetic potential.
Type of intervention Pharmacological interventions
based on substances derived from C. sativa and/or smoked
cannabis, irrespective of the time of intervention and of
the association with other types of therapy for nausea and
vomiting in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.
Search strategy for study identification
Searches were made on the electronic databases
MEDLINE (PUBMED), EMBASE, PSYCINFO, LILACS and
‘The Cochrane Collaboration Controlled Trials Register’.
The bibliographic search strategy comprised the initial
period of the databases until December 2006. The first
authors of the selected studies were contacted, and the
bibliographies and references of these papers were also
examined. There was no language restriction, but only
complete papers published in peer-reviewed journals were
considered. Data related to other clinical settings (e.g.
radiotherapy) were not considered.
The search expression was based on the following
Medical Subject Heading terms and categories: ‘therapeu-
tics’, ‘drug therapy’, ‘chemical and pharmacologic
phenomena’, ‘neoplasms’, ‘antineoplastic and immuno-
suppressive agents’, ‘marijuana abuse’, ‘Cannabis’, ‘ran-
domized controlled trials’, ‘double-blind method’, ‘single-
blind method’, ‘clinical trials’, ‘placebos’, ‘research
design’, ‘comparative study’, ‘evaluation studies’,
‘follow-up studies’, ‘prospective studies’ and ‘random allo-
cation’. Adjustments were made to the terms used accord-
ing to the electronic database consulted.
Study description
The characteristics of the included studies are shown in
Table 1.
Methodological quality of the included studies
The methodological quality evaluation of the clinical
studies is considered of vital importance for conducting
MACHADO ROCHA et al.
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
432
Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies
Study Methods Participants
Interventions and
therapeutic schedules Outcomes
Chemotherapic
agents
Methodologic
quality
Ahmedzai et al.
(1983)
Randomized, cross-over and
double-blind
Patients with lung cancer
(small cell bronchial
carcinoma)
Nabilone 2 mg ¥2 (27) vs
prochlorperazine 10 mg ¥3 (30)
Nausea, vomiting, anorexia, adverse
effects and preference
Cyclophosphamide, adriamycin,
etoposide, methotrexate, vincristin
B
Chan et al. (1987) Randomized, cross-over and
double-blind
Children with various
paediatric malignancies
Nabilone 1–4 mg (30) vs prochlorperazine
5–20 mg (30)
Vomiting, adverse effects and
preference
Doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide
fluorouracil, methotrexate,
vincristin, etoposide; cisplatin
was not used
B
Chang et al. (1979) Randomized, double-blind and
paired (dronabinol-placebo or
placebo-dronabinol)
Patients with osteogenic
sarcoma
Dronabinol 10 mg/m2 ¥4 (15) vs placebo
(15)
Nausea, vomiting, food intake, adverse
effects and THC plasma avaliation
High dose of methotrexate B
Chang et al. (1981) Randomized, double-blind and
paired (dronabinol-placebo or
placebo-dronabinol)
Patients with sarcoma Dronabinol 10 mg/m2 ¥4 (8) vs placebo
(8)
Nausea, vomiting, adverse effects and
THC plasma avaliation
Combination of doxorubucin and
cyclophosphamide
B
Colls et al. (1980) Randomized, double-blind,
cross-over and multicentric
Patients with solid
tumours
Dronabinol 12 mg/m2 ¥2 (35) vs
metoclopramide 4, 5 mg/m2 ¥1
intravenous (35) vs thiethylperazine 6,
6 mg/m2 ¥3 (35)
Nausea, vomiting and adverse effects Cyclophosphamide, mustine, and
others
B
Crawford and
Buckman (1986)
Randomized, double-blind,
cross-over
Patients with
adenocarcinoma of the
ovary or germ cell
tumours
Nabilone 1 mg ¥5 (37) vs metoclopramide
1 mg/kg ¥5 (39)
Nausea, vomiting, adverse effects and
preference
Cisplatin, cyclophosphamide,
adriamycin, methotrexate,
vincristin, bleomycin
B
Dalzell et al. (1986) Randomized, double-blind,
cross-over
Children with various
tumours
Nabilone 1–3 mg (18) vs domperidone
15–45 mg (18)
Nausea, vomiting, adverse effects and
preference
Cisplatin, cyclophosphamide,
vincristin
B
Einhorn et al. (1981) Randomized, double-blind,
cross-over
Adults with various
tumours
Nabilone 2 mg ¥4 (80) vs
prochlorperazine 10 mg ¥4 (80)
Nausea, vomiting, appetite, adverse
effects and preference
Cisplatin, cyclophosphamide,
bleomycin, vincristin
B
Fritak et al. (1979) Randomized, double-blind
and paralell
Patients with
gastrointestinal
tumours
Dronabinol 15 mg ¥2 (38) vs
prochlorperazine 10 mg ¥2 (41) vs
placebo (37)
Nausea, vomiting and adverse effects Vincristin, doxorubicin,
fluorouracil, and others
A
George et al. (1983) Randomized, double-blind,
double-placebo, and
cross-over
Women with advanced
gynaecological cancer
Nabilone 1 mg ¥3 (18) vs
chlorpromazine 12,5 mg ¥1–2
intramuscular (IM) (18)
Nausea, vomiting, adverse effects
and preference
Cisplatin, cyclophosphamide,
adriamycin
B
Gralla et al. (1984) Randomized, double-blind
and paired (the patients were
exposed to both drugs)
Patients with various
tumours
Dronabinol 10 mg/m2 ¥5 (15)
vs metoclopramide 2 mg/kg ¥5
endovenous (15)
Nausea, vomiting, adverse effects
and ‘high’
High dose cisplatin B
Herman et al. (1979) Randomized, double-blind and
cross-over
Patients with various
tumours
Nabilone 2 mg ¥3–4 (113) vs
prochlorperazine 10 mg ¥3–4 (113)
Nausea, vomiting, adverse effects
and preference
Cisplatin, cyclophosphamide,
vinblastin, bleomycin, and
others
A
Hutcheon et al.
(1983)
Randomized, paralell and
blind
Patients with various
tumours
Levonantradol 0,5 mg ¥3 IM (27) vs
levonantradol 0,75 mg ¥3 IM (28) vs
Levonantradol 1,0 mg ¥3 IM (26) vs
chlorpromazine 25 mg ¥3 IM (27)
Nausea, vomiting, appetite and
adverse effects
Cisplatin, cyclophosphamide,
fluorouracil, vincristin
B
a (0.5 mg) Randomized, paralell and
blind
Patients with various
tumours
Levonantradol 0,5 mg ¥3 IM (27) vs
chlorpromazine 25 mg ¥3 IM (27)
Nausea, vomiting, appetite and
adverse effects
Cisplatin, cyclophosphamide,
fluorouracil, vincristin
B
b (0.75 mg) Randomized, paralell and
blind
Patients with various
tumours
Levonantradol 0,75 mg ¥3 IM (28) vs
chlorpromazine 25 mg ¥3 (27)
Nausea, vomiting, appetite and
adverse effects
Cisplatin, cyclophosphamide,
fluorouracil, vincristin
B
Johansson et al.
(1982)
Randomized, double-blind and
cross-over
Patients with various
tumours
Nabilone 2 mg ¥2 (18) vs prochlorperazine
10 mg ¥2 (18)
Nausea, vomiting, appetite, adverse
effects and preference
Cisplatin (50 mg/m2), adriamycin
(40 mg/m2), cyclophosphamide
(500 mg/m2), vinblastin, vincristin
B
Jones et al. (1982) Randomized, double-blind
and cross-over
Patients with various tumours
(breast, lymphoma, ovary,
lung e others)
Nabilone 2 mg ¥2 (24) vs placebo (24) Nausea, vomiting, adverse effects and
preference
Cisplatin, adriamycin, and others B
Kluin-Neleman et al.
