Original Research

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is transitioning from its native electronic health record (EHR) Vista/Computerized Patient Record System to the commercial Cerner/Oracle Health EHR. Though this process was temporarily discontinued in April 2023 due to patient safety, usability, and reliability concerns, it resumed in April 2026. It was originally projected to cost $50 billion to implement. ^1-3 As of March 9, 2024, 6 sites had transitioned to the new EHR.² The transition is the largest of its kind in the US, offering an unparalleled opportunity to examine the effects of EHR transitions on an often overlooked part of the workforce: health professions trainees (HPTs).

HPTs serve a central role in VHA. About one-third of patients receive care directly from HPTs who make up about one-third of the VHA workforce. VHA trains > 60 clinical disciplines, comprising > 122,000 trainees annually.^4,5 A paucity of literature exists exploring the experiences of HPTs during EHR transitions, and many studies are often limited to single-site or small populations. HPTs face distinct challenges and needs during EHR transitions and are particularly vulnerable to their negative impacts on retention, clinical training, and efficiency and confidence in EHR use.^6-10 HPTs at VHA sites that have already transitioned to the Cerner/Oracle Health EHR identified many challenges, including significant delays in gaining EHR access, pervasive perceptions of poor training, concerns that EHR functionality issues limited patient care, and decreased ability to track clinical skill acquisition.⁶ These challenges may impact some HPTs more than others (eg, students on short rotations are affected more acutely by delayed EHR access and usage).

This quality improvement project evaluated HPT EHR transition experiences at the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center (FHCC). This article contributes to the limited literature on HPT transition experiences, identifies opportunities to support HPTs, and informs broader efforts in teaching HPTs new technologies.

Methods

FHCC is jointly operated by the US Department of Defense and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It treats 80,000 inpatient and outpatients annually. FHCC was the sixth VA facility to transition to the new EHR, which went live on March 9, 2024.^2,11 About 700 HPTs rotate through FHCC annually. HPTs were eligible for inclusion if they were present during the March 9 transition according to a VA Office of Academic Affiliations database. A total of 216 HPTs were identified for inclusion.

Preparations for the transition included scaling down operations (ie, blocking clinician schedules, not scheduling future appointments that may conflict with the transition, making decisions on new facility- and service-line workflows, required EHR training, and speaking with support staff, including VHA National EHR Modernization Supplemental Staffing Unit [NESSU]). This evaluation was designated nonresearch/quality improvement by the VA Bedford Healthcare System Institutional Review Board.

Surveys

Forty-seven interviews were conducted with HPTs, site leaders, and supervisors from January 2024 to June 2024 (Table 1). Participants were identified by service leads and recruited via email; snowball sampling identified additional participants.

The evaluation team developed semistructured interview guides using grounded probes based on a pilot evaluation and existing research on EHR transitions.¹² Questions focused on participant experiences preparing for the EHR transition, learning and using the site’s EHR, and the impact the transition had on clinical training experiences. Interviews were conducted at different times to capture the range of user experiences: 1 month prelaunch, 2 to 6 weeks postlaunch, and 2 months postlaunch. Interviewees were informed of participant rights and provided verbal consent.

HPTs present at FHCC at each survey’s release were emailed invitations and 2 reminders. The anonymous surveys took about 10 minutes to complete. Survey items queried HPTs about their experiences preparing to use the new EHR, perceptions of the current EHR (adapted from the System Usability Scale), satisfaction with VHA training, impact on clinical training, ability to work with preceptors and patients, and experiences with the VHA clinical learning environment (adapted from the VHA Learners Preceptor Survey).^13-15 Survey questions used a 5-point Likert response scale.

Analysis

Interviewers completed postinterview summaries for team debriefing and consensus building. Interviews were coded using a priori (from piloting evaluations and relevant literature) and emergent (refined and developed from data) codes. Deductive and inductive content analyses were conducted. ¹⁶ Deductive analysis used a priori categories (eg, care coordination, EHR training). Inductive content analysis consisted of open and unstructured coding, capturing data outside a priori categories. Emergent codes captured unidentified categories. Qualitative researchers met weekly to discuss data and reach consensus on interpretation.

Descriptive analysis was conducted using top-2 box scoring (proportion responding within the 2 most favorable responses [agree/ strongly agree]). Survey data were analyzed in SAS.¹⁷ The analysis used a merging approach on simultaneously collected qualitative and quantitative data to reach findings consensus.¹⁸

Researcher and research team decisions may shape the data collected due to prior assumptions and experience.¹⁹ This analysis attempted to integrate reflexivity practices to enhance awareness of the researchers’ assumptions and positionality, including by integrating intent collaborative conversing and memorandum writing into the processes.^20,21

Results

This analysis created a survey and fielded responses from HPTs present at FHCC across 3 time points (6 months prelaunch, 1 month prelaunch, and 2 months postlaunch), resulting in a total of 103 responses and an average response rate of 19.0% (Table 2). Six key findings were identified in analysis of responses: (1) critiques of transition management; (2) concerns with training; (3) hope about the EHR; (4) at-the-elbow support was essential; (5) HPTs adjusted to, and later preferred, the new EHR; and (6) transition impacted clinical training, but not overall career plans for HPTs. Findings are presented in this section, with illustrative quantitative data and qualitative data quotes available in the eAppendix.

Critiques of the Transition’s Management

While participants were aware of the transition to the new EHR, most felt they did not have enough information or time to prepare for it, indicating it was “too little, too late.” HPTs felt necessary workflow processes for Cerner/Oracle Health were not determined with enough time to learn them prior to transition. Supervisors shared that important workflow and onboarding decisions remained undecided mere weeks before the transition. Some service lines did not decrease patient loads until right before the transition, making it difficult to manage their schedules and resulting in insufficient time to learn the new EHR.

EHR Training Concerns

Overall, HPTs expressed low satisfaction with computer-based Training Management System (TMS) EHR training, believing it did not prepare them for the new EHR. The percentage of HPTs satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of TMS training was lower than that of instructor-based training pre- and posttransition, with 50% of 36 prelaunch respondents, and 43% of 29 postlaunch respondents expressing satisfaction with computer-based trainings (Figure 1). HPTs were dissatisfied with the training content. They felt it was too general and failed to teach basic tasks in the workflow for their service areas and roles, such as writing a note or order. Furthermore, poor content was exacerbated by poor and unengaging instruction, and HPTs were dissatisfied with the practice EHR used in training, which glitched frequently.

EHR Transition Optimism

Even though the transition was stressful, most HPTs hoped it would be a temporary disruption and that they would quickly adjust to the new EHR. Many participants expected that once they switched to the new EHR, they would pick it up quickly. In addition, many anticipated Cerner/Oracle Health would be better and easier to use in the long run.

At-The-Elbow Support Essential

VHA peer support with NESSU was highly valued among HPTs. NESSU staff were highly knowledgeable and could provide both broad and service-line-specific support. NESSU provided prompt answers to EHR questions. This was particularly critical as other forms of in-person support were often inaccessible or absent during the transition.

HPTs found facility support helpful: 85% of 36 respondents reported being satisfied/ very satisfied with support from supervisors and preceptors, and 84% of 36 respondents were satisfied/very satisfied with technical support from facility informatics staff pretransition (n = 36) (Figure 2). NESSU and supervisor support with daily workflows were particularly helpful, as pretransition training only provided a general introduction to the EHR.

HPTs Adjusted to and Later Preferred the New EHR

The EHR learning experience was intense but short, with many HPTs feeling able to use it only 2 to 4 weeks posttransition. Confidence grew as HPTs came to view Cerner/Oracle Health as a more integrated and intuitive system than the previous EHR. Most participants preferred the new EHR, even if they criticized some features (eg, no group documentation capabilities). Survey participants frequently rated Cerner/Oracle Health usability higher than the original. A total of 32% of 29 posttransition respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Cerner/Oracle Health helps prevent situations that can lead to patient safety risks—higher than pretransition rates. Additionally, fewer respondents found the new EHR unnecessarily complex or thought it contained too many alerts and flags compared to the original EHR (Figure 3).

Impact on Clinical Training, Not Career Plans

The extensive time and energy the transition demanded of HPTs caused stress and affected their clinical training. Many believed they would have learned more if their training had happened outside the transition.

Concerns that the transition affected learning were most acutely felt pretransition. HPTs reporting that EHR implementation positively affected their clinical education fell from 38% of 36 respondents 6 months pretransition to 19% of 29 respondents 1 month pretransition, but returned to 37% posttransition (Figure 4). However, some HPTs believed there was a silver lining: it provided a learning experience they otherwise would not have had.

HPTs who believed the transition positively impacted their likelihood of pursuing future career opportunities within the VHA rose to 33% of 29 respondents posttransition. Overall, Cerner/Oracle Health was characterized as a tool: something used in training, but not something that precluded wanting VHA careers or having meaningful experiences, such as caring for patients.

Discussion

This evaluation addressed an underexplored aspect of EHR transitions: their impact on HPTs. It identified HPT challenges, including dissatisfaction with poor transition preparation and EHR training experiences. Promising findings include positive experiences with transition support, EHR uptake, and overall positive educational experiences despite the transition’s disruption.

When EHR users, including HPTs, are dissatisfied with transition preparations, consequent stress can lead to undesired effects, including increased burnout, inappropriate EHR use, and low work satisfaction.^22-24 Negative EHR transition experiences shape HPTs’ subsequent EHR adoption, user satisfaction, as well as confidence and career intent.^3,25,26 Health systems have strong incentives to implement effective transition change management.

HPTs at previous VHA EHR transition sites reported significantly more disruption to their clinical training compared with HPTs at FHCC. Academic programs were shut down at the first transition site, and HPTs expressed decreased interest in VHA careers at another, even a year posttransition.^6,27 These findings are consistent with the limited literature on the adverse impacts that EHR transitions have on HPTs.^7,28

HPT retention is critical. VA is mandated to prepare the next generation of HPTs for its needs, and those of the nation. The VA relies heavily on HPT retention to recruit clinicians: > 65% of VHA physicians nationwide participated in VHA training programs prior to recruitment into staff positions.^5,29

VHA should invest in transition change management with demonstrated, positive impacts on HPTs, such as in-house support from clinicians. Previous research found that lack of support was a major source of stress and negative outcomes.^6,27 Consequently, supporting HPTs through EHR transitions directly contributes to the VHA’s ability to attract high-quality staff from its HPTs. The challenges and promising practices described in this analysis underscore the necessity of understanding how all EHR users are affected by transitions. What happens to them has direct implications for the VA mission to provide safe, efficient care, and its mandate to provide quality clinical training to HPTs.

These findings hold hopeful implications for supporting HPT EHR use, both during and outside EHR transitions. HPTs expressing that an EHR is only 1 part of their clinical training experience suggests that change management can improve EHR transitions. HPT learning can enhance known factors that are important for HPTs in clinical training, including the health care organization’s mission, caring for patients, and personal development.

