Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 14, 2025

High-dose radiation therapy may spur growth in untreated metastatic tumors

In a new study published in Nature, researchers at the University of Chicago Medicine Comprehensive Cancer Center explore a surprising phenomenon in which high doses of radiation cause growth in existing metastatic tumors that weren't directly treated with radiation.

Scientists had previously observed that radiation can cause distant tumors to shrink after radiation, known as the "abscopal effect." The UChicago researchers therefore dubbed the new, opposite response the "badscopal effect," as a play on words for when unrelated  grow after radiation.

They believe this unexpected response happens because high-dose radiation increases the production of a protein called amphiregulin by tumor cells that are directly treated with radiation. High amounts of amphiregulin weaken the immune system's ability to fight cancer and make cancer cells better at protecting themselves. The findings point to promising new therapeutic strategies that could lead to more effective treatments for metastatic cancer.

Radiotherapy: A double-edged sword?

Radiotherapy is often used alone or in combination with surgery and chemotherapy to control localized tumors. More recently, radiotherapy has been used to treat cancers that have limited spread, termed "oligometastasis." Scientists believe that radiotherapy activates the immune system, producing regression in tumors at distant sites that are not directly treated with radiation (i.e. the abscopal effect).

However, many patients who receive radiation for oligometastasis or as part of an immunotherapy regimen fail to respond to treatment because of the progression of distant metastasis.

"Our lab postulated that high doses of radiation might actually promote tumor growth at unirradiated sites under certain conditions, potentially accounting for some of these failures," said senior author Ralph Weichselbaum, MD, Chair and Daniel K. Ludwig Distinguished Service Professor of Radiation and Cellular Oncology at UChicago Medicine.

"Studies from the 1940s suggested radiation might cause tumor spread, but that never made sense to me because radiation is a highly effective anti-cancer agent within the tumor bed," Weichselbaum said. "However, the communication between the irradiated site and distant metastatic sites is fascinating."

To investigate this tumor-to-tumor interaction, the research team analyzed biopsy samples from a clinical trial in which patients with diverse histological types were treated with high-dose focused radiotherapy known as Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) and checkpoint blockade (Pembrolizumab). That clinical trial team, led by Steven Chmura, MD, Ph.D., Professor of Radiation and Cellular Oncology and Director of Clinical and Translational Research for Radiation Oncology at UChicago, found that tumors at preexisting metastatic sites increased in size following SBRT, suggesting radiation might promote .

To understand how radiation at the primary site affects distant tumors, researchers led by András Piffkó, MD, a post-doctoral fellow in the Weichselbaum lab, conducted gene expression profiling of patient tumors before and after radiation treatment. They discovered that in tumors that had been treated with radiation, the gene encoding for a protein called amphiregulin was significantly increased.

Amphiregulin binds to the  (EGFR), a widely expressed transmembrane tyrosine kinase, and activates major intracellular signaling pathways governing , proliferation, migration and cell death.

The researchers then studied this effect using animal models of lung and breast cancer. They found that while radiation reduced the number of new metastatic sites, it increased the growth of existing metastases. Radiotherapy significantly upregulated amphiregulin in tumor cells and blood. Blocking amphiregulin with antibodies or eliminating its gene in the tumor cells using the gene-editing technology CRISPR reduced the size of tumors outside of the radiation field.

"Interestingly, the combination of radiation and amphiregulin blockade decreased both tumor size and the number of metastatic sites," Weichselbaum said.

The role of immune suppression

To explore the mechanism further, the researchers analyzed blood samples from a second clinical trial conducted by Chmura, in which lung cancer patients received SBRT either following or at the same time as immunotherapy. They found that failure to decrease amphiregulin following SBRT in the serum of patients was associated with an adverse outcome. Additionally, they found an increase in myeloid cells with immunosuppressive characteristics was associated with metastasis progression and death.

In a previous study published in Cancer Cell, Weichselbaum and team demonstrated that ablating immunosuppressive myeloid cells reduces both the size and frequency of metastasis in animal models. By contrast, in the current study, they saw an increase in immunosuppressive myeloid cells in animals where amphiregulin was highly expressed in tumors and blood following radiation but not in tumors that did not express amphiregulin. Amphiregulin appeared to block the differentiation of myeloid cells, leading to an immunosuppressive phenotype.