(1979)
Randomized, double-blind
and cross-over
Patients with Hodgkin
and non Hodgkin
lymphomas
Dronabinol 10 mg/m2 ¥2 (11)
vs placebo (11)
Nausea, vomiting, adverse effects and
THC plasma avaliation
MOPP B
Therapeutic use of Cannabis sativa on chemotherapy side effects
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 433
Table 1 Continued
Study Methods Participants
Interventions and
therapeutic schedules Outcomes
Chemotherapic
agents
Methodologic
quality
Lane et al. (1991) Randomized, double-blind,
paralell and multicentric
Patients with various
tumours (breast,
colon, lymphoma,
lung and others)
Dronabinol 10 mg ¥4 (17) vs
prochlorperazine 10 mg ¥4 (20) vs
dronabinol 10 mg ¥4 mais
prochlorperazine 10 mg ¥4 (17)
Nausea, vomiting and adverse effects Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin,
5-fluorouracil, vincristin,
etoposide
B
Levitt (1982) Randomized, double-blind and
cross-over
Patients with various
tumours (lung, ovary,
breast, and others)
Nabilone 2 mg ¥2 (36) vs placebo (36) Nausea, vomiting, appetite, adverse
effects and preference
Cisplatin, adriamycin,
cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil,
methotrexate, vincristin, and
others
B
McCabe et al. (1988) Randomized, comparative
and cross-over
Patients with various
tumours
Dronabinol 15 mg/m2 ¥6 (36) vs
prochlorperazine 10 mg ¥6 (36)
Nausea, vomiting, adverse effects and
preference
Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin,
fluorouracil, vincristin, and others
B
Neidhart et al. (1981) Randomized, double-blind and
cross-over
Patients with various
tumours
Dronabinol 10 mg ¥4 (average) (37) vs
haloperidol 2 mg ¥5 (average) (36)
Nausea, vomiting, adverse effects and
preference
Cisplatin, adriamycin, and others A
Niederle et al. (1986) Randomized and cross-over Patients with
nonseminomatous
testicular cancer
Nabilone 2 mg ¥2 (20) vs alizapride
150 mg ¥3 (20)
Nausea, vomiting, appetite, adverse
effects and preference
Low dose cisplatin and adriamycin B
Niiranen and
Mattson (1985)
Randomized, double-blind and
cross-over
Patients with lung cancer Nabilone 1 mg ¥2 (24) vs prochlorperazine
7,5 mg ¥2 (24)
Nausea, vomiting, appetite, adverse
effects and preference
Cisplatin, cyclophosphamide,
adriamycin, vincristin,
vindesine e etoposide
A
Orr and McKernan
(1980)
Randomized, double-blind and
cross-over
Patients with various
tumours
Dronabinol 7 mg/m2 ¥4 (55) vs
prochlorperazine 7 mg/m2 ¥4 (55) vs
placebo (55)
Nausea, vomiting and adverse effects Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin,
fluorouracil, and others
B
Pomeroy et al. (1986) Randomized, double-blind and
paralell
Patients with various
tumours
Nabilone 1 mg ¥3 (19) vs domperidone
20 mg ¥3 (19)
Nausea, vomiting, appetite and
adverse effects
Cisplatin in 70%, adriamycin in
19%, and others
B
Sallan et al. (1975) Randomized, double-blind and
paired (the patients were
exposed to both drugs)
Patients with various
tumours
Dronabinol 15 mg or 10 mg/m2 ¥3 (20) vs
placebo (20)
Nausea, vomiting, appetite and adverse
effects
Various agents B
Sallan et al. (1980) Randomized, double-blind and
cross-over
Patients with various
tumours
Dronabinol 15 mg or 10 mg/m2 ¥3 (73) vs
prochlorperazine 10 mg ¥3 (73)
Nausea, vomiting, appetite, development
of ‘high’ and preference
Cisplatin, cyclophosphamide,
methotrexate, and others
B
Sheidler et al. (1984) Randomized, double-blind and
cross-over
Patients with various kinds of
cancer (solid tumours and
haematologic malignancies)
Levonantradol 1,0 mg ¥3 IM (16) vs
prochlorperazine 10 mg ¥3 IM (16)
Nausea, vomiting, adverse effects and
preference
High doses cisplatin,
cyclophosphamide and/or
adriamycin
A
Steele et al. (1980) Randomized, double-blind and
cross-over
Patients with various
tumours
Nabilone 2 mg ¥2 (37) vs prochlorperazine
10 mg ¥2 (37)
Nausea, vomiting, adverse effects and
preference
High doses cisplatin, low doses
cisplatin, mechlorethamine,
streptozotocin, actinomycin D,
or DTIC
B
Ungerleider et al.
(1982)
Randomized, double-blind and
paired (the patients were
exposed to both drugs)
Patients with various
tumours (carcinomas,
sarcomas, lymphomas, and
others)
Dronabinol 7,5–12,5 mg ¥3 (181) vs
prochlorperazine 10 mg ¥3 (172)
Nausea, vomiting, Nausea, vomiting,
appetite, mood, anxiety,
concentration, activity, interaction,
adverse effects and preference
Various agents: 66% with high
emetic potencial; 27% with
moderate; and 7% with
low emetic potencial
A
Wada et al. (1982) Randomized, double-blind and
cross-over
Patients with various
tumours
Nabilone 2 mg ¥2 (84) vs placebo (84) Nausea, vomiting, adverse effects and
preference
Cisplatin, adriamycin B
MACHADO ROCHA et al.
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
434
systematic reviews and for searching the best available
evidence of the therapeutic effect of an intervention. The
critical evaluation of each clinical trial to be included in a
systematic review is vital to limit potential biases or sys-
tematic errors, to help possible comparisons to be made,
and to serve as a guide to the interpretation of the final
findings (Mulrow & Oxman 1997). This is made through a
careful analysis of the random distribution processes as
well as through verification of how individuals who left
the study before it ended were treated by the statistical
analysis (treatment intention analysis). In a meta-analysis,
the double-blind follow-up and the treatment intention
analysis are fundamental to reduce the so-called confusing
factors of results.
Considering the importance of the methodological
quality evaluation of the included studies, the criteria
used were those described by Mulrow and Oxman (1997)
and the Jadad Scale (Jadad et al. 1996). Two independent
reviewers evaluated the quality of the included studies
(FCMR and SCS).
The trials included in this review were rated as quality
A or B according to the randomization procedure of allo-
cation concealment, following the Cochrane Collabora-
tion Manual for methodological quality evaluation
(Mulrow & Oxman 1997). They are as follows:
A ‘Low risk of bias’. Adequate allocation concealment
(e.g. central computer-generated randomisation).
B ‘Moderate bias risk’. Unclear or doubtful allocation
concealment.
C ‘High bias risk’. Inadequate allocation concealment
(e.g. the use of alternate numbers, date of birth, etc.).
RESULTS
Using the search strategy, we identified 12 749 papers.
Their titles were scanned to exclude papers that did not
satisfy the objectives of this review. A total of 735 abstracts
were evaluated in detail. Most of them were excluded
because they did not satisfy the objectives of this review.
Finally, 96 complete papers were analysed. Thirty random-
ized clinical trials using C. sativa to treat chemotherapy-
induced nausea and vomiting were identified.
Most studies used a ‘cross-over’ design, although Fritak
et al. (1979), Hutcheon et al. (1983), Pomeroy et al. (1986)
and Lane et al. (1991) used ‘parallel’ design studies.