Further investigations may engage HPTs at future VHA sites making the transition to the new EHR. One focus would involve applying a learning health systems framework to examine the nature of change management efforts—and their effects on HPT transition experiences—iteratively across transition sites to evaluate the effect of the efforts. Another focus may be longitudinal engagement with HPTs at health care systems and sites transitioning to new EHRs. Research has found that disruptions to EHR usability, satisfaction, and care provision can persist for 2 years and beyond following an EHR transition.³⁰ Evaluating the long-term effects of transitions on HPTs is of interest, given their distinct characteristics and differences from employees.

Limitations

Study data came from voluntary participants at 1 highly engaged site, raising the possibility of self-selection bias. HPT experiences at other VA and non-VA sites may differ. Employees and HPTs were engaged during a high-stress event; snowballing recruitment reach was limited by high workloads and limited time for engagement. Statistical data were descriptive and should not be interpreted as causal. Results may reflect, in part, temporal effects, and respondents include HPTs at different stages of training and with different levels of VA experience. Survey sample sizes may limit generalizability; however, merging data streams strengthened the reliability of findings.

Conclusions

The results of this analysis of FHCC HPTs were notably more positive than those of HPTs at previous VHA EHR transition sites. VHA is one of many health care systems that provide clinical training for HPTs and relies on this population to provide patient care. By highlighting challenges and positive experiences of HPTs during an EHR transition, this evaluation produces actionable insights that can inform the actions of health care systems seeking to support HPTs during disruptive EHR transitions.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is transitioning from its native electronic health record (EHR) Vista/Computerized Patient Record System to the commercial Cerner/Oracle Health EHR. Though this process was temporarily discontinued in April 2023 due to patient safety, usability, and reliability concerns, it resumed in April 2026. It was originally projected to cost $50 billion to implement. ^1-3 As of March 9, 2024, 6 sites had transitioned to the new EHR.² The transition is the largest of its kind in the US, offering an unparalleled opportunity to examine the effects of EHR transitions on an often overlooked part of the workforce: health professions trainees (HPTs).

HPTs serve a central role in VHA. About one-third of patients receive care directly from HPTs who make up about one-third of the VHA workforce. VHA trains > 60 clinical disciplines, comprising > 122,000 trainees annually.^4,5 A paucity of literature exists exploring the experiences of HPTs during EHR transitions, and many studies are often limited to single-site or small populations. HPTs face distinct challenges and needs during EHR transitions and are particularly vulnerable to their negative impacts on retention, clinical training, and efficiency and confidence in EHR use.^6-10 HPTs at VHA sites that have already transitioned to the Cerner/Oracle Health EHR identified many challenges, including significant delays in gaining EHR access, pervasive perceptions of poor training, concerns that EHR functionality issues limited patient care, and decreased ability to track clinical skill acquisition.⁶ These challenges may impact some HPTs more than others (eg, students on short rotations are affected more acutely by delayed EHR access and usage).

This quality improvement project evaluated HPT EHR transition experiences at the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center (FHCC). This article contributes to the limited literature on HPT transition experiences, identifies opportunities to support HPTs, and informs broader efforts in teaching HPTs new technologies.

Methods

FHCC is jointly operated by the US Department of Defense and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It treats 80,000 inpatient and outpatients annually. FHCC was the sixth VA facility to transition to the new EHR, which went live on March 9, 2024.^2,11 About 700 HPTs rotate through FHCC annually. HPTs were eligible for inclusion if they were present during the March 9 transition according to a VA Office of Academic Affiliations database. A total of 216 HPTs were identified for inclusion.

Preparations for the transition included scaling down operations (ie, blocking clinician schedules, not scheduling future appointments that may conflict with the transition, making decisions on new facility- and service-line workflows, required EHR training, and speaking with support staff, including VHA National EHR Modernization Supplemental Staffing Unit [NESSU]). This evaluation was designated nonresearch/quality improvement by the VA Bedford Healthcare System Institutional Review Board.

Surveys

Forty-seven interviews were conducted with HPTs, site leaders, and supervisors from January 2024 to June 2024 (Table 1). Participants were identified by service leads and recruited via email; snowball sampling identified additional participants.

The evaluation team developed semistructured interview guides using grounded probes based on a pilot evaluation and existing research on EHR transitions.¹² Questions focused on participant experiences preparing for the EHR transition, learning and using the site’s EHR, and the impact the transition had on clinical training experiences. Interviews were conducted at different times to capture the range of user experiences: 1 month prelaunch, 2 to 6 weeks postlaunch, and 2 months postlaunch. Interviewees were informed of participant rights and provided verbal consent.

HPTs present at FHCC at each survey’s release were emailed invitations and 2 reminders. The anonymous surveys took about 10 minutes to complete. Survey items queried HPTs about their experiences preparing to use the new EHR, perceptions of the current EHR (adapted from the System Usability Scale), satisfaction with VHA training, impact on clinical training, ability to work with preceptors and patients, and experiences with the VHA clinical learning environment (adapted from the VHA Learners Preceptor Survey).^13-15 Survey questions used a 5-point Likert response scale.

Analysis

Interviewers completed postinterview summaries for team debriefing and consensus building. Interviews were coded using a priori (from piloting evaluations and relevant literature) and emergent (refined and developed from data) codes. Deductive and inductive content analyses were conducted. ¹⁶ Deductive analysis used a priori categories (eg, care coordination, EHR training). Inductive content analysis consisted of open and unstructured coding, capturing data outside a priori categories. Emergent codes captured unidentified categories. Qualitative researchers met weekly to discuss data and reach consensus on interpretation.

Descriptive analysis was conducted using top-2 box scoring (proportion responding within the 2 most favorable responses [agree/ strongly agree]). Survey data were analyzed in SAS.¹⁷ The analysis used a merging approach on simultaneously collected qualitative and quantitative data to reach findings consensus.¹⁸

Researcher and research team decisions may shape the data collected due to prior assumptions and experience.¹⁹ This analysis attempted to integrate reflexivity practices to enhance awareness of the researchers’ assumptions and positionality, including by integrating intent collaborative conversing and memorandum writing into the processes.^20,21

Results

This analysis created a survey and fielded responses from HPTs present at FHCC across 3 time points (6 months prelaunch, 1 month prelaunch, and 2 months postlaunch), resulting in a total of 103 responses and an average response rate of 19.0% (Table 2). Six key findings were identified in analysis of responses: (1) critiques of transition management; (2) concerns with training; (3) hope about the EHR; (4) at-the-elbow support was essential; (5) HPTs adjusted to, and later preferred, the new EHR; and (6) transition impacted clinical training, but not overall career plans for HPTs. Findings are presented in this section, with illustrative quantitative data and qualitative data quotes available in the eAppendix.

Critiques of the Transition’s Management

While participants were aware of the transition to the new EHR, most felt they did not have enough information or time to prepare for it, indicating it was “too little, too late.” HPTs felt necessary workflow processes for Cerner/Oracle Health were not determined with enough time to learn them prior to transition. Supervisors shared that important workflow and onboarding decisions remained undecided mere weeks before the transition. Some service lines did not decrease patient loads until right before the transition, making it difficult to manage their schedules and resulting in insufficient time to learn the new EHR.

EHR Training Concerns

Overall, HPTs expressed low satisfaction with computer-based Training Management System (TMS) EHR training, believing it did not prepare them for the new EHR. The percentage of HPTs satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of TMS training was lower than that of instructor-based training pre- and posttransition, with 50% of 36 prelaunch respondents, and 43% of 29 postlaunch respondents expressing satisfaction with computer-based trainings (Figure 1). HPTs were dissatisfied with the training content. They felt it was too general and failed to teach basic tasks in the workflow for their service areas and roles, such as writing a note or order. Furthermore, poor content was exacerbated by poor and unengaging instruction, and HPTs were dissatisfied with the practice EHR used in training, which glitched frequently.

EHR Transition Optimism

Even though the transition was stressful, most HPTs hoped it would be a temporary disruption and that they would quickly adjust to the new EHR. Many participants expected that once they switched to the new EHR, they would pick it up quickly. In addition, many anticipated Cerner/Oracle Health would be better and easier to use in the long run.

At-The-Elbow Support Essential

VHA peer support with NESSU was highly valued among HPTs. NESSU staff were highly knowledgeable and could provide both broad and service-line-specific support. NESSU provided prompt answers to EHR questions. This was particularly critical as other forms of in-person support were often inaccessible or absent during the transition.

HPTs found facility support helpful: 85% of 36 respondents reported being satisfied/ very satisfied with support from supervisors and preceptors, and 84% of 36 respondents were satisfied/very satisfied with technical support from facility informatics staff pretransition (n = 36) (Figure 2). NESSU and supervisor support with daily workflows were particularly helpful, as pretransition training only provided a general introduction to the EHR.

HPTs Adjusted to and Later Preferred the New EHR

The EHR learning experience was intense but short, with many HPTs feeling able to use it only 2 to 4 weeks posttransition. Confidence grew as HPTs came to view Cerner/Oracle Health as a more integrated and intuitive system than the previous EHR. Most participants preferred the new EHR, even if they criticized some features (eg, no group documentation capabilities). Survey participants frequently rated Cerner/Oracle Health usability higher than the original. A total of 32% of 29 posttransition respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Cerner/Oracle Health helps prevent situations that can lead to patient safety risks—higher than pretransition rates. Additionally, fewer respondents found the new EHR unnecessarily complex or thought it contained too many alerts and flags compared to the original EHR (Figure 3).

Impact on Clinical Training, Not Career Plans

The extensive time and energy the transition demanded of HPTs caused stress and affected their clinical training. Many believed they would have learned more if their training had happened outside the transition.

Concerns that the transition affected learning were most acutely felt pretransition. HPTs reporting that EHR implementation positively affected their clinical education fell from 38% of 36 respondents 6 months pretransition to 19% of 29 respondents 1 month pretransition, but returned to 37% posttransition (Figure 4). However, some HPTs believed there was a silver lining: it provided a learning experience they otherwise would not have had.

HPTs who believed the transition positively impacted their likelihood of pursuing future career opportunities within the VHA rose to 33% of 29 respondents posttransition. Overall, Cerner/Oracle Health was characterized as a tool: something used in training, but not something that precluded wanting VHA careers or having meaningful experiences, such as caring for patients.

Discussion

This evaluation addressed an underexplored aspect of EHR transitions: their impact on HPTs. It identified HPT challenges, including dissatisfaction with poor transition preparation and EHR training experiences. Promising findings include positive experiences with transition support, EHR uptake, and overall positive educational experiences despite the transition’s disruption.

When EHR users, including HPTs, are dissatisfied with transition preparations, consequent stress can lead to undesired effects, including increased burnout, inappropriate EHR use, and low work satisfaction.^22-24 Negative EHR transition experiences shape HPTs’ subsequent EHR adoption, user satisfaction, as well as confidence and career intent.^3,25,26 Health systems have strong incentives to implement effective transition change management.