In collaboration with Ronald Rock, Ph.D., Associate Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at UChicago, the team discovered that amphiregulin and radiation upregulated CD47, a so-called "don't eat me" signal on tumor cells that blocks the ability of macrophages and myeloid cells to engulf tumor cells.

Blocking amphiregulin and CD47 in combination with radiotherapy resulted in highly effective metastatic control in animal models. The study results indicate a paradigm shift for the use of radiation therapy in patients with locally advanced and metastatic tumors, in which molecules upregulated by radiotherapy could be detected and neutralized. This in turn could lead to a new type of personalized radiotherapy, especially in patients with metastatic disease.

"These results open a whole new way of thinking about the systemic effects of radiotherapy," Weichselbaum said. "Based on these findings, we are planning to conduct a clinical trial to further explore and validate the results."

More information: András Piffkó et al, Radiation-induced amphiregulin drives tumour metastasis, Nature (2025). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-08994-0


https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-05-badscopal-effect-high-dose-therapy.html

Enterovirus infections linked to severe respiratory illness in children without asthma

 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and seven US pediatric medical centers report a notable association between Enterovirus D68 (EV-D68) and severe respiratory illness in children without prior medical conditions. Children with nonasthma or reactive airway disease (RAD) comorbidities demonstrated an increased likelihood of severe outcomes when hospitalized.

Severe respiratory illness linked to Enterovirus D68 (EV-D68) in children has gained attention in recent years. While EV-D68 typically presents with asthma-like symptoms, severe cases have been associated with acute flaccid myelitis (AFM), a neurologic condition causing limb weakness with unpredictable recovery.

A nationwide outbreak of EV-D68 in 2014 raised concerns about its impact on pediatric respiratory health as AFM cases spiked concurrently. Expanded testing capacity, including EV-D68-specific reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain-reaction (rRT-PCR) assays, was introduced in select clinical and public health settings. Yet, systematic surveillance remains limited, with data largely drawn from single sites or short-term outbreak investigations.

Significant knowledge gaps remain in understanding the epidemiology of EV-D68-associated respiratory illness across multiple years and geographic locations.

In the study, "Enterovirus D68–Associated Respiratory Illness in Children," published in JAMA Network Open, researchers conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the epidemiology and clinical severity of EV-D68-associated respiratory illness in US children from 2017 to 2022 using a systematic, multi-site surveillance network.

Data from 976 children with laboratory-confirmed EV-D68 was collected across seven  within the New Vaccine Surveillance Network, including Cincinnati, Houston, Kansas City, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Rochester, and Seattle. Research staff collected respiratory specimens using nasal and throat swabs. EV-D68 testing occurred through real-time PCR assays conducted at each site.

Enterovirus infections linked to severe respiratory illness in children without asthma
Enterovirus D68 (EV-D68) Detections Among Rhinovirus (RV) and EV Positive Cases and All Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI) Cases by Care Setting, New Vaccine Surveillance Network (2017-2022). Credit: JAMA Network Open (2025). DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.9131

Researchers identified 976 cases of EV-D68-associated respiratory illness in children under 18 years, with more than half requiring hospitalization. Among the 536 hospitalized children, 339 received , and 87 were admitted to intensive care units.

Children with nonasthma underlying conditions had significantly higher odds of severe outcomes. Odds of receiving supplemental oxygen were more than twice as high in this group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.72; 95% CI, 1.43–5.18), and ICU admission was three times more likely (aOR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.72–5.56). No significant association emerged between asthma history and increased severity outcomes.

Detection peaks in 2018 and 2022 accounted for 92% of confirmed cases. During the pandemic surveillance period (March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022), increased oxygen use was observed in children with nonasthma conditions (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.09–2.38).

No significant association emerged between asthma history and severe outcomes, though asthma-related discharge diagnoses were common among hospitalized children without prior asthma history.

Clinical triage and public health preparedness during Enterovirus outbreaks may require broader focus to include children with nonasthma comorbidities as well as those without prior medical conditions. Asthma history did not significantly correlate with severe outcomes but remains a clinical concern given the asthma-like presentation of Enterovirus infections.