In the individual studies, the size of most samples was
small: 17 studies had fewer than 50 patients, seven
studies had between 50 and 100 patients, and only six
studies had 100 patients or more. In total, the studies
included 1 719 patients who had different types of
cancer, were of different ages and receiving different
types of chemotherapeutic agents. Many studies used
some form of standard design (mostly the ‘cross-over’
ones); however, since the studies were reviewed over a
long period of time, there was considerable variation in
their designs.
In many studies, the dose of anti-emetic medication was
adjusted during the research, either to increase its efficacy
or to reduce the side effects. There were also studies
wherein the protocol allowed the administration of an
anti-emetic other than the studied drugs to patients who
required them or who presented with unbearable nausea
and vomiting.
Of the 30 studies included in the systematic review, 17
were excluded from the meta-analysis on the anti-emetic
efficacy due to a number of reasons (see Table 2).
Finally, it was possible to include in this meta-analysis
data related to 13 randomized clinical trials on the use of
cannabis for treating nausea and vomiting in cancer
patients receiving chemotherapy (total anti-emetic effi-
cacy). Eighteen clinical trials were included for the
outcome ‘preference for one of the study drugs’.
All studies included in this meta-analysis, except three
(Niederle et al. 1986, which used alizapride; Hutcheon
et al. 1983, which used chlorpromazine; and Dalzell
et al. 1986, which used domperidone) compared cannabis
with prochlorperazine, a neuroleptic, as the control drug.
Thirty-one papers were excluded for failing to meet the
study criteria (Appendix 1).
The category shown in Figure 1 comprises two studies.
In terms of anti-emetic efficacy, there was not a statisti-
cally significant difference in favour of dronabinol [n=
185; relative risk (RR) =0.47; confidence interval (CI) =
0.19–1.16; P=0.10].
The category shown in Figure 2 comprises five studies.
In terms of anti-emetic efficacy, there was a statistically
significant difference in favour of dronabinol [n=325;
RR =0.67; CI =0.47–0.96; P=0.03; number needed to
treat (NNT) =3.4].
The category shown in Figure 3 comprised six studies.
In terms of anti-emetic efficacy, there was not a statisti-
cally significant difference in favour of nabilone (n=277;
RR =0.88; CI =0.72–1.08; P=0.21).
The category shown in Figure 4 comprised two studies.
One of them allowed three comparisons: three different
doses of levonantradol (0.5 mg, 0.75 mg and 1.0 mg) were
compared with a neuroleptic (Hutcheon et al. 1983). In
terms of anti-emetic efficacy, there was not a statistically
significant difference in favour of levonantradol (n=194;
RR =0.94; CI =0.75–1.18; P=0.60).
The category shown in Figure 5 comprised 18 studies. In
terms of preference for one of the drugs, there was a
Therapeutic use of Cannabis sativa on chemotherapy side effects
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 435
statistically significant difference in favour of the Can-
nabis components (n=1138; RR =0.33; CI =0.24–0.44;
P<0.00001; NNT =1.8).
Figure 6 shows the ‘Funnel Plot’ of the risk difference
versus the sample size. It shows some measure of symme-
try and normal distribution (Gaussian), suggesting that
there is no systematic error (bias) due to paper omission
generated by languages other than English, multiplicity
of issues generated by a single study, poor methodology,
inaccurate analysis or fraud. Also, the absence of perfect
symmetry suggests clinical and methodological heteroge-
neity inherent to the execution of the trials by different
Table 2. Studies excluded from the meta-analysis (outcome: total anti-emetic efficacy)
Number of studies Reasons Articles
2 studies The studies exposed dichotomic data on the total anti-emetic
efficacy via number of chemotherapy sequences, not
number of patients.
Neidhart et al. (1981); Sallan et al. (1975)
3 studies The studies exposed dichotomic data on the partial anti-emetic
efficacy, not total.
Jones et al. (1982); Levitt (1982); Wada et al.
(1982)
1 study The period analysed was 5 days, while the other meta-analysis
studies evaluated the acute anti-emetic efficacy during a
period of up to 24 h.
Herman et al. (1979)
2 studies Did not present dichotomic data on the total anti-emetic
efficacy;
Compared equal outcomes, the different variable being the
chemotherapeutic drug used.
Chang et al. (1979); *1981
9 studies Failed to present dichotomic data on the total anti-emetic
efficacy.
Pomeroy et al. (1986); George et al. (1983);
Colls (1980); Crawford and Buckman (1986);
Einhorn et al. (1981); Steele et al. (1980);
Gralla et al. (1984); Ungerleider et al. (1982);
Kluin-Neleman et al. (1979).
Review: Revisão Sistemática da Literatura Sobre o Uso Terapêutico da Cannabis no Tratamento dos Efeitos Colaterais de Náusea e V ômito em Pacientes com Câncer Submetidos à Quimioterapia
Comparison: 03 Eficácia: drona binol (delta-9-THC) versus placebo
Outcome: 01 Pacientes que apresentaram náusea e/ou vômitos no período de até 24 horas depois da quimioterapia.
)modnar(RRthgieW)modnar(RRobecalp)CHT(lonibanordydutS
IC%59%IC%59N/nN/nyrogetac-busro
Frytak 1979 22/38 30/37 51.44 0.71 [0.52, 0.98]
Orr 1980 15/55 50/55 48.56 0.30 [0.19, 0.47]
Total (95% CI) 93 92 100.00 0.47 [0.19, 1.16]
Total events: 37 (dronabinol (THC)), 80 (placebo)
Test for heterogeneity: Chi² = 11.37, df = 1 (P = 0.0007), I² = 91.2%
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.63 (P = 0.10)
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
Favours treatment Favours control
Figure 1. Dronabinol (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) versus placebo.
Review: Revisão Sistemática da Literatura Sobre o Uso Terapêutico da Cannabis no Tratamento dos Efeitos Colaterais de Náusea e V ômito em Pacientes com Câncer Submetidos à Quimioterapia
Comparison: 04 Eficácia: drona binol (delta-9-THC) versus neurolépticos (5 estudos com Prochlorperazine)
Outcome: 01 Pacientes que apresentaram náusea e/ou vômitos no período de até 24 horas depois da quimioterapia
)modnar(RRthgieW)modnar(RRsocitpéloruen)CHT(lonibanordydutS
IC%59%IC%59N/nN/nyrogetac-busro
Frytak 1979 22/38 24/41 20.46 0.99 [0.68, 1.44]
Orr 1980 15/55 47/55 18.68 0.32 [0.20, 0.50]
Sallan 1980 9/15 11/12 18.63 0.65 [0.42, 1.02]
McCabe 1988 27/36 36/36 24.67 0.75 [0.62, 0.91]
Lane 1991 10/17 14/20 17.57 0.84 [0.51, 1.37]
Total (95% CI) 161 164 100.00 0.67 [0.47, 0.96]
Total events: 83 (dronabinol (THC)), 132 (neurolépticos)
Test for heterogeneity: Chi² = 18.65, df = 4 (P = 0.0009), I² = 78.6%
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.20 (P = 0.03)
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
Favours treatment Favours control
Figure 2. Dronabinol (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) versus neuroleptics.
MACHADO ROCHA et al.