HPTs at previous VHA EHR transition sites reported significantly more disruption to their clinical training compared with HPTs at FHCC. Academic programs were shut down at the first transition site, and HPTs expressed decreased interest in VHA careers at another, even a year posttransition.^6,27 These findings are consistent with the limited literature on the adverse impacts that EHR transitions have on HPTs.^7,28

HPT retention is critical. VA is mandated to prepare the next generation of HPTs for its needs, and those of the nation. The VA relies heavily on HPT retention to recruit clinicians: > 65% of VHA physicians nationwide participated in VHA training programs prior to recruitment into staff positions.^5,29

VHA should invest in transition change management with demonstrated, positive impacts on HPTs, such as in-house support from clinicians. Previous research found that lack of support was a major source of stress and negative outcomes.^6,27 Consequently, supporting HPTs through EHR transitions directly contributes to the VHA’s ability to attract high-quality staff from its HPTs. The challenges and promising practices described in this analysis underscore the necessity of understanding how all EHR users are affected by transitions. What happens to them has direct implications for the VA mission to provide safe, efficient care, and its mandate to provide quality clinical training to HPTs.

These findings hold hopeful implications for supporting HPT EHR use, both during and outside EHR transitions. HPTs expressing that an EHR is only 1 part of their clinical training experience suggests that change management can improve EHR transitions. HPT learning can enhance known factors that are important for HPTs in clinical training, including the health care organization’s mission, caring for patients, and personal development.

Further investigations may engage HPTs at future VHA sites making the transition to the new EHR. One focus would involve applying a learning health systems framework to examine the nature of change management efforts—and their effects on HPT transition experiences—iteratively across transition sites to evaluate the effect of the efforts. Another focus may be longitudinal engagement with HPTs at health care systems and sites transitioning to new EHRs. Research has found that disruptions to EHR usability, satisfaction, and care provision can persist for 2 years and beyond following an EHR transition.³⁰ Evaluating the long-term effects of transitions on HPTs is of interest, given their distinct characteristics and differences from employees.

Limitations

Study data came from voluntary participants at 1 highly engaged site, raising the possibility of self-selection bias. HPT experiences at other VA and non-VA sites may differ. Employees and HPTs were engaged during a high-stress event; snowballing recruitment reach was limited by high workloads and limited time for engagement. Statistical data were descriptive and should not be interpreted as causal. Results may reflect, in part, temporal effects, and respondents include HPTs at different stages of training and with different levels of VA experience. Survey sample sizes may limit generalizability; however, merging data streams strengthened the reliability of findings.

Conclusions

The results of this analysis of FHCC HPTs were notably more positive than those of HPTs at previous VHA EHR transition sites. VHA is one of many health care systems that provide clinical training for HPTs and relies on this population to provide patient care. By highlighting challenges and positive experiences of HPTs during an EHR transition, this evaluation produces actionable insights that can inform the actions of health care systems seeking to support HPTs during disruptive EHR transitions.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is transitioning from its native electronic health record (EHR) Vista/Computerized Patient Record System to the commercial Cerner/Oracle Health EHR. Though this process was temporarily discontinued in April 2023 due to patient safety, usability, and reliability concerns, it resumed in April 2026. It was originally projected to cost $50 billion to implement. ^1-3 As of March 9, 2024, 6 sites had transitioned to the new EHR.² The transition is the largest of its kind in the US, offering an unparalleled opportunity to examine the effects of EHR transitions on an often overlooked part of the workforce: health professions trainees (HPTs).

HPTs serve a central role in VHA. About one-third of patients receive care directly from HPTs who make up about one-third of the VHA workforce. VHA trains > 60 clinical disciplines, comprising > 122,000 trainees annually.^4,5 A paucity of literature exists exploring the experiences of HPTs during EHR transitions, and many studies are often limited to single-site or small populations. HPTs face distinct challenges and needs during EHR transitions and are particularly vulnerable to their negative impacts on retention, clinical training, and efficiency and confidence in EHR use.^6-10 HPTs at VHA sites that have already transitioned to the Cerner/Oracle Health EHR identified many challenges, including significant delays in gaining EHR access, pervasive perceptions of poor training, concerns that EHR functionality issues limited patient care, and decreased ability to track clinical skill acquisition.⁶ These challenges may impact some HPTs more than others (eg, students on short rotations are affected more acutely by delayed EHR access and usage).

This quality improvement project evaluated HPT EHR transition experiences at the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center (FHCC). This article contributes to the limited literature on HPT transition experiences, identifies opportunities to support HPTs, and informs broader efforts in teaching HPTs new technologies.

Methods

FHCC is jointly operated by the US Department of Defense and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It treats 80,000 inpatient and outpatients annually. FHCC was the sixth VA facility to transition to the new EHR, which went live on March 9, 2024.^2,11 About 700 HPTs rotate through FHCC annually. HPTs were eligible for inclusion if they were present during the March 9 transition according to a VA Office of Academic Affiliations database. A total of 216 HPTs were identified for inclusion.

Preparations for the transition included scaling down operations (ie, blocking clinician schedules, not scheduling future appointments that may conflict with the transition, making decisions on new facility- and service-line workflows, required EHR training, and speaking with support staff, including VHA National EHR Modernization Supplemental Staffing Unit [NESSU]). This evaluation was designated nonresearch/quality improvement by the VA Bedford Healthcare System Institutional Review Board.

Surveys

Forty-seven interviews were conducted with HPTs, site leaders, and supervisors from January 2024 to June 2024 (Table 1). Participants were identified by service leads and recruited via email; snowball sampling identified additional participants.

The evaluation team developed semistructured interview guides using grounded probes based on a pilot evaluation and existing research on EHR transitions.¹² Questions focused on participant experiences preparing for the EHR transition, learning and using the site’s EHR, and the impact the transition had on clinical training experiences. Interviews were conducted at different times to capture the range of user experiences: 1 month prelaunch, 2 to 6 weeks postlaunch, and 2 months postlaunch. Interviewees were informed of participant rights and provided verbal consent.

HPTs present at FHCC at each survey’s release were emailed invitations and 2 reminders. The anonymous surveys took about 10 minutes to complete. Survey items queried HPTs about their experiences preparing to use the new EHR, perceptions of the current EHR (adapted from the System Usability Scale), satisfaction with VHA training, impact on clinical training, ability to work with preceptors and patients, and experiences with the VHA clinical learning environment (adapted from the VHA Learners Preceptor Survey).^13-15 Survey questions used a 5-point Likert response scale.

Analysis

Interviewers completed postinterview summaries for team debriefing and consensus building. Interviews were coded using a priori (from piloting evaluations and relevant literature) and emergent (refined and developed from data) codes. Deductive and inductive content analyses were conducted. ¹⁶ Deductive analysis used a priori categories (eg, care coordination, EHR training). Inductive content analysis consisted of open and unstructured coding, capturing data outside a priori categories. Emergent codes captured unidentified categories. Qualitative researchers met weekly to discuss data and reach consensus on interpretation.

Descriptive analysis was conducted using top-2 box scoring (proportion responding within the 2 most favorable responses [agree/ strongly agree]). Survey data were analyzed in SAS.¹⁷ The analysis used a merging approach on simultaneously collected qualitative and quantitative data to reach findings consensus.¹⁸

Researcher and research team decisions may shape the data collected due to prior assumptions and experience.¹⁹ This analysis attempted to integrate reflexivity practices to enhance awareness of the researchers’ assumptions and positionality, including by integrating intent collaborative conversing and memorandum writing into the processes.^20,21

Results

This analysis created a survey and fielded responses from HPTs present at FHCC across 3 time points (6 months prelaunch, 1 month prelaunch, and 2 months postlaunch), resulting in a total of 103 responses and an average response rate of 19.0% (Table 2). Six key findings were identified in analysis of responses: (1) critiques of transition management; (2) concerns with training; (3) hope about the EHR; (4) at-the-elbow support was essential; (5) HPTs adjusted to, and later preferred, the new EHR; and (6) transition impacted clinical training, but not overall career plans for HPTs. Findings are presented in this section, with illustrative quantitative data and qualitative data quotes available in the eAppendix.

Critiques of the Transition’s Management

While participants were aware of the transition to the new EHR, most felt they did not have enough information or time to prepare for it, indicating it was “too little, too late.” HPTs felt necessary workflow processes for Cerner/Oracle Health were not determined with enough time to learn them prior to transition. Supervisors shared that important workflow and onboarding decisions remained undecided mere weeks before the transition. Some service lines did not decrease patient loads until right before the transition, making it difficult to manage their schedules and resulting in insufficient time to learn the new EHR.

EHR Training Concerns

Overall, HPTs expressed low satisfaction with computer-based Training Management System (TMS) EHR training, believing it did not prepare them for the new EHR. The percentage of HPTs satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of TMS training was lower than that of instructor-based training pre- and posttransition, with 50% of 36 prelaunch respondents, and 43% of 29 postlaunch respondents expressing satisfaction with computer-based trainings (Figure 1). HPTs were dissatisfied with the training content. They felt it was too general and failed to teach basic tasks in the workflow for their service areas and roles, such as writing a note or order. Furthermore, poor content was exacerbated by poor and unengaging instruction, and HPTs were dissatisfied with the practice EHR used in training, which glitched frequently.

EHR Transition Optimism

Even though the transition was stressful, most HPTs hoped it would be a temporary disruption and that they would quickly adjust to the new EHR. Many participants expected that once they switched to the new EHR, they would pick it up quickly. In addition, many anticipated Cerner/Oracle Health would be better and easier to use in the long run.

At-The-Elbow Support Essential

VHA peer support with NESSU was highly valued among HPTs. NESSU staff were highly knowledgeable and could provide both broad and service-line-specific support. NESSU provided prompt answers to EHR questions. This was particularly critical as other forms of in-person support were often inaccessible or absent during the transition.

HPTs found facility support helpful: 85% of 36 respondents reported being satisfied/ very satisfied with support from supervisors and preceptors, and 84% of 36 respondents were satisfied/very satisfied with technical support from facility informatics staff pretransition (n = 36) (Figure 2). NESSU and supervisor support with daily workflows were particularly helpful, as pretransition training only provided a general introduction to the EHR.

HPTs Adjusted to and Later Preferred the New EHR

The EHR learning experience was intense but short, with many HPTs feeling able to use it only 2 to 4 weeks posttransition. Confidence grew as HPTs came to view Cerner/Oracle Health as a more integrated and intuitive system than the previous EHR. Most participants preferred the new EHR, even if they criticized some features (eg, no group documentation capabilities). Survey participants frequently rated Cerner/Oracle Health usability higher than the original. A total of 32% of 29 posttransition respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Cerner/Oracle Health helps prevent situations that can lead to patient safety risks—higher than pretransition rates. Additionally, fewer respondents found the new EHR unnecessarily complex or thought it contained too many alerts and flags compared to the original EHR (Figure 3).