As the authors state in the study conclusion, "Clinical and public health practitioners need to be aware that EV-D68 (while still a concern for children with asthma) can cause severe respiratory illness in otherwise healthy children of all ages, and that hospitalized children with nonasthma underlying conditions may be at higher risk for severe outcomes."

Parents, clinicians, and public health officials face heightened risks during years of elevated EV-D68 circulation. Robust surveillance systems remain essential for identifying emerging respiratory viruses and directing clinical resources during outbreak periods.

More information: Benjamin R. Clopper et al, Enterovirus D68–Associated Respiratory Illness in Children, JAMA Network Open (2025). DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.9131



https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-05-enterovirus-infections-linked-severe-respiratory.html

"Rogue" Devices Found Hidden In Chinese Solar Panels Could "Destroy The Grid"

 by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Undisclosed communication devices reportedly discovered in Chinese-manufactured solar panels and related equipment have sparked concerns among U.S. officials about the vulnerability of the nation’s power grid, according to a Reuters report. 

These “rogue” devices, found over the past nine months, could potentially destabilize energy infrastructure and trigger widespread blackouts, sources familiar with the matter told the outlet.

The undocumented devices, including cellular radios, were identified in solar power inverters, batteries, electric vehicle chargers, and heat pumps produced by several Chinese suppliers. 

U.S. experts uncovered the components during security inspections of renewable energy equipment, prompting a reevaluation of the risks posed by these products. 

Inverters, critical for connecting solar panels and wind turbines to the power grid, are predominantly manufactured in China, amplifying concerns about their security.

“We know that China believes there is value in placing at least some elements of our core infrastructure at risk of destruction or disruption,” said Mike Rogers, former director of the U.S. National Security Agency.

“I think that the Chinese are, in part, hoping that the widespread use of inverters limits the options that the West has to deal with the security issue,” Roger’s further urged.

Experts warn that these rogue devices could bypass firewalls, allowing remote manipulation of inverter settings or even complete shutdowns. 

Such actions could disrupt power grids, damage energy infrastructure, and cause blackouts. 

“That effectively means there is a built-in way to physically destroy the grid,” another source told Reuters.

The discovery adds to long-standing warnings from energy and security experts about the risks of relying on Chinese-made green energy products. 

Concerns over espionage and sabotage have grown as the U.S. continues to integrate these technologies into its energy systems.

In December 2023, Republican officials, including former Wisconsin Rep. Mike Gallagher and then-Senator Marco Rubio, urged Duke Energy to discontinue using Chinese-manufactured CATL batteries at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, citing surveillance risks. 

“Directly following our inquiry, Duke disconnected the Chinese-manufactured systems from the grid,” Gallagher and Rubio stated in a February 2024 press release. 

“Others that continue to work with CATL, and other companies under the control of the CCP, should take note,” they added.

The Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledged the issue, with a spokesperson telling Reuters that the department continuously assesses risks associated with new technologies. 

“While this functionality may not have malicious intent, it is critical for those procuring to have a full understanding of the capabilities of the products received,” the spokesperson said. 

The DOE is working to strengthen domestic supply chains and improve transparency through initiatives like the “Software Bill of Materials,” which inventories all components in software applications.

A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington rejected the allegations, stating, “We oppose the generalisation [sic] of the concept of national security, distorting and smearing China’s infrastructure achievements.”

*  *  *

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/rogue-devices-found-hidden-chinese-solar-panels-could-destroy-grid

AI Just Took Your Nurse’s Job — Kinda

 Are you ready to get your medical advice from a nurse powered by artificial intelligence (AI)? This is already reality in some healthcare systems. 

I know what you might be thinking: Could AI eventually replace actual nurses and healthcare professionals on advice lines? What about all the potential bad advice and mistakes? 

I have the same thoughts. Let’s discuss. 

AI Nurses Are Already Here

There are some AI tools out there that have nursing unions concerned. I read about one company, Hippocratic AI, which uses clinician-vetted AI chatbots to talk to people about preoperative care, discharge instructions, chronic illness management, and more. 

Now, we already have automated patient messaging, sending people information about procedures, discharge instructions with necessary links, and all that. Imagine if you had these tools and you combine it with language learning models such as ChatGPT and a visual, lifelike AI character. 