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
436
Review: Revisão Sistemática da Literatura Sobre o Uso Terapêutico da Cannabis no Tratamento dos Efeitos Colaterais de Náusea e V ômito em Pacientes com Câncer Submetidos à Quimioterapia
Comparison: 02 Eficácia: Nabilone versus neurolépticos (4 estudos com Prochlorperazine, 1 com Alizapride e 1 com Domperido
Outcome: 01 Pacientes que apresentaram náusea e/ou vômitos no período de até 24 horas depois da quimioterapia
)modnar(RRthgieW)modnar(RRsocitpélorueNenolibaNydutS
IC%59%IC%59N/nN/nyrogetac-busro
Johansson 1982 15/18 18/18 25.03 0.83 [0.68, 1.02]
Ahmedzai 1983 8/27 19/30 7.48 0.47 [0.25, 0.89]
Niiranen 1985 21/24 19/24 21.93 1.11 [0.86, 1.43]
Dalzell 1986 elbamitsetoN81/8181/81
Niederle 1986 14/20 18/20 18.04 0.78 [0.56, 1.07]
Chan 1987 27/30 27/30 27.52 1.00 [0.84, 1.18]
Total (95% CI) 137 140 100.00 0.88 [0.72, 1.08]
Total events: 103 (Nabilone), 119 (Neurolépticos)
Test for heterogeneity: Chi² = 11.04, df = 4 (P = 0.03), I² = 63.8%
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.24 (P = 0.21)
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
Favours treatment Favours control
Figure 3. Nabilone versus neuroleptics.
Review: Revisão Sistemática da Literatura Sobre o Uso Terapêutico da Cannabis no Tratamento dos Efeitos Colaterais de Náusea e Vômito em Pacientes com Câncer Submetidos à Quimioterapia
Comparison: 01 Preferência: Cannabis versus qualquer controle
Outcome: 01 Número de pacientes, por grupo de tratamento, que não preferiu Cannabis ou Controle
)modnar(RRthgieW)modnar(RRelortnoCsibannaCydutS
IC%59%IC%59N/nN/nyrogetac-busro
Herman 1979 18/103 85/103 8.10 0.21 [0.14, 0.33]
Sallan 1980 5/25 20/25 5.67 0.25 [0.11, 0.56]
Steele 1980 10/33 23/33 7.22 0.43 [0.25, 0.76]
Einhorn 1981 17/77 60/77 8.06 0.28 [0.18, 0.44]
Neidhart 1981 6/13 7/13 5.88 0.86 [0.40, 1.86]
Johansson 1982 3/16 13/16 4.42 0.23 [0.08, 0.66]
Jones 1982 2/18 16/18 3.35 0.13 [0.03, 0.47]
Levitt 1982 3/31 28/31 4.26 0.11 [0.04, 0.32]
Wada 1982 20/84 64/84 8.28 0.31 [0.21, 0.47]
Ahmedzai 1983 3/19 16/19 4.37 0.19 [0.07, 0.54]
George 1983 5/15 10/15 5.72 0.50 [0.22, 1.11]
Sheidler 1984 5/12 7/12 5.58 0.71 [0.31, 1.63]
Niiranen 1985 6/22 16/22 6.15 0.38 [0.18, 0.78]
Crawford 1986 10/22 12/22 7.01 0.83 [0.46, 1.51]
Dalzell 1986 1/13 12/13 1.98 0.08 [0.01, 0.55]
Niederle 1986 7/17 10/17 6.37 0.70 [0.35, 1.40]
Chan 1987 5/25 20/25 5.67 0.25 [0.11, 0.56]
McCabe 1988 1/24 23/24 1.93 0.04 [0.01, 0.30]
Total (95% CI) 569 569 100.00 0.33 [0.24, 0.44]
Total events: 127 (Cannabis), 442 (Controle)
Test for heterogeneity: Chi² = 48.64, df = 17 (P < 0.0001), I² = 65.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 7.36 (P < 0.00001)
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
Favours treatment Favours control
Figure 5. Preference for cannabis or control.
Review: Revisão Sistemática da Literatura Sobre o Uso Terapêutico da Cannabis no Tratamento dos Efeitos Colaterais de Náusea e V ômito em Pacientes com Câncer Submetidos à Quimioterapia
Comparison: 05 Eficácia: Levonantradol versus Neurolépticos (1 estudo com Prochlorperazine e 1 estudo com Chlorpromazine)
Outcome: 01 Pacientes que apresentaram náusea e/ou vômitos no período de até 24 horas depois da quimioterapia
)modnar(RRthgieW)modnar(RRsocitpélorueNlodardnanoveLydutS
IC%59%IC%59N/nN/nyrogetac-busro
Hutcheon 1983 13/26 18/27 17.33 0.75 [0.47, 1.20]
Hutcheon a (0,5 mg) 13/27 18/27 17.02 0.72 [0.45, 1.16]
Hutcheon b (0,75 mg) 20/28 18/27 25.28 1.07 [0.75, 1.53]
Sheidler 1984 15/16 14/16 40.38 1.07 [0.86, 1.34]
Total (95% CI) 97 97 100.00 0.94 [0.75, 1.18]
Total events: 61 (Levonandradol), 68 (Neurolépticos)
Test for heterogeneity: Chi² = 4.78, df = 3 (P = 0.19), I² = 37.3%
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.52 (P = 0.60)
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
Favours treatment Favours control
Figure 4. Levonantradol versus neuroleptics.
Therapeutic use of Cannabis sativa on chemotherapy side effects
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 437
authors, in different geographical regions and dealing with
methodological and clinical peculiarities.
DISCUSSION
Using the statistical model of ‘random effect’, the meta-
analysis shows that dronabinol cannabinoid had a better
acute anti-emetic efficacy (remission) than conventional
anti-emetic drugs on cancer patients treated with poten-
tially emesis-inducing chemotherapeutic agents. Cannab-
inoids nabilone and levonantradol did not have superior
acute anti-emetic efficacy when compared with the
conventional anti-emetics in the studies included in
this meta-analysis (statistically significant difference).
However, they had a clinically significant difference
towards the intervention. These results must be consid-
ered with caution due to the small number of studies and
the small patient sample of each study.
Compared with placebo, dronabinol was not more effec-
tive in the total remission of nausea and/or vomiting
(random statistical model), although due to ethical con-
siderations, placebo should not be used for patients receiv-
ing chemotherapy.
In terms of partial improvement of nausea and/or vom-
iting, the random studies in this systematic review of data
on the frequency of vomiting episodes and severity of
nausea show that cannabinoids apparently had a better
anti-emetic efficacy than conventional drugs when used
in cancer patients who underwent chemotherapy using
potentially emetic-inducing agents. However, the absence
of data on the standard deviation in most studies makes
this an arguable conclusion.
On the other hand, side effects (described below)
occurred more frequently and more intensely in patients
who used cannabinoids than in those who used control
drugs.
The ‘intention to treat’ analysis was carried out for the
majority of the studies. The side-effects analysis included
the patients who abandoned the study before completion
and therefore were not evaluated for anti-emetic efficacy.
It was not possible to establish a dose–response relation-
ship for there was insufficient data quality in the original
papers on this aspect. In some studies, the dose was
adjusted during the study itself, either to attain a possible
efficacy enhancement or to reduce the unwanted side
effects.
The relationship described between the cannabinoid
plasma concentration and its therapeutic effect was not
clearly examined in the studies. In one study, the anti-
emetic efficacy was related to the THC plasma concentra-
tion. In another study, there was no correlation between
the THC plasma levels and the efficacy or the side effects.
In terms of medication safety, the systematic review
showed that the cannabinoids were toxic for some
patients even when the drugs were given orally and their
use restricted (for 24 h). Some side effects occurred almost
exclusively in patients who were exposed to the cannab-
inoid agents: 5% presented with paranoid delusions, 6%
presented with hallucinations, and almost 13% presented
with dysphoria and/or depression. The number of patients
who left the study due to the occurrence of cannabinoid
side effects is the main parameter of the eventual toxicity
related to this substance.
