Medical Cannabis and its major cannabinoids (−)-trans-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) are gaining momentum for various medical purposes as their therapeutic qualities are becoming better established. However, studies regarding their efficacy are oftentimes inconclusive. This is chiefly because Cannabis is a versatile plant rather than a single drug and its effects do not depend only on the amount of THC and CBD. Hundreds of Cannabis cultivars and hybrids exist worldwide, each with a unique and distinct chemical profile. Most studies focus on THC and CBD, but these are just two of over 140 phytocannabinoids found in the plant in addition to a milieu of terpenoids, flavonoids and other compounds with potential therapeutic activities. Different plants contain a very different array of these metabolites in varying relative ratios, and it is the interplay between these molecules from the plant and the endocannabinoid system in the body that determines the ultimate therapeutic response and associated adverse effects. Here, we discuss how phytocannabinoid profiles differ between plants depending on the chemovar types, review the major factors that affect secondary metabolite accumulation in the plant including the genotype, growth conditions, processing, storage and the delivery route; and highlight how these factors make Cannabis treatment highly complex.

In the last decade the use of medical cannabis (MC) for palliative cancer treatment has risen. However, the choice between products is arbitrary and most patients are using Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-dominant cannabis products. In this study, we aimed to assess the short-term outcomes of MC treatment prescribed by oncologists in relation to the type of cannabis they receive. A comparative analysis was used to assess the differences in treatment effectiveness and safety between THC-dominant (n = 56, 52%), cannabidiol (CBD)-dominant (n = 19, 18%), and mixed (n = 33, 30%) MC treatments. Oncology patients (n = 108) reported on multiple symptoms in baseline questionnaires, initiated MC treatment, and completed a one-month follow-up. Most parameters improved significantly from baseline, including pain intensity, affective and sensory pain, sleep quality and duration, cancer distress, and both physical and psychological symptom burden. There was no significant difference between the three MC treatments in the MC-related safety profile. Generally, there were no differences between the three MC treatments in pain intensity and in most secondary outcomes. Unexpectedly, CBD-dominant oil treatments were similar to THC-dominant treatments in their beneficial effects for most secondary outcomes. THC-dominant treatments showed significant superiority in their beneficial effect only in sleep duration compared to CBD-dominant treatments. This work provides evidence that, though patients usually consume THC-dominant products, caregivers should also consider CBD-dominant products as a useful treatment for cancer-related symptoms.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.Women are more susceptible to medical cannabis–related adverse effects because of both an inherent sex influence and the unique combinations of cannabis cultivars consumed.

In the last decades, growing evidence showed the therapeutic capabilities of Cannabis plants. These capabilities were attributed to the specialized secondary metabolites stored in the glandular trichomes of female inflorescences, mainly phytocannabinoids and terpenoids. The accumulation of the metabolites in the flower is versatile and influenced by a largely unknown regulation system, attributed to genetic, developmental and environmental factors. As Cannabis is a dioecious plant, one main factor is fertilization after successful pollination. Fertilized flowers are considerably less potent, likely due to changes in the contents of phytocannabinoids and terpenoids; therefore, this study examined the effect of fertilization on metabolite composition by crossbreeding (-)-Δ9-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)- or cannabidiol (CBD)-rich female plants with different male plants: THC-rich, CBD-rich, or the original female plant induced to develop male pollen sacs. We used advanced analytical methods to assess the phytocannabinoids and terpenoids content, including a newly developed semi-quantitative analysis for terpenoids without analytical standards. We found that fertilization significantly decreased phytocannabinoids content. For terpenoids, the subgroup of monoterpenoids had similar trends to the phytocannabinoids, proposing both are commonly regulated in the plant. The sesquiterpenoids remained unchanged in the THC-rich female and had a trend of decrease in the CBD-rich female. Additionally, specific phytocannabinoids and terpenoids showed an uncommon increase in concentration followed by fertilization with particular male plants. Our results demonstrate that although the profile of phytocannabinoids and their relative ratios were kept, fertilization substantially decreased the concentration of nearly all phytocannabinoids in the plant regardless of the type of fertilizing male. Our findings may point to the functional roles of secondary metabolites in Cannabis.

The use of medical cannabis (MC) to treat cancer-related symptoms is rising. However, there is a lack of long-term trials to assess the benefits and safety of MC treatment in this population. In this work, we followed up prospectively and longitudinally on the effectiveness and safety of MC treatment. Oncology patients reported on multiple symptoms before and after MC treatment initiation at one-, three-, and 6-month follow-ups. Oncologists reported on the patients' disease characteristics. Intention-to-treat models were used to assess changes in outcomes from baseline. MC treatment was initiated by 324 patients and 212, 158 and 126 reported at follow-ups. Most outcome measures improved significantly during MC treatment for most patients (p < 0.005). Specifically, at 6 months, total cancer symptoms burden declined from baseline by a median of 18%, from 122 (82–157) at baseline to 89 (45–138) at endpoint (−18.98; 95%CI= −26.95 to −11.00; p < 0.001). Reported adverse effects were common but mostly non-serious and remained stable during MC treatment. The results of this study suggest that MC treatment is generally safe for oncology patients and can potentially reduce the burden of associated symptoms with no serious MC-related adverse effects.