This is the case with the company Xoltar, which has AI characters that can speak in different languages and, dare I say, can develop a personalized AI-patient relationship. These chatbots on Xoltar are fully customizable and, according to the company, can offer an engaging, hand-holding experience that can help patients with accountability and influence behavior. I even did a demo and I talked to Carlos, the AI chatbot, all in Spanish, and it was engaging.

Can AI Diagnose Like a Doctor?

These companies have received millions of dollars in venture capital funding and have high-powered partnerships with companies such as Nvidia. And it seems that progress is only growing. 

Even politicians have gotten involved. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, head of the US Department of Health and Human Services, recently said, “Cincinnati has developed an AI nurse that you cannot distinguish from a human being that has diagnosed as good as any doctor.”

Okay, hold on. Getting a proper diagnosis requires building trust, empathy, and complex thought, and machines are only as good as the information that they’re given. I’m not really sure I agree with RFK Jr on this.

Also, I don’t know what AI nurse he’s speaking of. Mercy Health in Cincinnati does have an AI assistant named Catherine who helps patients navigate knee, shoulder, and hip pain. Perhaps Catherine could free up nurses and medical assistants from all those phone calls so they could then focus on patient care.

Cost Equation: $9 AI v $40 Human Nurse

Hippocratic AI, in partnership with Nvidia, recently released company data showing that its chatbot AI outperformed nurses in identifying toxic dosages of medications, how medications impact lab values, and other tasks. It also highlighted that its chatbot costs $9 an hour compared with the average nursing salary of around $35-$40 an hour. 

Now, the reality is that somewhere some struggling healthcare system may be tempted to pay a lower cost, streamline, and hire fewer actual nurses. 

Red Flags: What Nurses Are Saying

This is just one of the reasons of why nursing unions have organized and spoke out against the rapid expansion of generative AI without thoughtful input from patients and healthcare professionals, and without regulations. 

Some nurses have raised the valid criticism about false positives or alarms raised by AI tools that don’t understand clinical context. We already see this.

For example, we see this with sepsis prediction tools. They may flag a patient who has a fever that we already know about and we’re already treating, or another patient with tachycardia that’s related to a medication side effect or pain. Mistakes and a lack of liability are valid concerns when it comes to AI tools. 

Scribe, Scheduler, Burnout Buster, Maybe

AI tools could do incredible things for our workflow if it helped us with tasks such as paperwork, inputting data into emergency medical record, dictating patient notes, and so much more. Doing things that we don’t really want to do. For example, one company, QVentus, uses AI to hyperanalyze hospital operations and assist in areas such as scheduling. 

There are at least 60 companies using AI to essentially be scribes and help transcribe patient information. One study from Mass General found a 40% reduction in physician burnout during a 6-week pilot of one of these tools, but there was no financial benefit. I guess if we become more efficient at seeing patients thanks to AI tools, shareholders are going to be like, Why don’t you see more patients? That means we’re going to have to address time-based coding to make all these tools actually make sense and be profitable. 

Healthcare Shortcut or Sci-Fi Gamble?

I digress. The growing question is whether generative AI can eventually fill in for nurses and other healthcare professionals. I mean, no one is denying that we have a healthcare professional shortage, especially in rural areas, but are chatbots and AI nurses really the solution? I feel like we’re setting patients up for a science fiction experiment that is evolving faster than any of us can imagine. 

Alok S. Patel, MD, is a pediatric hospitalist, television producer, media contributor, and digital health enthusiast. He is a clinical assistant professor for the department of pediatrics at Stanford Children’s Health in Palo Alto, California. Patel is a special correspondent for ABC News and regularly appears as an on-camera expert for several news outlets. He hosts The Hospitalist Retort video blog on Medscape

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/ai-just-took-your-nurses-job-kinda-2025a1000b8q

Can Chronic Asthma Be Reversed? Reopen the Debate

 A new clinical horizon is emerging in asthma management, with the possibility of achieving sustained reversal of the disease and even remission. This involves altering and reversing the progression of diseases that are traditionally considered chronic. This possibility has led to significant therapeutic advances and sparked a clinical debate: Should sustained reversibility be considered a therapeutic goal in its own right or merely as an indirect marker of effective disease control?