During this review, it was observed that although the
patients showed a higher number of collateral effects as
well as a higher symptom intensity during the treatment
with cannabinoids, most dropouts were not due to pos-
sible cannabinoid toxicity. These dropouts were respon-
sible for almost 30% of the nearly 400 dropouts in all the
studies included. The other reasons for dropping out were
condition evolution, change of the chemotherapeutic
strategy during the study, death due to cancer, protocol
violation, use of concomitant anti-emetic medication,
inadequate data and low efficacy using two drugs.
However, some side effects such as ‘high’ sensation,
sleepiness, sedation and euphoria, which were more fre-
quent when cannabinoids were used, would be potentially
‘beneficial’ for most patients; in other words, they would
be pleasant during the chemotherapeutic treatment
(Tramèr et al. 2001).
In the double-blind and cross-over studies included in
this review, most patients preferred the cannabis-based
treatment when asked about their preferred drug. This
preference was significant in relation to the control drugs
(prochlorperazine, chlorpromazine, domperidone, halo-
Preference
0
50
100
150
200
250
-1 -0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0
Risk Difference
Sample Size
N
Figure 6. ‘Funnel plot’ of the risk difference versus sample size.
MACHADO ROCHA et al.
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
438
peridol, alizapride, metoclopramide, placebo) used in the
studies. From this preference, it can be hypothesized that
because nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy have
such important impact and cause such discomfort to the
patients, the patients prefer the cannabis side effects
instead of the conventional anti-emetic medications that
have lower efficacy.
In this review, it is important to consider some limita-
tions because some analyses potentially overrate the can-
nabinoids’ efficacy and underrate their damage.
According to the Cochrane Manual, the studies were of
acceptable quality. Of all selected studies, 70% presented a
proper mask method description. Most cross-over studies
used a ‘double dummy’ design. The psychological effect of
smoking a C. sativa cigarette was not an analysed factor
since cannabis was given via orally ingested capsules.
However, the cannabinoids presented specific collateral
effects, which were not presented by the control drugs,
and these factors presented a high incidence. In a study on
orally given nabilone, many patients identified which
drug they had received because of the collateral effects
experienced. In a series of 100 blinded treatment interven-
tions using THC and placebo, the nurses identified the
active drugs in 85% of the cases and the patients in 95%
of the cases (Tramèr et al. 2001). Such high values allow
us to hypothesise that there was some bias on the part of
the observer in these studies.
Some studies selected groups of patients who had not
responded to the anti-emetic treatment with conven-
tional drugs in previous chemotherapy cycles. This could
have introduced among the patients a bias in favour of
cannabis and against the drugs they knew they were
refractory to.
Some studies selected groups of patients with a previous
history of smoking cannabis. In a study by Vinciguerra
et al. (1988), it was claimed that young people with previ-
ous exposure to marijuana were predisposed to better anti-
emetic efficacy. However, it is not clear whether this
factor alone was a bias. There are a few studies similar to
this situation, and in one of them, the patients who had no
previous history of cannabis use demonstrated better effi-
cacy when compared with the other group (Ungerleider
et al. 1982).
The sample size can also be a source of criticism of the
results of the studies. Of the 30 studies included in this
review, 13 had more than 50 patients included, and only six
had more than 100 patients. However, of the studies with
numbers of patients available for analysis of anti-emetic
efficacy, only nine had more than 50 patients analysed, and
only four included more than 100 patients. Small samples
have already shown an overrating of the effect under other
circumstances (Moore et al. 1998), and this result tendency
may have been repeated in this analysis.
Today, two anti-emetics that are prescribed demon-
strate good efficacy in reducing acute emesis: selective
antagonists for 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) receptor and
protachykinin (NK1) receptor. The latter retards vomiting
caused by chemotherapy with high emesis-inducing
potential (Olver 2004).
During the 1990s, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist combined
with dexamethasone became the gold standard in acute
emesis prophylaxis caused by chemotherapy (MASCC
1998). However, if there is failure to respond or there is an
increase in emesis, this cannot be corrected by an increase
in dosage or frequency of administration. It seems that
other receptor mechanisms may be involved (Tattersall
et al. 1994; Herstedt 1996). Besides, in cases of delayed
emesis (from the second day onwards), the above combi-
nation rarely obtains 50% of the desired effect (Kris et al.
1985; Olver et al. 1996).
Nowadays, the anti-emetic indications for chemo-
therapy with high emesis-inducing potential are 5-HT3
receptor antagonists, dexamethasone and aprepitant
during the acute emetic phase, and aprepitant and dexam-
ethasone (for two more days) during the delayed emesis
phase (Olver 2004). According to Walsh et al. (2003), can-
nabinoids are fourth-line agents to be considered when
dealing with nausea and vomiting.
Some agents consider that when compared with modern
anti-emetics, cannabinoids are ‘only’ modestly effective
and because of this more research on cannabinoids would
be indispensable.
However, cannabinoids seem to act through different
mechanisms and can be effective for people who respond in
an unsatisfactory way to the anti-emetic drugs used today.
There are at least two types of cannabinoid receptors,
CB1 and CB2, to which potent and selective antagonists
have been developed. The blockage of CB1 cannabinoid
receptors induces vomiting, suggesting the existence of an
endogenous cannabinoid system within the emetic cir-
cuits. This also suggests that the delta-9-THC anti-emetic
activity would be due to the stimulation of the CB1 recep-
tor (Darmani 2001).
Besides, delta-9-THC and its synthetic analogues (CP
55, 940 and WIN 55, 212–2) were able to prevent the
inducing of this condition. However, it is not yet known
whether the cannabinoid receptor antagonist can override
or oppose the delta-9-THC capability of preventing vom-
iting caused by cisplatin chemotherapeutic agents.
Ferrari et al. (1999)reported that a number of cannab-
inoids (delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, 7-hydroxy-delta-9-
THC, nabilone, HU 210) seem to be effective in
Therapeutic use of Cannabis sativa on chemotherapy side effects
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 439
preventing vomiting induced by cisplatin or apomorfin in
cats and pigeons (Darmani 2001).
No clinical trials in humans comparing the action of
cannabinoids with modern anti-emetics for nausea and/or
vomiting in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy were
found.
Today, cannabinoids alone would not be used as first-line
medication for treating nausea and vomiting, but they
seem promising because they have an auxiliary anti-emetic
mechanism. The drugs’ efficacy can be higher when com-
bined with other anti-emetic drugs than when each drug is
used alone. Because the cannabinoids’ mechanism is dif-
ferent from other medications, they can benefit refractory
patients or be used as auxiliaries to enhance the effect of
existent anti-emetic medications if it is confirmed that the
synergy among cannabinoids, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist
and dexamethasone is similar to the synergy observed
among cannabinoids and prochlorperazine.
Thus, smaller doses of cannabinoids in combination
with modern anti-emetic medications might eventually
not only enhance the anti-emetic efficacy, but also reduce
the cannabinoids’ collateral effects observed in this review.
Recent findings on cannabinoids and endocannabinoids
receptors have opened a new era in research on their
physiological and pharmacological uses, as well as
research on the cannabinoids’ molecular bases (Walsh
et al. 2003). This information could help develop new
synthetic cannabinoid antagonists for possible therapeutic
use and could separate the desired effects from the
unwanted ones (Pertwee 1999a,b).
CONCLUSIONS
1 The cannabinoid dronabinol had an anti-emetic effi-
cacy superior to neuroleptics for cancer patients receiv-
ing chemotherapy.