Impact on Clinical Training, Not Career Plans

The extensive time and energy the transition demanded of HPTs caused stress and affected their clinical training. Many believed they would have learned more if their training had happened outside the transition.

Concerns that the transition affected learning were most acutely felt pretransition. HPTs reporting that EHR implementation positively affected their clinical education fell from 38% of 36 respondents 6 months pretransition to 19% of 29 respondents 1 month pretransition, but returned to 37% posttransition (Figure 4). However, some HPTs believed there was a silver lining: it provided a learning experience they otherwise would not have had.

HPTs who believed the transition positively impacted their likelihood of pursuing future career opportunities within the VHA rose to 33% of 29 respondents posttransition. Overall, Cerner/Oracle Health was characterized as a tool: something used in training, but not something that precluded wanting VHA careers or having meaningful experiences, such as caring for patients.

Discussion

This evaluation addressed an underexplored aspect of EHR transitions: their impact on HPTs. It identified HPT challenges, including dissatisfaction with poor transition preparation and EHR training experiences. Promising findings include positive experiences with transition support, EHR uptake, and overall positive educational experiences despite the transition’s disruption.

When EHR users, including HPTs, are dissatisfied with transition preparations, consequent stress can lead to undesired effects, including increased burnout, inappropriate EHR use, and low work satisfaction.^22-24 Negative EHR transition experiences shape HPTs’ subsequent EHR adoption, user satisfaction, as well as confidence and career intent.^3,25,26 Health systems have strong incentives to implement effective transition change management.

HPTs at previous VHA EHR transition sites reported significantly more disruption to their clinical training compared with HPTs at FHCC. Academic programs were shut down at the first transition site, and HPTs expressed decreased interest in VHA careers at another, even a year posttransition.^6,27 These findings are consistent with the limited literature on the adverse impacts that EHR transitions have on HPTs.^7,28

HPT retention is critical. VA is mandated to prepare the next generation of HPTs for its needs, and those of the nation. The VA relies heavily on HPT retention to recruit clinicians: > 65% of VHA physicians nationwide participated in VHA training programs prior to recruitment into staff positions.^5,29

VHA should invest in transition change management with demonstrated, positive impacts on HPTs, such as in-house support from clinicians. Previous research found that lack of support was a major source of stress and negative outcomes.^6,27 Consequently, supporting HPTs through EHR transitions directly contributes to the VHA’s ability to attract high-quality staff from its HPTs. The challenges and promising practices described in this analysis underscore the necessity of understanding how all EHR users are affected by transitions. What happens to them has direct implications for the VA mission to provide safe, efficient care, and its mandate to provide quality clinical training to HPTs.

These findings hold hopeful implications for supporting HPT EHR use, both during and outside EHR transitions. HPTs expressing that an EHR is only 1 part of their clinical training experience suggests that change management can improve EHR transitions. HPT learning can enhance known factors that are important for HPTs in clinical training, including the health care organization’s mission, caring for patients, and personal development.

Further investigations may engage HPTs at future VHA sites making the transition to the new EHR. One focus would involve applying a learning health systems framework to examine the nature of change management efforts—and their effects on HPT transition experiences—iteratively across transition sites to evaluate the effect of the efforts. Another focus may be longitudinal engagement with HPTs at health care systems and sites transitioning to new EHRs. Research has found that disruptions to EHR usability, satisfaction, and care provision can persist for 2 years and beyond following an EHR transition.³⁰ Evaluating the long-term effects of transitions on HPTs is of interest, given their distinct characteristics and differences from employees.

Limitations

Study data came from voluntary participants at 1 highly engaged site, raising the possibility of self-selection bias. HPT experiences at other VA and non-VA sites may differ. Employees and HPTs were engaged during a high-stress event; snowballing recruitment reach was limited by high workloads and limited time for engagement. Statistical data were descriptive and should not be interpreted as causal. Results may reflect, in part, temporal effects, and respondents include HPTs at different stages of training and with different levels of VA experience. Survey sample sizes may limit generalizability; however, merging data streams strengthened the reliability of findings.

Conclusions

The results of this analysis of FHCC HPTs were notably more positive than those of HPTs at previous VHA EHR transition sites. VHA is one of many health care systems that provide clinical training for HPTs and relies on this population to provide patient care. By highlighting challenges and positive experiences of HPTs during an EHR transition, this evaluation produces actionable insights that can inform the actions of health care systems seeking to support HPTs during disruptive EHR transitions.

Cannabis has a long history of use for medicinal and recreational purposes. Research illustrates the potential benefits and increased prevalence of cannabis use in patients with cancer.¹ Cannabis products have been shown to possess antineoplastic and palliative activity, improving nociceptive and neuropathic pain in addition to chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting.^2-5 Despite these developments and changing social attitudes toward cannabis, there remains a lack of comprehensive data on patient perspectives regarding its use, especially in regions where cannabis remains illegal. This knowledge gap is notable among veterans undergoing cancer treatment in states where cannabis is prohibited. Up to 57% of veterans report lifetime marijuana use, making it crucial to understand this population’s cannabis use patterns and potential interactions with cancer treatments.⁶

This observational study sought to determine the prevalence of cannabis use among patients undergoing cancer treatment at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Memphis Healthcare System and evaluate the potential risks associated with combining cannabis products with anticancer therapies.

METHODS

This prospective observational study identified cannabis use among veterans receiving antineoplastic therapy at the Lt. Col. Luke Weathers Jr. VA Medical Center (WJVAMC) and analyzed potential interactions between cannabis products and their cancer treatments. Participants included adults aged > 18 years undergoing antineoplastic therapy at WJVAMC who consented to the study. Data collection involved a written survey approved by the WJVAMC Institutional Review Board and verbal consent from participants. The survey asked participants about their cannabis use in the previous 90 days, including details on quantity, frequency, and method of consumption (eg, inhalation, oral, topical). No incentives were offered for participation.

Surveys from 50 patients who used cannabis were analyzed and their electronic health records were reviewed for sex, age, diagnosis, and antineoplastic regimen. This information was securely stored. A literature review was conducted using PubMed and the Cochrane Library to explore potential interactions between cannabis and the antineoplastic agents that were prescribed to patients in the study, focusing on toxicity, efficacy, or synergistic effects.

Patients were categorized into 4 groups based on treatment: cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted therapy. Patients undergoing multiple types of therapies were included in each applicable category.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients agreed to participate. Fifty patients (38%) acknowledged using cannabis products within 90 days. The patients that used cannabis products within 90 days of the survey reported the following malignancies: 8 patients (16%) had prostate cancer, 3 patients (6%) had hepatocellular carcinoma, 7 patients (14%) had pancreatic carcinoma, 5 patients (10%) had multiple myeloma, 3 patients (6%) had chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 9 patients (18%) had non-small cell lung cancer, 3 patients (6%) had breast cancer, 3 (6%) patients had bladder cancer, 2 patients (4%) had renal cell carcinoma, 1 (2%) patient had chronic myeloid leukemia, 1 (2%) patient had renal amyloid, 1 patient (2%) had supraglottic squamous cell carcinoma, 1 patient (2%) had esophageal carcinoma, 1 (2%) patient had small cell lung cancer, 1 (2%) patient had gastric cancer, and 1 patient (2%) had follicular lymphoma.

Five (10%) of the cannabis users were female, and 45 (90%) were male. Twenty-nine patients (58%) were aged 66 to 75 years, 16 (32%) were aged 56 to 65 years, 3 (6%) were aged 46 to 55 years, and 2 (4%) were aged 76 to 85 years.

Thirty-five patients (70%) inhaled cannabis as opposed to using it via other formulations or a combination (eg, inhalation and topical). Thirty-eight percent of patients used cannabis once daily, 24% used < 1 daily, and 28% used it ≥ 2 times daily. Five patients (10%) did not report the frequency of their cannabis use. Among the patients who reported cannabis use, 21 (42%) were undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy, 19 (38%) were undergoing immunotherapy, 12 (24%) were undergoing targeted therapy, and 10 (20%) were undergoing endocrine therapy. Some patients were treated with multiple types of antineoplastic agents and were counted in multiple categories (Table 1).

Following a literature review of cannabis and antineoplastic agents, patients were evaluated for the potential effects of cannabis on their treatment. The literature review revealed that 31% of cytotoxic chemotherapy agents received by patients in this study might have increased toxicity, and 19% could have reduced efficacy when combined with cannabis. Among immunotherapy agents received by patients in this study, 70% might have decreased efficacy when combined with cannabis use. For targeted therapies, 35% could have increased toxicity, and 70% of endocrine agents could potentially have decreased efficacy (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

This prospective study corroborates previous research by demonstrating that more than one-third of patients receiving oncology care at WJVAMC use cannabis, most often inhaled. Cannabis use was observed among patients undergoing various cancer therapies, including cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, and endocrine therapy. The most common malignancies among cannabis users at WJVAMC include patients with lung cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and multiple myeloma. Cannabis use in patients with pancreatic cancer and multiple myeloma was significantly out of proportion to their prevalence at WJVAMC. This could potentially be due to their drastic effect on quality of life.

Cannabis use increased the risk of toxicity in patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Cannabis use potentially decreased efficacy for patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. Cannabis use did not increase the risk of toxicity or efficacy in patients treated with endocrine therapy.

Antineoplastics/Cannabis Interactions

The potential interactions between cannabis and antineoplastic therapies administered at WJVAMC are worth exploring. While this review aims to shed light on possible interactions, it is important to acknowledge that much of the data is preliminary and derived from in vitro studies. The interactions should be interpreted as potential risks rather than established facts. Additional research is needed to confirm these interactions and effectively guide clinical practices. Understanding these dynamics is essential to optimize patient care and manage the complex interplay between cannabis use and cancer treatment.