Reversibility in asthma, understood as the ability to recover pulmonary function and maintain the absence of symptoms, has historically been an elusive goal. Recent research suggests that this challenge may be closer to resolution due to advances in biological therapies and a deeper understanding of the inflammatory phenotypes of asthma.

While reversibility remains a central marker in the diagnosis and monitoring of asthma, the scientific community emphasizes that not all patients with asthma experience complete reversibility. The persistence of obstruction may be attributed to structural remodeling of the airways.

Clinical Remission

Clinical remission is defined as the absence of symptoms and exacerbations for at least 12 months, even without medication. Complete remission is defined as the normalization of pulmonary function and disappearance of bronchial hyper-responsiveness and airway inflammation. However, patients in clinical remission who continue to show elevated inflammatory biomarker levels may still be at risk for future functional decline.

Although increasingly achievable in patients treated with biologics, complete remission is still limited by the persistence of certain pathophysiological processes. Airway remodeling in asthma, once it occurs, is difficult to reverse. Achieving complete and sustained disease control is considered the most ambitious goal, while reversibility is a more practical indicator of therapeutic response.

Guidelines such as the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) and Spanish Guide for Asthma Management (GEMA), recognize the prognostic value of sustained bronchodilator reversibility and its ability to help predict exacerbations but caution against using it alone. Therefore, we recommend incorporating it into a comprehensive assessment that includes symptoms, pulmonary function, rescue medication use, and quality of life.

Inflammatory Phenotypes

This integrated approach is particularly relevant when considering the dynamic variability of inflammatory phenotypes in asthma. The Spanish MEGA (Mechanism underlying the genesis and evolution of asthma) project analyzed the stability of inflammatory biomarkers and asthma phenotypes.

The results confirmed the instability of these phenotypes; although they remained stable during the first year, their instability increased thereafter. The study, led by the Spanish national research consortium CIBERES (Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias), showed that while 88% of patients initially presented a high T2 phenotype, only 61.3% maintained this classification after 2 years.

Similarly, 53.3% of patients had eosinophilic sputum at baseline, but only 37.5% maintained this at 24 months. These findings highlight the need for aggressive therapeutic adjustments.

Moreover, the correlations between different inflammatory phenotypes were moderate in the first 2 years but significantly decreased in the third year. Other biomarkers, such as fractional exhaled nitric oxide, total immunoglobulin E, and lung function, did not show significant variations during the study period. These results highlight the fluctuating nature of this disease and the necessity to adapt the therapeutic strategy to each patient’s changing inflammatory profile.

Mechanical Damage

Another recent international study conducted by King’s College London, London, England, identified a new pathophysiological mechanism in asthma that should be considered in clinical management.

Published in Science, the study revealed that pathological crowding of a broncho constrictive attack causes so much epithelial cell extrusion that it damages the airways, resulting in inflammation and mucous secretion.

This previously overlooked process perpetuates the characteristic inflammatory cycle of asthma, as repeated damage to the epithelium promotes chronic inflammation. It also results in scarring and permanent narrowing of the airways, contributing to the progression and severity of the disease.

Researchers, including Elena Ortiz-Zapater, PhD, from the University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain, have demonstrated that traditional treatments do not prevent this damage. In contrast, gadolinium, a cell extrusion inhibitor, counteracts mechanical damage and significantly reduces the inflammatory response. Although this breakthrough has only been demonstrated in animal models, it opens new avenues for therapies that not only alleviate asthma symptoms but also prevent structural damage in the airways, offering hope for more durable remission.

Biological Therapies

Focusing on treatments, biological therapies have marked a turning point in the treatment of severe asthma and type 2 inflammatory phenotypes. This allows many patients to achieve a sustained clinical remission. Some biologics target different inflammatory pathways, demonstrating improvements in baseline pulmonary function and reducing persistent obstruction. Thus, they facilitate more sustained reversibility and even remission in selected subgroups of patients.

Targeted drugs, such as omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, have shown remarkable efficacy. Sustained improvements in pulmonary function, reduced exacerbations, and decreased systemic corticosteroid use have been observed.

Recent registries and multicenter studies have shown an increasing number of patients treated with biologics who meet the partial or clinical remission criteria. For instance, the PrecISE trial is evaluating how therapies targeting specific biomarkers such as interleukin (IL)-4/IL-13 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin can induce sustained reversibility in cases of refractory severe asthma.