2 Although there was not a statistically significant dif-
ference between the cannabinoid dronabinol and
placebo for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, a
clinically significant difference in favour of dronabinol
was observed.
3 Although there was not a statistically significant dif-
ference between the cannabinoid nabilone and neuro-
leptics in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, a
clinically significant difference in favour of nabilone
was observed.
4 Although there was not a statistically significant dif-
ference between the cannabinoid levonantradol and
neuroleptics in cancer patients receiving chemo-
therapy, a clinically significant difference in favour of
levonantradol was observed.
5 The number of dropouts from studies due to unbearable
collateral effects was significantly higher for patients
who used cannabinoids. These dropouts were respon-
sible for approximately one-third of the dropouts for all
studies included in the systematic review.
6 Most dropouts occurred due to other causes than the
collateral effects of the cannabinoids.
7 Patients showed a clear preference for cannabinoids as
anti-emetic medication when receiving chemotherapy.
8. Possible use of cannabinoids to treat chemotherapy-
induced nausea and vomiting.
9. This study demonstrates the need for further work
to evaluate the use of cannabinoids and modern
anti-emetics.
POTENTIAL INTERESTS CONFLICT
This paper has no conflict of interests.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Coordination of Improvement of People of Higher Level
(CAPES) and Cochrane Center of Brazil.
REFERENCES
Abrahamov A., Abrahamov A. & Mechoulam R. (1995) An effi-
cient new cannabinoid anti-emetic in pediatric oncology. Life
Sciences 56, 2097–2102.
Adams I.B. & Martin B.R. (1996) Cannabis: pharmacology and
toxicology in animals and humans. Addiction 91, 1585–1614.
Ahmedzai S., Carlyle D.L., Calder I.T. & Moran F. (1983) Anti-
emetic efficacy and toxicity of nabilone, a synthetic cannab-
inoid, in lung cancer chemotherapy. British Journal of Cancer
48, 657–663.
Anti-emetic Subcommitee of the Multinational Association of
Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) (1998) Prevention of
chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced emesis: results of the
Perugia Consensus Conference. Annals of Oncology 9, 1022–
1029.
Barowski M.T. (1984) Advances in anti-emetic therapy. Cancer
Treatment Reviews 11, 237–256.
Bonnie R.J. & Whitebread C.H., I.I. (1974) The Marijuana Con-
viction: A History of Marijuana Prohibition in the United
States. University Press of Virginia, Charlottsville, VA, USA.
Chan H.S., Correia J.A. & MacLeod S.M. (1987) Nabilone versus
prochlorperazine for control of cancer chemotherapy-induced
emesis in children: a double-blind, crossover trial. Pediatrics
79, 946–952.
Chang A.E., Shiling D.J., Stillman R.C., Goldberg N.H., Seipp
C.A., Barofsky I. et al. (1979) Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol as
an antiemetic in cancer patients receiving high-dose methotr-
exate. A prospective, randomized evaluation. Annals of Inter-
nal Medicine 91, 819–824.
Chang A.E., Shiling D.J., Stillman R.C., Goldberg N.H., Seipp
C.A., Barofsky I. et al. (1981) A prospective evaluation of delta-
9-tetrahydrocannabinol as an antiemetic in patients receiving
adriamycin and cytoxan chemotherapy. Cancer 47, 1746–1751.
MACHADO ROCHA et al.
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
440
Citron M.L., Herman T.S., Vreeland K., Krasnow S.H., Fossieck
B.E., JrHarwood S., Franklin R. & Cohen M.H. (1985)
Antiemetic efficacy of levonantradol compared to delta-9-
tetrahydrocannabinol for chemotherapy-induced nausea and
vomiting. Cancer Treatment Report 69, 109–112.
Colls B.M. (1980) Cannabis and cancer chemotherapy. Lancet i,
1187–1188.
Colls B.M., Ferry D.G., Gray A.J., Harvey V.J. & McQueen E.G.
(1980) The antiemetic activity of tetrahydrocannabinol versus
metoclopramide and thiethylperazine in patients undergoing
cancer chemotherapy. The New Zealand Medical Journal 91,
449–451.
Cone L.A., Greene D.S. & Helm N.A. (1982) Use of nabilone in
the treatment of chemotherapy-induced vomiting in an
outpatient setting. Cancer Treatment Reviews 9(Suppl. B),
63–70.
Crawford S.M. & Buckman R. (1986) Nabilone and metoclopra-
mide in the treatment of nausea and vomiting due to cisplati-
nun: a double blind study. Medical Oncology and Tumor
Pharmacotherapy 3, 39–42.
Cronin C.M., Sallan S.E., Gelber R., Lucas V.S. & Laszlo J. (1981)
Anti-emetic effect of intramuscular levonantradol in patients
receiving anticancer chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Phar-
macology 21, 43S–50S.
Cunningham D., Forrest G.J., Soukop M., Gilchrest N.L. &
Calder I.T. (1985) Nabilone and prochlorperazine: a useful com-
bination for emesis induced by cytotoxic drugs. British Medical
Journal 291, 864–865.
Cunningham D., Bradley C.J., Forrest G.J., Hutcheon A.W.,
Adams L., Sneddon M., Harding M., Herr D.J., Soukop M. &
Kaye S.B. (1988) A randomised trial of oral nabilone and
prochlorperazine compared to intravenous metoclopramide
and dexamethasone in the treatment of nausea and vomiting
induced by chemotherapy regimens containing cisplatin or cis-
platin analogues. European Journal of Cancer Clinical Oncol-
ogy 24, 685–689.
Dalzell A.M., Bartlett H. & Lilleyman J.S. (1986) Nabilone: an
alternative anti-emetic for cancer chemotherapy. Archives of
Disease in Childhood 61, 502–505.
Darmani N.A. (2001) Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol and syn-
thetic cannabinoids prevent emesis produced by the cannab-
inoid CB (1) receptor antagonist/inverse agonist SR 141716A.
Neuropsychopharmacology 24, 198–203.
Devine M.L., Dow G.J., Greenberg B.R., Holsten D.W., Icaza L.,
Jue P.Y., Meyers F.H., O’Brien E., Roberts C.M., Rocchio G.L.,
Stanton W. & Wesson D.R. (1987) Adverse reactions to delta-
9-tetrahydrocannabinol given as an antiemetic in a multicenter
study. Clinical Pharmacology 6, 319–322.
Diasio R.B., Ettinger D.S. & Satterwhite B.E. (1981) Oral levo-
nantradol in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis:
preliminary observations. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 21,
81S–5S.
Dodds L.J. (1985) The control of cancer chemotherapy-induced
nausea and vomiting. Journal of Clinical Hospital Pharmacol-
ogy 10, 143–166.
Einhorn L. (1982) Nabilone: an effective anti-emetic agent in
patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Treatment
Reviews 9, 55–61.
Einhorn L.H., Nagy C., Furnas B. & Williams S.D. (1981)
Nabilone: an effective antiemetic in patients receiving cancer
chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 21, 64–
69S.
Ekert H., Waters D., Jurk I.H., Mobilia J. & Loughnan P. (1979)
Amelioration of cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea and
vomiting by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Medical Journal of
Australia 2, 657–659.
Felder C.C. & Glass M. (1998) Cannabinoid receptors and their
endogenous agonists. Annual Review of Pharmacology and
Toxicology 38, 179–200.
Ferrari F., Ottani A. & Giuliani D. (1999) Cannabimimetic activ-
ity in rats and pigeons of HU 210, a potent antiemetic drug.
Pharmacological, Biochemistry and Behavior 62, 75–80.