Originating from Central Asia, the cannabis plant contains > 400 medicinally relevant compounds, of which about 100 are cannabinoids (CBs). Key CBs are cannabidiol (CBD), a nonpsychoactive compound, and ?-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a psychoactive compound. THC can make up 20% to 30% of the dry weight of female cannabis flowers.⁷

CBs act through the endocannabinoid system, involving CB1 and CB2 receptors, endogenous CBs like anandamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol, and various enzymes. These endogenous CBs, derived from arachidonic acid, play roles in cell growth and proliferation.⁸ In some studies, AEA has induced apoptosis in neuroblastoma cells and inhibited proliferation in breast cancer cells. However, other research suggests AEA may block apoptosis under certain conditions.⁹

CB receptors are transmembrane proteins that interact with CBs differently depending on tissue type and CB structure. Synthetic CBs are designed to target specific receptors, while natural CBs may act as both agonists and antagonists.¹⁰

Cytochrome P450 Metabolism

The human cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A subfamily affects the metabolism of many therapeutic drugs, including cancer therapeutics.¹¹ The various compositions of cannabis are primarily metabolized by the CYP450 pathway, the same as many cancer-directed pharmacologic treatments. CBs act as both CYP inducers and inhibitors. THC, for example, is a CYP inducer whereas CBD is a CYP inhibitor; both are found in the various compounds available for consumption.^12,13 Pharmacology research has suggested potential interactions and effects on established adverse symptoms, but clinical data are lacking, and current research revealing interactions are only recognized in vitro.¹⁴

The Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabis

CBs can affect various cancer-related pathways such as PKB, AMPK, CAMKK-ß, mTOR, PDHK, HIF-1 a, and PPAR-γ. Δ-9-THC can selectively induce apoptosis in tumor cells without harming normal cells, though the exact mechanism remains unclear. Promising results from early mouse studies led to a 2006 human study where intracranial Δ-9-THC in patients with recurrent glioma yielded a median survival of 24 weeks, with 2 patients surviving > 1 year.¹⁵

In a 2022 review article, Cherkasova et al highlighted potential clinical benefits of cannabis across various cancers. They found that upregulated CB1 receptors in colon cancer might enhance the effect of 5-fluorouracil. However, many studies are preliminary and therefore not definitive.¹⁰

Additional research is needed to refine these findings. Challenges include variability in cannabis formulations, the complex tumor microenvironment, and the legal and psychoactive issues surrounding cannabis use. These factors complicate the design of multicenter randomized studies and may deter patients from disclosing cannabis use, thereby hindering efforts to fully understand its therapeutic potential.

Cannabis/Cytotoxic Chemotherapy Interactions

The chemotherapy agents used in this study included carboplatin, paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil, etoposide, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, pemetrexed, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, T-DM1, gemcitabine, and cyclophosphamide. There is a paucity of research regarding the interactions between cytotoxic chemotherapy and cannabis. Most studies focused on CBD due to its inhibition of the CYP450 pathway, which is used for metabolizing cytotoxic chemotherapies. Through this mechanism, CBD could potentially increase the concentrations of chemotherapeutic agents, enhancing their toxicity.

When combined with irinotecan, cannabis can pose risks. Δ-9-THC undergoes first-pass metabolism in the liver, mediated by the CYP450 system and CYP3A4. The glucuronidation of irinotecan is mediated by uridine diphosphate glycosyltransferase, leading to its recirculation within the hepatic system and potentially increased toxicity due to prolonged drug presence. Cannabis may also compete with drug binding to albumin, altering the plasma concentrations of irinotecan and its conversion to the metabolite SN38.¹⁶

Cannabis products can affect chemotherapy levels by interacting with cellular transporters. The MRP1 transporter family, encoded by the ABCC gene family, is expressed mainly in the lung, kidney, skeletal muscle, and hematopoietic stem cells. A 2018 study investigating the effects of THC, CBD, and CBN on MRP1 transporters found that the presence of a cannabis component increased the concentration of vincristine 3-fold. Additional studies suggest the interaction with the CB1 receptor may lead to changes in the expression of MRP1 transporters.¹⁷

CBD inhibits the BCRP transporter, which functions as an efflux pump for methotrexate. Consequently, CBD can increase methotrexate levels, potentially enhancing efficacy but also worsening adverse effects.¹⁸

In pancreatic cancer, CBD specifically interacts with gemcitabine. CB1 and CB2 receptors are upregulated, and CBD inhibits the GPR55 receptor. These interactions may enhance the antineoplastic effect of gemcitabine, reducing cell cycle progression and growth.¹⁹

CBD also interacts with temozolomide (TMZ) by affecting extracellular vesicles used by cells for pro-oncogenic signaling and immune system evasion. Experiments on patient-derived glioblastoma cells, both chemotherapy-resistant and chemotherapy-sensitive, found that CBD increases the formation of extracellular vesicles with reduced levels of miR21 (pro-oncogenic) and elevated levels of miR126 (antioncogenic).²⁰ CBD has also been found to decrease prohibitin levels, a protein associated with TMZ resistance.

In patients with glioblastoma, CBD combined with chemotherapeutic agents like TMZ, carmustine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin has shown increased sensitivity and improved tumor response. CBD is also known to inhibit NF-kB, a pathway that sustains tumor viability despite chemotherapy.²¹ Additionally, CBD inhibits the P-glycoprotein system, affecting chemotherapy efflux from neoplastic cells.¹⁴ In vitro studies have found that CBD is synergistic with bortezomib in inhibiting cancer cell viability. In another glioblastoma model, CBD enhanced the antiproliferative effects of both TMZ and carmustine.¹⁴

Different cannabis formulations may vary in how they interact with various cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents. Some may potentiate the effects of chemotherapy and act synergistically to inhibit tumor growth, while others may lead to increased toxicity.¹⁰ More research is needed to determine which formulations, in combination with specific agents and doses, may have significant interactions that warrant adjustments in chemotherapy dosing.

Cannabis/Immunotherapy Interactions

Cannabis is an immunosuppressant. Data suggest the use of cannabis during immunotherapy worsens treatment outcomes in patients with cancer.²² Exogenous (THC) and endogenous (AEA) CBs negatively affect antitumor immunity by impairing the function of tumor-specific T cells via CB2 and by inhibiting the Jak1-STATs signaling in T cells through CNR2. Xiong et al found that THC reduces the therapeutic effect of anti-PD-1 therapy.²²

In a prospective observational clinical study, Bar-Sela et al analyzed 102 patients with advanced cancer—of which 68 were cannabis users—that were started on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The study found that cannabis users on anti-PD-1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab), anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab), and anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab, atezolizumab) had a significant decrease in time to treatment progression and overall survival vs cannabis non-users.²³ However, a 2023 study by Waissengrin et al found that concomitant use of medical cannabis with pembrolizumab had no harmful effect in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.²⁴ Time to treatment progression of cannabis users did not differ from cannabis nonusers.²⁵

Cannabis/Endocrine Therapy Interactions

In addition to having direct antineoplastic activity on tumor cells, data exist that show how cannabis affects the endocrine system. In animal models, cannabis has been found to suppress the whole hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis as well as other hormones like thyroid, prolactin, and growth hormone. In breast cancer, cannabis competes with estrogen for the estrogen receptor and suppresses growth.²⁶

The endocrine agents used by patients with cancer in this study were antiandrogens like abiraterone, enzalutamide, tamoxifen and anastrozole. Abiraterone is metabolized by CYP450 isoenzymes and uridine diphosphate glycosyltransferases. Cannabis inhibits both processes and therefore may lead to increased toxicities.²⁷ Conversely, enzalutamide is a strong CYP3A inducer, and cannabis use during enzalutamide therapy may significantly increase the toxic effects of cannabis.

There is evidence that molecular pathways involving CB receptors and estrogens overlap, which may lead to interactions when antiestrogens are used in cannabis users with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.²⁶ In preclinical studies, tamoxifen has been shown to act as an inverse agonist on CB1 and CB2 receptors, though the significance of this finding is unclear. There is no research evaluating the effects of CBs on tamoxifen treatment. However, CBD has been found to potentiate the effectiveness of anastrozole or exemestane in breast cancer cell lines.²⁸ Dobovišek et al demonstrated no inhibitory effect of CBD on the activity of tamoxifen, fulvestrant, or palbociclib in breast cancer cell lines.²⁹ The interactions between hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and cannabinoids are complex, and the clinical significance of these interactions remains difficult to identify.

Cannabis/Targeted Therapy Interactions

The targeted therapies used by patients in this study included zanubrutinib, ibrutinib, sorafenib, acalabrutinib, dabrafenib, trametinib, trastuzumab, bevacizumab, daratumumab, and imatinib. Compared to other classes of cancer treatments, most studies have not demonstrated decreased efficacy or increased toxicity of targeted anticancer drugs when used concomitantly with CBD.²⁹

Trastuzumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that targets the proto-oncogene HER2/neu. It is used to treat select patients with metastatic breast cancer. Studies have shown that cannabis use does not attenuate the effectiveness of trastuzumab in HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer subtypes.²⁹ One study found that CBD, in combination with chemotherapeutics and Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and zanubrutinib, has synergistic potential for treating diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma cell lines. This synergy is attributed to the CB1 antagonist activity of cannabis against diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma cell lines.^30,31

Moreover, combining cannabinoids with bevacizumab (a monoclonal anti-VEGF antibody) has been shown to decrease tumor growth and intratumoral hypoxia in clinically relevant human glioblastoma models. This effect is mediated through the downregulation of HIF-1α.³² Long-term studies evaluating the potential harmful or synergistic potential of CBD on targeted anticancer therapy are needed.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study of patients receiving cancer therapy at WJVAMC found a significant prevalence of concurrent cannabis use among patients undergoing antineoplastic treatments. Given that many antineoplastic agents are metabolized by the CYP450 enzyme system, the findings of this study suggest that concurrent cannabis use may pose risks of suboptimal therapeutic outcomes due to potential interactions affecting drug metabolism. These interactions could impact the efficacy and toxicity of the antineoplastic therapies, potentially leading to diminished therapeutic effects or exacerbated adverse reactions.

Patients should be informed regarding the potential decreased efficacy of immunotherapy with concurrent use of cannabis products. They should also be aware of the possibility of increased toxicity with other treatment modalities, though the exact impact on efficacy remains unclear. This highlights the necessity of caution when combining cannabis with prescribed cancer treatments.

While this study identified possible interactions, its data are preliminary and highlight the need for more rigorous research. Future studies should include larger, well-designed cohorts to compare outcomes between cannabis users and nonusers. Such research is essential to fully elucidate the clinical implications of cannabis use during cancer treatment, address the high prevalence of cannabis use among patients with cancer, and mitigate potential risks associated with combining cannabis products with antineoplastic therapies. This will ensure that treatment strategies are optimized for safety and efficacy in this complex patient population.

Cannabis has a long history of use for medicinal and recreational purposes. Research illustrates the potential benefits and increased prevalence of cannabis use in patients with cancer.¹ Cannabis products have been shown to possess antineoplastic and palliative activity, improving nociceptive and neuropathic pain in addition to chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting.^2-5 Despite these developments and changing social attitudes toward cannabis, there remains a lack of comprehensive data on patient perspectives regarding its use, especially in regions where cannabis remains illegal. This knowledge gap is notable among veterans undergoing cancer treatment in states where cannabis is prohibited. Up to 57% of veterans report lifetime marijuana use, making it crucial to understand this population’s cannabis use patterns and potential interactions with cancer treatments.⁶

This observational study sought to determine the prevalence of cannabis use among patients undergoing cancer treatment at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Memphis Healthcare System and evaluate the potential risks associated with combining cannabis products with anticancer therapies.