In parallel, new molecules, such as amlitelimab, currently in phase 2 trials, demonstrate prolonged effects, even in phenotypes with mixed inflammation. These agents employ innovative mechanisms, such as targeting the OX40 pathway and using less frequent dosing, which could also facilitate adherence and sustainability of remission.

The latest updates from GINA and GEMA have formally incorporated remission as a treatment goal for patients with severe asthma, particularly in the context of biological therapies. A major challenge remains the achievement of complete and sustained remission without chronic treatment, guided by biomarkers, new drugs, and more personalized clinical follow-ups.

Short-Acting Beta-2 Agonists (SABAs)

Alongside pharmacological advances and strategies for remission, the SABINA study highlights a critical aspect of asthma management. It addresses the inappropriate use of SABAs and their effect on disease control. With over a million patients from 40 countries, including Spain, this is the largest real-world observational analysis of this therapeutic class.

The findings showed that approximately 28%-30% of patients with asthma in the country used three or more SABA inhalers annually.

This is associated with a higher risk for exacerbations, poor symptom control, and increased mortality. In contrast, 13%-15% of patients use fewer than four inhalers of inhaled corticosteroids annually, which compromises the control of the underlying inflammation.

SABAs provide immediate and temporary relief, which may contribute to a cycle of suboptimal control and symptom recurrence. Consequently, the GINA and GEMA guidelines discourage the use of SABA as monotherapy. These guidelines recommend combining inhaled corticosteroids with formoterol (a long-acting beta-2 agonist) as both maintenance and reliever therapy.

This combination ensures improved disease management through prevention and continuous anti-inflammatory treatment, which is essential for sustained functional reversibility and clinical remission.

Diagnostic Techniques

Recent updates in diagnostic techniques have improved the ability to assess asthma reversibility and remission, particularly in patients with nearly normal baseline lung function. The joint guidelines from the European Respiratory Society and the American Thoracic Society recommend that a significant bronchodilator response is an increase of more than 10% in forced expiratory volume in 1 second or forced vital capacity.

This adjustment improves the diagnostic sensitivity in patients with asthma, helping to identify cases that might have been previously overlooked and allowing earlier intervention.

Additionally, serial spirometry has become a key tool for confirming sustained reversibility, particularly when the initial response to bronchodilators is unclear. This practice of monitoring pulmonary function over time helps assess the effectiveness of treatment and the potential for achieving remission.

The integration of these updated diagnostic techniques into clinical practice improves diagnostic accuracy and regulates more personalized therapeutic strategies, increasing the chances of achieving sustained reversibility and, in some cases, complete remission of asthma.

In conclusion, the updated assessment of asthma reversibility and remission integrates functional testing, including spirometry, peak expiratory flow, and bronchial provocation testing, inflammatory biomarkers such as fractional exhaled nitric oxide and blood eosinophil counts, and structured clinical follow-up, enabling a more accurate and personalized evaluation of disease status and progression.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/can-chronic-asthma-be-reversed-experts-reopen-debate-2025a1000bqa

Marijuana Use Is Rising, But Is It a Cancer Risk?

 The trends are clear: Americans are in the midst of a marijuana high. Over the past 30 years, daily or near-daily marijuana use soared 15-fold, surpassing daily alcohol use for the first time in 2022. That same year, marijuana use reached historic levels among Americans aged 19-50 — with 11% of 19- to 30-year-olds saying they used the drug every day.

A key reason for the surge is that more states are legalizing both medical and recreational marijuana use. Another driver, which is closely tied to legalization, is the changing public perceptions around marijuana: Many people just don’t see much harm in the habit, or at least view a daily marijuana joint as safer than smoking cigarettes. 

And they’re not necessarily wrong: Although it’s obvious marijuana use can have consequences — including intoxication, dependence, and respiratory symptoms such as chronic bronchitis — there is little, or not enough, evidence to definitively conclude that it’s a cancer risk.

But that also doesn’t mean marijuana is completely in the clear. 

“Insufficient evidence doesn’t mean the risk isn’t there,” said Nigar Nargis, PhD, senior scientific director of tobacco control research, American Cancer Society (ACS).