Fiori J.J. & Gralla R.J. (1984) Pharmacologic treatment of
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Cancer Investi-
gation 2, 351–361.
Fritak S., Moertel C.G.O., Fallon J.R., Rubin J. & Creagan E.T.
(1979) Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol as an antiemetic for
patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. A comparison with
prochlorperazine and a placebo. Annals of Internal Medicine
91, 825–830.
Garb S., Beers A.L., Bograd M., McMahon R.T., Mangalik A.,
Ashmann A.C. & Lenine S. (1980) Two-pronged study of tet-
rahydrocannabinol (THC) prevention of vomiting from cancer
chemotherapy. IRCS Medical Science 8, 203–204.
George M., Pejovic M.H., Thuaire M., Kramar A. & Wolff J.P.
(1983) Randomised comparative trial of a new anti-emetic:
nabilone, in cancer patients treated with cisplatin. Biomedi-
cine and Pharmacotherapy 37, 24–27.
Gilbert C.J., Ohly K.V., Rosner G. & Peters W.P. (1995) Ran-
domised, double-blind comparison of a prochlorperazine-based
versus a metoclopramide-based anti-emetic regimen in patients
undergoing autologous bone marrow transplantation. Cancer
76, 2330–2337.
Gralla R.J., Tyson L.B., Bordin L.A., Clark R.A., Kelsen D.P., Kris
M.G. et al. (1984) Anti-emetic therapy: a review of recent
studies and a report of a random assignment trial comparing
metoclopramide with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Cancer
Treatment Report 68, 163–172.
Grotenhermen F. (2002a) Review of therapeutic effects. In: Phar-
macology, Toxicology and Therapeutic Potential (eds Groten-
hermen F. & Russo E.), pp. 55–65. The Haworth Press, New
York, USA.
Grotenhermen F. (2002b) Effects of cannabis and the cannab-
inoids. In: Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutic Poten-
tial (eds Grotenhermen F. & Russo E.), pp. 55–65. Xxxxxx, New
York, USA.
Heim M.E., Romer W. & Queisser W. (1981) Clinical experience
with levonantradol hydrochloride in the prevention of cancer
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Journal of Clini-
cal Pharmacology 21, 86S–89S.
Herman T.S., Einhorn L.H., Jones S.E., Nagy C., Chester A.B.,
Dean J.C. et al. (1979) Superiority of nabilone over prochlorpera-
zine as an antiemetic in patients receiving cancer chemo-
therapy. New England Journal of Medicine 300, 1295–1297.
Herstedt J. (1996) New perspective in antiemetic treatment.
Support Care Cancer 4, 416–419.
Higi M., Niederle N., Bremer K., Schmitt G., Schmidt C.G. &
Seeber S. (1982) Levonantradol bei der Behandlung von
zytostatika-bedingter Übelkeit und Erbrechen. Deutsche
Medizinische Wochenschrift 107, 1232–1234.
Hutcheon A.W., Palmer J.B., Soukop M., Cunningham D.,
McArdle C., Welsh J. et al. (1983) A randomised multicentre
single blind comparison of a cannabinoid anti-emetic (levo-
nantradol) with chlorpromazine in patients receiving their first
cytotoxic chemotherapy. European Journal of Cancer Clinical
Oncology 19, 1087–1090.
Jadad A., Moore A., Carrol D., Jenkinson C., Reynolds D.J.M.,
Gavaghan D.J. et al. (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of
randomised clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled
Clinical Trials 17, 1–12.
Johansson R., Kikku P. & Groenroos M. (1982) A double-blind,
controlled trial of nabilone vs prochlorperazine for refractory
Therapeutic use of Cannabis sativa on chemotherapy side effects
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 441
emesis induced by cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Treatment
Reviews 9, 25–33.
Jones S.E., Durant J.R., Greco F.A. & Robertone A. (1982) A
multi-institutional phase III study of nabilone vs placebo in
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Cancer Treat-
ment Reviews 9, 45–48.
Karniol I.G. (2000) Cannabis sativa e derivados. In: Dependência
de Drogas, (eds Seibel S.D. & Toscano A. Jr), pp. 131–142.
Atheneu, São Paulo, Brasil.
Kenny J.B. & Wilkinson P.M. (1982) Levonantradol effectiveness
in cancer patients resistant to conventional anti-emetics. Clini-
cal Oncology 8, 335–339.
Kluin-Neleman J.C., Neleman F.A., Meuwissen O.J.A.T. & Maes
R.A.A. (1979) Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as an anti-
emetic for patients receiving cancer chemotherapy; a double
blind cross-over trial against placebo. Veterinary and Human
Toxicology 21, 228–240.
Kris M.G., Gralla R.J., Clark R.A. et al. (1985) Incidence, course,
and severity of delayed nausea and vomiting following
the administration of high-dose cisplatin. Journal of Clinical
Oncology 3, 1379–1384.
Lane M., Smith F.E., Sullivan R.A. & Plasse T.F. (1990) Dronab-
inol and prochlorperazine alone and in combination as anti-
emetic agents for cancer chemotherapy. American Journal of
Clinical Oncology 13, 480–484.
Lane M., Vogel C.L., Ferguson J., Krasnow S., Saiers J.L., Hamm J.
et al. (1991) Dronabinol and prochlorperazine in combination
for treatment of cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vom-
iting. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 6, 352–359.
Laszlo J., Lucas V.S., Hanson D.C., Cronin C.M. & Sallan S.E.
(1981) Levonantradol for chemotherapy-induced emesis: phase
I–II oral administration. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 21,
51S–56S.
Levitt M. (1982) Nabilone vs placebo in the treatment of
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.
Cancer Treatment Reviews 9, 49–53.
Levitt M., Wilson W., Bowman D., Kemel S., Krepart G., Marks V.,
Schipper H., Thomson G., Weinerman B. & Weinerman R.
(1981) Physiologic observations in a controlled clinical trial
of the antiemetic effectiveness of 5, 10, and 15 mg of D9-
tetrahydrocannabinol in cancer chemotherapy. Ophthalmologic
implications. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 21, 103S– 109S.
Lucas V.S. & Laszlo J. (1980) D9-tetrahydrocannabinol for refrac-
tory vomiting induced by cancer chemotherapy. Journal of the
American Medical Association 243, 1241–1243.
Lucraft H.H. & Palmer M.K. (1982) Randomised clinical trial
of levonantradol and chlorpromazine in the prevention of
radiotherapy-induced vomiting. Clinical Radiology 33, 621–
622.
Mallet P.E. & Beninger R.J. (1996) The endogenous cannabinoid
receptor agonist anandamide impairs memory in rats. Behav-
ioral Pharmacology 7, 276–284.
McCabe M., Smith F.P., Macdonald J.S., Woolley P.V. & Goldberg
D. (1988) Efficacy of tetrahydrocannabinol in patients refrac-
tory to standard antiemetic therapy. Investigational New
Drugs 6, 243–246.
Moore R.A., Tramèr M.R., Carroll D., Wiffen P.J. & McQuay H.J.
(1998) Quantitative systematic review of topically-applied non-
steroidal anti-inflamatory drugs. British Medical Journal 316,
333–338.
Mulrow C.S., Oxman A.D., eds. (1997) Cochrane Collaboration
Handbook [updated September 1997]. In: The Cochrane
Library, Update Software, Oxford, UK.
Neidhart J.A., Gagen M.M., Wilson H.E. & Young D.C. (1981)
Comparative trial of the antiemetic effects of THC and halo-
peridol. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 21, 38–42S.
Niamatali C., Fallon S.D. & Egan E.L. (1984) Nabilone in the
management of prochlorperazine resistant cancer chemo-
therapy induced emesis. Irish Medical Journal 77, 276–277.