METHODS

This prospective observational study identified cannabis use among veterans receiving antineoplastic therapy at the Lt. Col. Luke Weathers Jr. VA Medical Center (WJVAMC) and analyzed potential interactions between cannabis products and their cancer treatments. Participants included adults aged > 18 years undergoing antineoplastic therapy at WJVAMC who consented to the study. Data collection involved a written survey approved by the WJVAMC Institutional Review Board and verbal consent from participants. The survey asked participants about their cannabis use in the previous 90 days, including details on quantity, frequency, and method of consumption (eg, inhalation, oral, topical). No incentives were offered for participation.

Surveys from 50 patients who used cannabis were analyzed and their electronic health records were reviewed for sex, age, diagnosis, and antineoplastic regimen. This information was securely stored. A literature review was conducted using PubMed and the Cochrane Library to explore potential interactions between cannabis and the antineoplastic agents that were prescribed to patients in the study, focusing on toxicity, efficacy, or synergistic effects.

Patients were categorized into 4 groups based on treatment: cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted therapy. Patients undergoing multiple types of therapies were included in each applicable category.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients agreed to participate. Fifty patients (38%) acknowledged using cannabis products within 90 days. The patients that used cannabis products within 90 days of the survey reported the following malignancies: 8 patients (16%) had prostate cancer, 3 patients (6%) had hepatocellular carcinoma, 7 patients (14%) had pancreatic carcinoma, 5 patients (10%) had multiple myeloma, 3 patients (6%) had chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 9 patients (18%) had non-small cell lung cancer, 3 patients (6%) had breast cancer, 3 (6%) patients had bladder cancer, 2 patients (4%) had renal cell carcinoma, 1 (2%) patient had chronic myeloid leukemia, 1 (2%) patient had renal amyloid, 1 patient (2%) had supraglottic squamous cell carcinoma, 1 patient (2%) had esophageal carcinoma, 1 (2%) patient had small cell lung cancer, 1 (2%) patient had gastric cancer, and 1 patient (2%) had follicular lymphoma.

Five (10%) of the cannabis users were female, and 45 (90%) were male. Twenty-nine patients (58%) were aged 66 to 75 years, 16 (32%) were aged 56 to 65 years, 3 (6%) were aged 46 to 55 years, and 2 (4%) were aged 76 to 85 years.

Thirty-five patients (70%) inhaled cannabis as opposed to using it via other formulations or a combination (eg, inhalation and topical). Thirty-eight percent of patients used cannabis once daily, 24% used < 1 daily, and 28% used it ≥ 2 times daily. Five patients (10%) did not report the frequency of their cannabis use. Among the patients who reported cannabis use, 21 (42%) were undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy, 19 (38%) were undergoing immunotherapy, 12 (24%) were undergoing targeted therapy, and 10 (20%) were undergoing endocrine therapy. Some patients were treated with multiple types of antineoplastic agents and were counted in multiple categories (Table 1).

Following a literature review of cannabis and antineoplastic agents, patients were evaluated for the potential effects of cannabis on their treatment. The literature review revealed that 31% of cytotoxic chemotherapy agents received by patients in this study might have increased toxicity, and 19% could have reduced efficacy when combined with cannabis. Among immunotherapy agents received by patients in this study, 70% might have decreased efficacy when combined with cannabis use. For targeted therapies, 35% could have increased toxicity, and 70% of endocrine agents could potentially have decreased efficacy (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

This prospective study corroborates previous research by demonstrating that more than one-third of patients receiving oncology care at WJVAMC use cannabis, most often inhaled. Cannabis use was observed among patients undergoing various cancer therapies, including cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, and endocrine therapy. The most common malignancies among cannabis users at WJVAMC include patients with lung cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and multiple myeloma. Cannabis use in patients with pancreatic cancer and multiple myeloma was significantly out of proportion to their prevalence at WJVAMC. This could potentially be due to their drastic effect on quality of life.

Cannabis use increased the risk of toxicity in patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Cannabis use potentially decreased efficacy for patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. Cannabis use did not increase the risk of toxicity or efficacy in patients treated with endocrine therapy.

Antineoplastics/Cannabis Interactions

The potential interactions between cannabis and antineoplastic therapies administered at WJVAMC are worth exploring. While this review aims to shed light on possible interactions, it is important to acknowledge that much of the data is preliminary and derived from in vitro studies. The interactions should be interpreted as potential risks rather than established facts. Additional research is needed to confirm these interactions and effectively guide clinical practices. Understanding these dynamics is essential to optimize patient care and manage the complex interplay between cannabis use and cancer treatment.

Originating from Central Asia, the cannabis plant contains > 400 medicinally relevant compounds, of which about 100 are cannabinoids (CBs). Key CBs are cannabidiol (CBD), a nonpsychoactive compound, and ?-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a psychoactive compound. THC can make up 20% to 30% of the dry weight of female cannabis flowers.⁷

CBs act through the endocannabinoid system, involving CB1 and CB2 receptors, endogenous CBs like anandamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol, and various enzymes. These endogenous CBs, derived from arachidonic acid, play roles in cell growth and proliferation.⁸ In some studies, AEA has induced apoptosis in neuroblastoma cells and inhibited proliferation in breast cancer cells. However, other research suggests AEA may block apoptosis under certain conditions.⁹

CB receptors are transmembrane proteins that interact with CBs differently depending on tissue type and CB structure. Synthetic CBs are designed to target specific receptors, while natural CBs may act as both agonists and antagonists.¹⁰

Cytochrome P450 Metabolism

The human cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A subfamily affects the metabolism of many therapeutic drugs, including cancer therapeutics.¹¹ The various compositions of cannabis are primarily metabolized by the CYP450 pathway, the same as many cancer-directed pharmacologic treatments. CBs act as both CYP inducers and inhibitors. THC, for example, is a CYP inducer whereas CBD is a CYP inhibitor; both are found in the various compounds available for consumption.^12,13 Pharmacology research has suggested potential interactions and effects on established adverse symptoms, but clinical data are lacking, and current research revealing interactions are only recognized in vitro.¹⁴

The Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabis

CBs can affect various cancer-related pathways such as PKB, AMPK, CAMKK-ß, mTOR, PDHK, HIF-1 a, and PPAR-γ. Δ-9-THC can selectively induce apoptosis in tumor cells without harming normal cells, though the exact mechanism remains unclear. Promising results from early mouse studies led to a 2006 human study where intracranial Δ-9-THC in patients with recurrent glioma yielded a median survival of 24 weeks, with 2 patients surviving > 1 year.¹⁵

In a 2022 review article, Cherkasova et al highlighted potential clinical benefits of cannabis across various cancers. They found that upregulated CB1 receptors in colon cancer might enhance the effect of 5-fluorouracil. However, many studies are preliminary and therefore not definitive.¹⁰

Additional research is needed to refine these findings. Challenges include variability in cannabis formulations, the complex tumor microenvironment, and the legal and psychoactive issues surrounding cannabis use. These factors complicate the design of multicenter randomized studies and may deter patients from disclosing cannabis use, thereby hindering efforts to fully understand its therapeutic potential.

Cannabis/Cytotoxic Chemotherapy Interactions

The chemotherapy agents used in this study included carboplatin, paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil, etoposide, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, pemetrexed, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, T-DM1, gemcitabine, and cyclophosphamide. There is a paucity of research regarding the interactions between cytotoxic chemotherapy and cannabis. Most studies focused on CBD due to its inhibition of the CYP450 pathway, which is used for metabolizing cytotoxic chemotherapies. Through this mechanism, CBD could potentially increase the concentrations of chemotherapeutic agents, enhancing their toxicity.

When combined with irinotecan, cannabis can pose risks. Δ-9-THC undergoes first-pass metabolism in the liver, mediated by the CYP450 system and CYP3A4. The glucuronidation of irinotecan is mediated by uridine diphosphate glycosyltransferase, leading to its recirculation within the hepatic system and potentially increased toxicity due to prolonged drug presence. Cannabis may also compete with drug binding to albumin, altering the plasma concentrations of irinotecan and its conversion to the metabolite SN38.¹⁶

Cannabis products can affect chemotherapy levels by interacting with cellular transporters. The MRP1 transporter family, encoded by the ABCC gene family, is expressed mainly in the lung, kidney, skeletal muscle, and hematopoietic stem cells. A 2018 study investigating the effects of THC, CBD, and CBN on MRP1 transporters found that the presence of a cannabis component increased the concentration of vincristine 3-fold. Additional studies suggest the interaction with the CB1 receptor may lead to changes in the expression of MRP1 transporters.¹⁷

CBD inhibits the BCRP transporter, which functions as an efflux pump for methotrexate. Consequently, CBD can increase methotrexate levels, potentially enhancing efficacy but also worsening adverse effects.¹⁸

In pancreatic cancer, CBD specifically interacts with gemcitabine. CB1 and CB2 receptors are upregulated, and CBD inhibits the GPR55 receptor. These interactions may enhance the antineoplastic effect of gemcitabine, reducing cell cycle progression and growth.¹⁹

CBD also interacts with temozolomide (TMZ) by affecting extracellular vesicles used by cells for pro-oncogenic signaling and immune system evasion. Experiments on patient-derived glioblastoma cells, both chemotherapy-resistant and chemotherapy-sensitive, found that CBD increases the formation of extracellular vesicles with reduced levels of miR21 (pro-oncogenic) and elevated levels of miR126 (antioncogenic).²⁰ CBD has also been found to decrease prohibitin levels, a protein associated with TMZ resistance.

In patients with glioblastoma, CBD combined with chemotherapeutic agents like TMZ, carmustine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin has shown increased sensitivity and improved tumor response. CBD is also known to inhibit NF-kB, a pathway that sustains tumor viability despite chemotherapy.²¹ Additionally, CBD inhibits the P-glycoprotein system, affecting chemotherapy efflux from neoplastic cells.¹⁴ In vitro studies have found that CBD is synergistic with bortezomib in inhibiting cancer cell viability. In another glioblastoma model, CBD enhanced the antiproliferative effects of both TMZ and carmustine.¹⁴

Different cannabis formulations may vary in how they interact with various cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents. Some may potentiate the effects of chemotherapy and act synergistically to inhibit tumor growth, while others may lead to increased toxicity.¹⁰ More research is needed to determine which formulations, in combination with specific agents and doses, may have significant interactions that warrant adjustments in chemotherapy dosing.