‘The Crux of the Problem’

Marijuana smoke does contain many of the same carcinogens found in tobacco smoke, so it seems logical that a cannabis habit could contribute to some cancers. Yet studies have largely failed to bear that logic out. 

In 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) published a comprehensive research review on cannabis smoking and cancer risk. It found modest evidence of an association with just one cancer: a subtype of testicular cancer. In the cases of lung and head and neck cancers, studies indicated no significant association between habitual cannabis use and risk for these cancers. When it came to other cannabis-cancer relationships, the evidence was mostly deemed insufficient or simply absent. 

However, the overarching conclusion from the NASEM review was that studies to date have been hampered by limitations, such as small sample sizes and survey-based measurements of cannabis use that lack details on frequency and duration of use. In addition, many marijuana users may also smoke cigarettes, making it difficult to untangle the effects of marijuana itself.

“That’s the crux of the problem,” Nargis said. “We have a huge knowledge gap where existing evidence doesn’t allow us to draw conclusions.”

That long-standing gap is becoming more concerning, she said, because legalization may now be sending a “signal” to the public that cannabis is safe.

This concern prompted Nargis and her colleagues to explore whether studies conducted since the 2017 NASEM report have lifted the marijuana-cancer risk haze at all. Their conclusion, published in February in The Lancet Public Health: not really.

“Unfortunately, the evidence base hasn’t improved much,” Nargis said. However, she added, some studies have hinted at links between cannabis use and certain cancers beyond testicular. Although these studies have their own limitations, Nargis stressed, they do point to directions for future research.

Head and Neck Cancers

While the NASEM report cited reassuring data on head and neck cancers, a study published last year in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery reached a different conclusion. The researchers tried to overcome some limitations of prior research — including small sample sizes and relatively light and self-reported marijuana use — by analyzing records from patients diagnosed with cannabis use disorder at 64 US healthcare organizations.

The study involved over 116,000 patients with cannabis use disorder, matched against a control group without that diagnosis. Head and neck cancers were rare in both groups, but the overall incidence over 20 years was about three times higher among patients with cannabis use disorder (0.28% vs 0.09%).

After propensity score matching — based on factors such as age and tobacco and alcohol use — patients with cannabis use disorder had a 2.5-8.5 times higher risk for head and neck cancers, especially laryngeal cancer: any type (risk ratio [RR], 3.49), laryngeal cancer (RR, 8.39), oropharyngeal cancer (RR, 4.90), salivary gland cancer (RR, 2.70), nasopharyngeal cancer (RR, 2.60), and oral cancer (RR, 2.51).

But although the study was large, “it’s not particularly strong evidence,” said Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist and senior research fellow at the University of Wollongong, Australia.

Meyerowitz-Katz pointed to some key limitations, including the focus on people with cannabis use disorder, who are not representative of users in general. The study also lacked information on factors that aren’t captured in patient records, such as occupation — which, Meyerowitz-Katz noted, is known to be associated with both head and neck cancer risk and cannabis use. 

Beyond that, the risk increases were generally small, even with extensive use of the drug. 

“If we assume the study results are causal,” Meyerowitz-Katz said, “they suggest that people who use cannabis enough to get a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder get head and neck cancer at a rate of around 3 per 1000 people, compared to 1 per 1000 people who don’t use cannabis.”

Cannabis and Childhood Cancers

As marijuana use has shot up among Americans generally, so too has prenatal use. One study found, for instance, that the rates almost doubled from about 3.4%-7% of pregnant women in the US between 2002 and 2017. Many women say they use it to manage morning sickness.

Given the growing prenatal use, however, there is a need to better understand the potential risks of fetal exposure to the drug, said Kyle M. Walsh, PhD, associate professor in neurosurgery and pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

The fortunate rarity of childhood cancers makes it challenging to study whether maternal substance use is a pediatric cancer risk factor. It’s also hard to define a control group, Walsh said, because parents of children with cancer often have difficulty recollecting their exposures before and during pregnancy.

To get past these limitations, Walsh and his colleagues took a different approach. Instead of trying to track cannabis use and tie it to cancer risk, Walsh’s team focused on families of children with cancer to see whether prenatal substance use was associated with any particular cancer subtypes. Their study, published last year in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, surveyed 3145 US families with a child diagnosed with cancer before age 18. The study, however, did not focus on just marijuana; it looked at illicit drug use during pregnancy more generally. Although the authors assumed that would mostly mean marijuana, it could include other illicit drugs, such as cocaine. 