Niederle N., Schutte J. & Schmidt C.G. (1986) Crossover com-
parison of the antiemetic efficacy of nabilone and alizapride in
patients with nonseminomatous testicular cancer receiving
cisplatin therapy. Klinische Wochenschrift 64, 362–365.
Niiranen A. & Mattson K. (1987) Antiemetic efficacy of nabilone
and dexamethasone: a randomized study of patients with lung
cancer receiving chemotherapy. American Journal of Clinical
Oncology 10, 325–329.
Olver I. (2004) Two decades of progress in treating chemotherapy
induced emesis. Cancer Forum 28, 140–143.
Olver I., Pasta W., Derpierre A. et al. (1996) A multicentre,
double-blind study comparing placebo, ondansetron and
ondansetron plus dexamethasone for the control of cisplatin-
induced delayed emesis. Annals of Oncology 7, 945–952.
Orr L.E. & McKernan J.F. (1981) Antiemetic effect of
D9-tetrahydrocannabinol in chemotherapy-associated nausea
and emesis as compared to placebo and compazine. Journal of
Clinical Pharmacology 21, 76S–80S.
Pertwee R.G. (1990) The central neuropharmacology of psycho-
tropic cannabinoids. In: Psychotropic Drugs of Abuse. (ed
Balfour D.J.K.), pp. 355–429. Pergamon Press, New York, USA.
Pertwee R.G. (1999a) Evidence for the presence of CB1 cannab-
inoid receptors on peripheral neurons and for the existence of
neuronal non-CB1 cannabinoid receptors. Life Sciences 65,
597–605.
Pertwee R.G. (1999b) Pharmacology of cannabinoid receptor
ligants. Current Medicinal Chemistry 6, 635–664.
Pomeroy M., Fennely J.J. & Towers M. (1986) Prospective ran-
domised double-blind trial of nabilone versus domperidone in
the treatment of cytotoxic-induced emesis. Cancer Chemo-
therapy and Pharmacology 17, 285–288.
Rose M. (1980) Cannabis: a medical question? Lancet 1, 703.
Sallan S.E., Zinberg N.E., Frei E., 3rd (1975) Anti-emetic effect
of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients receiving cancer
chemotherapy. New England Journal of Medicine 293, 795–
797.
Sallan S.E., Cronin C., Zelen M. & Zinberg N.E. (1980) Anti-
emetics in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer: a
randomized comparison of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and
prochlorperazine. New England Journal of Medicine 302, 135–
138.
Schwartzberg L.S. (2007) Chemotherapy-induced nausea and
vomiting: clinician and patient perspectives. Journal of Support
Oncology 5, 5–12.
Sheidler V.R., Ettinger D.S., Diasio R.B., Enterline J.P. & Brown
M.D. (1984) Double-blind multiple-dose cross-over study of the
antiemetic effect of intramuscular levonantradol compared to
prochlorperazine. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 24, 155–
159.
Stambaugh J.E., McAdams J. & Vreeland F. (1984) Dose ranging
evaluation of the antiemetic efficacy of intramuscular levo-
nantradol in cancer subjects with chemotherapy-induced
emesis. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 24, 480–485.
Steele N., Gralla R.J., Braun D.W., Jr & Young C.W. (1980)
Double-blind comparison of the anti-emetic effects of nabilone
and prochlorperazine on chemotherapy-induced emesis.
Cancer Treatment Report 64, 219–224.
Sweet D.L., Miller N.J., Weddington W., Senay E. & Sushelsky L.
(1981) D9-tetrahydrocannabinol as an antiemetic for patients
receiving cancer chemotherapy. A pilot study. Journal of Clini-
cal Pharmacology 21, 70S–75S.
Tattersall F.D., Rycroft W., Hill R.G. & Hargreaves R.J. (1994)
Enatioselective inhibition of apomorphine-induced emesis in
MACHADO ROCHA et al.
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
442
the ferret by the neurokinin1 receptor antagonist CP-99,994.
Neuropharmacology 33, 259–260.
Tramèr M.R., Carroll D., Campbell F.A., Reynolds D.J.M., Moore
R.A. & McQuay H.J. (2001) Cannabinoids for control of
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: quantitative sys-
tematic review. British Medical Journal 323, 1–8.
Tyson L.B., Gralla R.J., Clark R.A., Kris M.G., Bordin L.A., Bosl
G.J. (1985) Phase 1 trial of levonantradol in chemotherapy-
induced emesis. American Journal of Clinical Oncology 8,
528–532.
Ungerleider J.T., Andrysiak T., Fairbanks L., Goodnight J., Sarna
G. & Jamison K. (1982) Cannabis and cancer therapy: a com-
parison of delta-9-THC and prochlorperazine. Cancer 50, 636–
645.
Ungerleider J.T., Fairbanks L.A., Andrysiak T., Sarna G., Good-
night J. & Jamison K. (1985) THC or compazine for the cancer
chemotherapy patient – the UCLA study. Part II: patient drug
preference. American Journal of Clinical Oncology 8, 142–147.
Vinciguerra V., Moore T. & Brennan E. (1988) Inhalation mari-
juana as an antiemetic for cancer chemotherapy. New York
State Journal of Medicine 88, 525–527.
Wada J.K., Bogdon D.L., Gunnel J.C., Hum G.J., Gota C.H. &
Rieth T.E. (1982) Double-blind, randomised, crossover trial of
nabilone vs. placebo in cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Treat-
ment Reviews 9, 39–44.
Walsh D., Nelson K.A. & Mahmoud F.A. (2003) Established and
potential therapeutic applications of cannabinoids in oncology.
Support Care Cancer 11, 137–143.
Welsh J., Stuart F., Sangster G., Milstead R., Kaye S., Cash H.,
Charlton D. & Calman K. (1983) Oral levonantradol in the
control of cancer chemotherapy-induced emesis. Cancer Che-
motherapy and Pharmacology 11, 66–67.
Wilcox P.M., Fetting J.H., Nettesheim K.M. et al. (1982) Antici-
patory vomiting in women receiving cyclophosphamide, meth-
otrexate, and 5-FU (CMF) adjuvant chemotherapy for breast
carcinoma. Cancer Treatment Report 66, 1601–1604.
APPENDIX 1
Characteristics of the excluded studies:
•Six papers compared different doses of the same cannabinoid drug: Diasio et al. (1981); Laszlo et al. (1981); Higi et al.
(1982); Welsh et al. (1983); Stambaugh et al. (1984); and Tyson et al. (1985).
•One study compared two cannabinoid drugs: Citron et al. (1985).
•Twenty studies were excluded because they were not the object of the present review (non-randomized, open-label,
absence of comparison between cannabinoids and control drugs, correspondence, lack of relevant data, data on
physiological measurements only): Ekert et al. (1979), Colls (1980); Garb et al. (1980); Lucas and Laszlo (1980); Rose
(1980); Cronin et al. (1981); Heim et al. (1981); Levitt et al. (1981); Sweet et al. (1981); Cone et al. (1982); Kenny and
Wilkinson (1982); Lucraft and Palmer (1982); Niamatali et al. (1984); Cunningham et al. (1985, 1988); Devine et al.
(1987); Niiranen and Mattson (1987); Vinciguerra et al. (1988); Abrahamov et al. (1995);Gilbert et al. (1995).
•Four studies were duplicated completely or partially: Orr and McKernan (1981); Einhorn (1982); Ungerleider et al.
(1985); and Lane et al. (1990).
Therapeutic use of Cannabis sativa on chemotherapy side effects
© 2008 The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 443