Cannabis/Immunotherapy Interactions

Cannabis is an immunosuppressant. Data suggest the use of cannabis during immunotherapy worsens treatment outcomes in patients with cancer.²² Exogenous (THC) and endogenous (AEA) CBs negatively affect antitumor immunity by impairing the function of tumor-specific T cells via CB2 and by inhibiting the Jak1-STATs signaling in T cells through CNR2. Xiong et al found that THC reduces the therapeutic effect of anti-PD-1 therapy.²²

In a prospective observational clinical study, Bar-Sela et al analyzed 102 patients with advanced cancer—of which 68 were cannabis users—that were started on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The study found that cannabis users on anti-PD-1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab), anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab), and anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab, atezolizumab) had a significant decrease in time to treatment progression and overall survival vs cannabis non-users.²³ However, a 2023 study by Waissengrin et al found that concomitant use of medical cannabis with pembrolizumab had no harmful effect in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.²⁴ Time to treatment progression of cannabis users did not differ from cannabis nonusers.²⁵

Cannabis/Endocrine Therapy Interactions

In addition to having direct antineoplastic activity on tumor cells, data exist that show how cannabis affects the endocrine system. In animal models, cannabis has been found to suppress the whole hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis as well as other hormones like thyroid, prolactin, and growth hormone. In breast cancer, cannabis competes with estrogen for the estrogen receptor and suppresses growth.²⁶

The endocrine agents used by patients with cancer in this study were antiandrogens like abiraterone, enzalutamide, tamoxifen and anastrozole. Abiraterone is metabolized by CYP450 isoenzymes and uridine diphosphate glycosyltransferases. Cannabis inhibits both processes and therefore may lead to increased toxicities.²⁷ Conversely, enzalutamide is a strong CYP3A inducer, and cannabis use during enzalutamide therapy may significantly increase the toxic effects of cannabis.

There is evidence that molecular pathways involving CB receptors and estrogens overlap, which may lead to interactions when antiestrogens are used in cannabis users with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.²⁶ In preclinical studies, tamoxifen has been shown to act as an inverse agonist on CB1 and CB2 receptors, though the significance of this finding is unclear. There is no research evaluating the effects of CBs on tamoxifen treatment. However, CBD has been found to potentiate the effectiveness of anastrozole or exemestane in breast cancer cell lines.²⁸ Dobovišek et al demonstrated no inhibitory effect of CBD on the activity of tamoxifen, fulvestrant, or palbociclib in breast cancer cell lines.²⁹ The interactions between hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and cannabinoids are complex, and the clinical significance of these interactions remains difficult to identify.

Cannabis/Targeted Therapy Interactions

The targeted therapies used by patients in this study included zanubrutinib, ibrutinib, sorafenib, acalabrutinib, dabrafenib, trametinib, trastuzumab, bevacizumab, daratumumab, and imatinib. Compared to other classes of cancer treatments, most studies have not demonstrated decreased efficacy or increased toxicity of targeted anticancer drugs when used concomitantly with CBD.²⁹

Trastuzumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that targets the proto-oncogene HER2/neu. It is used to treat select patients with metastatic breast cancer. Studies have shown that cannabis use does not attenuate the effectiveness of trastuzumab in HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer subtypes.²⁹ One study found that CBD, in combination with chemotherapeutics and Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and zanubrutinib, has synergistic potential for treating diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma cell lines. This synergy is attributed to the CB1 antagonist activity of cannabis against diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma cell lines.^30,31

Moreover, combining cannabinoids with bevacizumab (a monoclonal anti-VEGF antibody) has been shown to decrease tumor growth and intratumoral hypoxia in clinically relevant human glioblastoma models. This effect is mediated through the downregulation of HIF-1α.³² Long-term studies evaluating the potential harmful or synergistic potential of CBD on targeted anticancer therapy are needed.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study of patients receiving cancer therapy at WJVAMC found a significant prevalence of concurrent cannabis use among patients undergoing antineoplastic treatments. Given that many antineoplastic agents are metabolized by the CYP450 enzyme system, the findings of this study suggest that concurrent cannabis use may pose risks of suboptimal therapeutic outcomes due to potential interactions affecting drug metabolism. These interactions could impact the efficacy and toxicity of the antineoplastic therapies, potentially leading to diminished therapeutic effects or exacerbated adverse reactions.

Patients should be informed regarding the potential decreased efficacy of immunotherapy with concurrent use of cannabis products. They should also be aware of the possibility of increased toxicity with other treatment modalities, though the exact impact on efficacy remains unclear. This highlights the necessity of caution when combining cannabis with prescribed cancer treatments.

While this study identified possible interactions, its data are preliminary and highlight the need for more rigorous research. Future studies should include larger, well-designed cohorts to compare outcomes between cannabis users and nonusers. Such research is essential to fully elucidate the clinical implications of cannabis use during cancer treatment, address the high prevalence of cannabis use among patients with cancer, and mitigate potential risks associated with combining cannabis products with antineoplastic therapies. This will ensure that treatment strategies are optimized for safety and efficacy in this complex patient population.

Cannabis has a long history of use for medicinal and recreational purposes. Research illustrates the potential benefits and increased prevalence of cannabis use in patients with cancer.¹ Cannabis products have been shown to possess antineoplastic and palliative activity, improving nociceptive and neuropathic pain in addition to chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting.^2-5 Despite these developments and changing social attitudes toward cannabis, there remains a lack of comprehensive data on patient perspectives regarding its use, especially in regions where cannabis remains illegal. This knowledge gap is notable among veterans undergoing cancer treatment in states where cannabis is prohibited. Up to 57% of veterans report lifetime marijuana use, making it crucial to understand this population’s cannabis use patterns and potential interactions with cancer treatments.⁶

This observational study sought to determine the prevalence of cannabis use among patients undergoing cancer treatment at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Memphis Healthcare System and evaluate the potential risks associated with combining cannabis products with anticancer therapies.

METHODS

This prospective observational study identified cannabis use among veterans receiving antineoplastic therapy at the Lt. Col. Luke Weathers Jr. VA Medical Center (WJVAMC) and analyzed potential interactions between cannabis products and their cancer treatments. Participants included adults aged > 18 years undergoing antineoplastic therapy at WJVAMC who consented to the study. Data collection involved a written survey approved by the WJVAMC Institutional Review Board and verbal consent from participants. The survey asked participants about their cannabis use in the previous 90 days, including details on quantity, frequency, and method of consumption (eg, inhalation, oral, topical). No incentives were offered for participation.

Surveys from 50 patients who used cannabis were analyzed and their electronic health records were reviewed for sex, age, diagnosis, and antineoplastic regimen. This information was securely stored. A literature review was conducted using PubMed and the Cochrane Library to explore potential interactions between cannabis and the antineoplastic agents that were prescribed to patients in the study, focusing on toxicity, efficacy, or synergistic effects.

Patients were categorized into 4 groups based on treatment: cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted therapy. Patients undergoing multiple types of therapies were included in each applicable category.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients agreed to participate. Fifty patients (38%) acknowledged using cannabis products within 90 days. The patients that used cannabis products within 90 days of the survey reported the following malignancies: 8 patients (16%) had prostate cancer, 3 patients (6%) had hepatocellular carcinoma, 7 patients (14%) had pancreatic carcinoma, 5 patients (10%) had multiple myeloma, 3 patients (6%) had chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 9 patients (18%) had non-small cell lung cancer, 3 patients (6%) had breast cancer, 3 (6%) patients had bladder cancer, 2 patients (4%) had renal cell carcinoma, 1 (2%) patient had chronic myeloid leukemia, 1 (2%) patient had renal amyloid, 1 patient (2%) had supraglottic squamous cell carcinoma, 1 patient (2%) had esophageal carcinoma, 1 (2%) patient had small cell lung cancer, 1 (2%) patient had gastric cancer, and 1 patient (2%) had follicular lymphoma.

Five (10%) of the cannabis users were female, and 45 (90%) were male. Twenty-nine patients (58%) were aged 66 to 75 years, 16 (32%) were aged 56 to 65 years, 3 (6%) were aged 46 to 55 years, and 2 (4%) were aged 76 to 85 years.

Thirty-five patients (70%) inhaled cannabis as opposed to using it via other formulations or a combination (eg, inhalation and topical). Thirty-eight percent of patients used cannabis once daily, 24% used < 1 daily, and 28% used it ≥ 2 times daily. Five patients (10%) did not report the frequency of their cannabis use. Among the patients who reported cannabis use, 21 (42%) were undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy, 19 (38%) were undergoing immunotherapy, 12 (24%) were undergoing targeted therapy, and 10 (20%) were undergoing endocrine therapy. Some patients were treated with multiple types of antineoplastic agents and were counted in multiple categories (Table 1).

Following a literature review of cannabis and antineoplastic agents, patients were evaluated for the potential effects of cannabis on their treatment. The literature review revealed that 31% of cytotoxic chemotherapy agents received by patients in this study might have increased toxicity, and 19% could have reduced efficacy when combined with cannabis. Among immunotherapy agents received by patients in this study, 70% might have decreased efficacy when combined with cannabis use. For targeted therapies, 35% could have increased toxicity, and 70% of endocrine agents could potentially have decreased efficacy (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

This prospective study corroborates previous research by demonstrating that more than one-third of patients receiving oncology care at WJVAMC use cannabis, most often inhaled. Cannabis use was observed among patients undergoing various cancer therapies, including cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, and endocrine therapy. The most common malignancies among cannabis users at WJVAMC include patients with lung cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and multiple myeloma. Cannabis use in patients with pancreatic cancer and multiple myeloma was significantly out of proportion to their prevalence at WJVAMC. This could potentially be due to their drastic effect on quality of life.

Cannabis use increased the risk of toxicity in patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Cannabis use potentially decreased efficacy for patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. Cannabis use did not increase the risk of toxicity or efficacy in patients treated with endocrine therapy.

Antineoplastics/Cannabis Interactions

The potential interactions between cannabis and antineoplastic therapies administered at WJVAMC are worth exploring. While this review aims to shed light on possible interactions, it is important to acknowledge that much of the data is preliminary and derived from in vitro studies. The interactions should be interpreted as potential risks rather than established facts. Additional research is needed to confirm these interactions and effectively guide clinical practices. Understanding these dynamics is essential to optimize patient care and manage the complex interplay between cannabis use and cancer treatment.