Overall, 4% of mothers reported using illicit drugs during pregnancy. Prenatal use of illicit drugs was associated with an increased prevalence of two tumor types: intracranial embryonal tumors, including medulloblastoma and primitive neuroectodermal tumors (prevalence ratio [PR], 1.94), and retinoblastoma (PR, 3.11).

“Seeing those two subtypes emerge was quite interesting to us, because they’re both derived from a cell type in the developing fetal brain,” Walsh said. That, he added, “aligns in some ways” with research finding associations between prenatal cannabis use and increased frequencies of ADHD and autism spectrum disorders in children.

Interestingly, Walsh noted, prenatal cigarette smoking — which was also examined in the study — was not associated with any cancer subtype, suggesting that smoking might not explain the observed associations between prenatal drug use and central nervous system tumors. But, he stressed, it will take much more research to establish whether prenatal marijuana use, specifically, is associated with any childhood cancers, including studies in mice to examine whether cannabis exposure in utero affects neurodevelopment in ways that could promote cancer.

Testicular Cancer

Testicular cancer is the one cancer that has been linked to cannabis use with some consistency. But even those findings are shaky, according to Meyerowitz-Katz. 

A 2019 meta-analysis in JAMA Network Open concluded that long-term marijuana use (over more than a decade) was associated with a significantly higher risk for nonseminomatous testicular germ cell tumors (odds ratio, 1.85). But the authors called the strength of the evidence — from three small case-control studies — low. All three had minimal controls for confounding, according to Meyerowitz-Katz.

“Whether this association is due to cannabis or other factors is hard to know,” he said. “People who use cannabis regularly are, of course, very different from people who rarely or never use it.”

In their 2025 Lancet Public Health review, Nargis and her colleagues pointed to a more recent study, published in 2021 in BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, that looked at the issue in broader strokes. The study found parallels between population marijuana use and testicular cancer rates, as well as higher rates of the cancer in US states where marijuana was legal vs those where it wasn’t.

However, Nargis said, observational studies such as this must be interpreted with caution because they lack data on individuals.

If regular cannabis use does have effects on testicular cancer risk, the mechanisms are speculative at best. Researchers have noted that the testes harbor cannabinoid receptors, and there is experimental evidence that binding those receptors may alter normal hormonal and testicular function. But the path from smoking weed to developing testicular cancer is far from mapped out.

Risk for Other Cancers?

The recent Lancet Public Health overview also highlights emerging evidence suggesting a relationship between cannabis use and risks for a range of other cancer types. 

A handful of observational studies, for instance, showed correlations between population-level cannabis use and risks for several cancers, such as breast, liver, thyroid, and prostate. The observational studies, mostly from a research team at the University of Western Australia, made headlines last year with a perspectives piece published in Addiction Biology, claiming there is “compelling” evidence that cannabis is “genotoxic” and raises cancer risk.

But, as Meyerowitz-Katz pointed out, the paper is only a perspective, not a study. And the human data it cites are from the same limited evidence base critiqued in the NASEM and ACS reports.

Meyerowitz-Katz does not discount the possibility that marijuana use contributes to some cancers. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we find that extensive cannabis use — particularly smoking — is related to cancer risk,” he said. But based on the existing evidence, he noted, the risk, if real, is “quite small.” 

Where to Go From Here?

What’s needed, Nargis said, are large-scale cohort studies like those that showed cigarette smoking is a cancer risk factor. For the ACS, she said, the next step is to analyze decades of data from its own Cancer Prevention Studies, which included participants with a history of cannabis use and cancer diagnoses verified using state registries.

Nargis also noted that nearly all studies to date have focused on marijuana smoking, and “almost nothing” is known about the long-term health risks of newer ways to use cannabis, including vaping and edibles.

“What’s concerning,” she said, “is that the regulatory environment is not keeping up with this new product development.”

With the evolving laws and attitudes around cannabis use, Nargis said, it’s the responsibility of the research community to find out “the truth” about its long-term health effects.

“People should be able to make their choices based on evidence,” she said.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/marijuana-use-rising-it-cancer-risk-2025a1000br5