Originating from Central Asia, the cannabis plant contains > 400 medicinally relevant compounds, of which about 100 are cannabinoids (CBs). Key CBs are cannabidiol (CBD), a nonpsychoactive compound, and ?-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a psychoactive compound. THC can make up 20% to 30% of the dry weight of female cannabis flowers.⁷

CBs act through the endocannabinoid system, involving CB1 and CB2 receptors, endogenous CBs like anandamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol, and various enzymes. These endogenous CBs, derived from arachidonic acid, play roles in cell growth and proliferation.⁸ In some studies, AEA has induced apoptosis in neuroblastoma cells and inhibited proliferation in breast cancer cells. However, other research suggests AEA may block apoptosis under certain conditions.⁹

CB receptors are transmembrane proteins that interact with CBs differently depending on tissue type and CB structure. Synthetic CBs are designed to target specific receptors, while natural CBs may act as both agonists and antagonists.¹⁰

Cytochrome P450 Metabolism

The human cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A subfamily affects the metabolism of many therapeutic drugs, including cancer therapeutics.¹¹ The various compositions of cannabis are primarily metabolized by the CYP450 pathway, the same as many cancer-directed pharmacologic treatments. CBs act as both CYP inducers and inhibitors. THC, for example, is a CYP inducer whereas CBD is a CYP inhibitor; both are found in the various compounds available for consumption.^12,13 Pharmacology research has suggested potential interactions and effects on established adverse symptoms, but clinical data are lacking, and current research revealing interactions are only recognized in vitro.¹⁴

The Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabis

CBs can affect various cancer-related pathways such as PKB, AMPK, CAMKK-ß, mTOR, PDHK, HIF-1 a, and PPAR-γ. Δ-9-THC can selectively induce apoptosis in tumor cells without harming normal cells, though the exact mechanism remains unclear. Promising results from early mouse studies led to a 2006 human study where intracranial Δ-9-THC in patients with recurrent glioma yielded a median survival of 24 weeks, with 2 patients surviving > 1 year.¹⁵

In a 2022 review article, Cherkasova et al highlighted potential clinical benefits of cannabis across various cancers. They found that upregulated CB1 receptors in colon cancer might enhance the effect of 5-fluorouracil. However, many studies are preliminary and therefore not definitive.¹⁰

Additional research is needed to refine these findings. Challenges include variability in cannabis formulations, the complex tumor microenvironment, and the legal and psychoactive issues surrounding cannabis use. These factors complicate the design of multicenter randomized studies and may deter patients from disclosing cannabis use, thereby hindering efforts to fully understand its therapeutic potential.

Cannabis/Cytotoxic Chemotherapy Interactions

The chemotherapy agents used in this study included carboplatin, paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil, etoposide, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, pemetrexed, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, T-DM1, gemcitabine, and cyclophosphamide. There is a paucity of research regarding the interactions between cytotoxic chemotherapy and cannabis. Most studies focused on CBD due to its inhibition of the CYP450 pathway, which is used for metabolizing cytotoxic chemotherapies. Through this mechanism, CBD could potentially increase the concentrations of chemotherapeutic agents, enhancing their toxicity.

When combined with irinotecan, cannabis can pose risks. Δ-9-THC undergoes first-pass metabolism in the liver, mediated by the CYP450 system and CYP3A4. The glucuronidation of irinotecan is mediated by uridine diphosphate glycosyltransferase, leading to its recirculation within the hepatic system and potentially increased toxicity due to prolonged drug presence. Cannabis may also compete with drug binding to albumin, altering the plasma concentrations of irinotecan and its conversion to the metabolite SN38.¹⁶

Cannabis products can affect chemotherapy levels by interacting with cellular transporters. The MRP1 transporter family, encoded by the ABCC gene family, is expressed mainly in the lung, kidney, skeletal muscle, and hematopoietic stem cells. A 2018 study investigating the effects of THC, CBD, and CBN on MRP1 transporters found that the presence of a cannabis component increased the concentration of vincristine 3-fold. Additional studies suggest the interaction with the CB1 receptor may lead to changes in the expression of MRP1 transporters.¹⁷

CBD inhibits the BCRP transporter, which functions as an efflux pump for methotrexate. Consequently, CBD can increase methotrexate levels, potentially enhancing efficacy but also worsening adverse effects.¹⁸

In pancreatic cancer, CBD specifically interacts with gemcitabine. CB1 and CB2 receptors are upregulated, and CBD inhibits the GPR55 receptor. These interactions may enhance the antineoplastic effect of gemcitabine, reducing cell cycle progression and growth.¹⁹

CBD also interacts with temozolomide (TMZ) by affecting extracellular vesicles used by cells for pro-oncogenic signaling and immune system evasion. Experiments on patient-derived glioblastoma cells, both chemotherapy-resistant and chemotherapy-sensitive, found that CBD increases the formation of extracellular vesicles with reduced levels of miR21 (pro-oncogenic) and elevated levels of miR126 (antioncogenic).²⁰ CBD has also been found to decrease prohibitin levels, a protein associated with TMZ resistance.

In patients with glioblastoma, CBD combined with chemotherapeutic agents like TMZ, carmustine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin has shown increased sensitivity and improved tumor response. CBD is also known to inhibit NF-kB, a pathway that sustains tumor viability despite chemotherapy.²¹ Additionally, CBD inhibits the P-glycoprotein system, affecting chemotherapy efflux from neoplastic cells.¹⁴ In vitro studies have found that CBD is synergistic with bortezomib in inhibiting cancer cell viability. In another glioblastoma model, CBD enhanced the antiproliferative effects of both TMZ and carmustine.¹⁴

Different cannabis formulations may vary in how they interact with various cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents. Some may potentiate the effects of chemotherapy and act synergistically to inhibit tumor growth, while others may lead to increased toxicity.¹⁰ More research is needed to determine which formulations, in combination with specific agents and doses, may have significant interactions that warrant adjustments in chemotherapy dosing.

Cannabis/Immunotherapy Interactions

Cannabis is an immunosuppressant. Data suggest the use of cannabis during immunotherapy worsens treatment outcomes in patients with cancer.²² Exogenous (THC) and endogenous (AEA) CBs negatively affect antitumor immunity by impairing the function of tumor-specific T cells via CB2 and by inhibiting the Jak1-STATs signaling in T cells through CNR2. Xiong et al found that THC reduces the therapeutic effect of anti-PD-1 therapy.²²

In a prospective observational clinical study, Bar-Sela et al analyzed 102 patients with advanced cancer—of which 68 were cannabis users—that were started on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The study found that cannabis users on anti-PD-1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab), anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab), and anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab, atezolizumab) had a significant decrease in time to treatment progression and overall survival vs cannabis non-users.²³ However, a 2023 study by Waissengrin et al found that concomitant use of medical cannabis with pembrolizumab had no harmful effect in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.²⁴ Time to treatment progression of cannabis users did not differ from cannabis nonusers.²⁵

Cannabis/Endocrine Therapy Interactions

In addition to having direct antineoplastic activity on tumor cells, data exist that show how cannabis affects the endocrine system. In animal models, cannabis has been found to suppress the whole hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis as well as other hormones like thyroid, prolactin, and growth hormone. In breast cancer, cannabis competes with estrogen for the estrogen receptor and suppresses growth.²⁶

The endocrine agents used by patients with cancer in this study were antiandrogens like abiraterone, enzalutamide, tamoxifen and anastrozole. Abiraterone is metabolized by CYP450 isoenzymes and uridine diphosphate glycosyltransferases. Cannabis inhibits both processes and therefore may lead to increased toxicities.²⁷ Conversely, enzalutamide is a strong CYP3A inducer, and cannabis use during enzalutamide therapy may significantly increase the toxic effects of cannabis.

There is evidence that molecular pathways involving CB receptors and estrogens overlap, which may lead to interactions when antiestrogens are used in cannabis users with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.²⁶ In preclinical studies, tamoxifen has been shown to act as an inverse agonist on CB1 and CB2 receptors, though the significance of this finding is unclear. There is no research evaluating the effects of CBs on tamoxifen treatment. However, CBD has been found to potentiate the effectiveness of anastrozole or exemestane in breast cancer cell lines.²⁸ Dobovišek et al demonstrated no inhibitory effect of CBD on the activity of tamoxifen, fulvestrant, or palbociclib in breast cancer cell lines.²⁹ The interactions between hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and cannabinoids are complex, and the clinical significance of these interactions remains difficult to identify.

Cannabis/Targeted Therapy Interactions

The targeted therapies used by patients in this study included zanubrutinib, ibrutinib, sorafenib, acalabrutinib, dabrafenib, trametinib, trastuzumab, bevacizumab, daratumumab, and imatinib. Compared to other classes of cancer treatments, most studies have not demonstrated decreased efficacy or increased toxicity of targeted anticancer drugs when used concomitantly with CBD.²⁹

Trastuzumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that targets the proto-oncogene HER2/neu. It is used to treat select patients with metastatic breast cancer. Studies have shown that cannabis use does not attenuate the effectiveness of trastuzumab in HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer subtypes.²⁹ One study found that CBD, in combination with chemotherapeutics and Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and zanubrutinib, has synergistic potential for treating diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma cell lines. This synergy is attributed to the CB1 antagonist activity of cannabis against diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma cell lines.^30,31

Moreover, combining cannabinoids with bevacizumab (a monoclonal anti-VEGF antibody) has been shown to decrease tumor growth and intratumoral hypoxia in clinically relevant human glioblastoma models. This effect is mediated through the downregulation of HIF-1α.³² Long-term studies evaluating the potential harmful or synergistic potential of CBD on targeted anticancer therapy are needed.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study of patients receiving cancer therapy at WJVAMC found a significant prevalence of concurrent cannabis use among patients undergoing antineoplastic treatments. Given that many antineoplastic agents are metabolized by the CYP450 enzyme system, the findings of this study suggest that concurrent cannabis use may pose risks of suboptimal therapeutic outcomes due to potential interactions affecting drug metabolism. These interactions could impact the efficacy and toxicity of the antineoplastic therapies, potentially leading to diminished therapeutic effects or exacerbated adverse reactions.

Patients should be informed regarding the potential decreased efficacy of immunotherapy with concurrent use of cannabis products. They should also be aware of the possibility of increased toxicity with other treatment modalities, though the exact impact on efficacy remains unclear. This highlights the necessity of caution when combining cannabis with prescribed cancer treatments.

While this study identified possible interactions, its data are preliminary and highlight the need for more rigorous research. Future studies should include larger, well-designed cohorts to compare outcomes between cannabis users and nonusers. Such research is essential to fully elucidate the clinical implications of cannabis use during cancer treatment, address the high prevalence of cannabis use among patients with cancer, and mitigate potential risks associated with combining cannabis products with antineoplastic therapies. This will ensure that treatment strategies are optimized for safety and efficacy in this complex patient population.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in US males, with an estimated 313,780 new cases and 35,770 deaths in 2025.¹ Several treatment options are available for localized prostate cancer that have similar outcomes, including active surveillance for low-risk cancers, surgery, or radiotherapy.^2,3 Conventional fractionation radiotherapy (CFRT) with 40 to 45 fractions over 8 to 9 weeks has been used for decades. Over the past 2 decades, moderate hypofractionation schedules with 2.4 to 3.4 Gy per fraction over 20 to 28 fractions have become standard, as many noninferiority randomized clinical trials (RCTs) such as CHHiP (UK),⁴ PROFIT (Canada and Europe),⁵ NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 (US),⁶ HYPRO (Netherlands),^7,8 and HYPO-RT-PC (Sweden and Denmark),⁹ have shown the noninferiority of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy compared with CFRT. Notably, most of these noninferiority studies primarily included patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, except for the HYPO-RT-PC trial,⁹ which also included patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

These noninferiority studies, along with technological advances in radiotherapy, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), paved the path to ultrahypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) that is delivered in 5 fractions of ≥ 6 Gy. This high dose per fraction may have a radiobiologic advantage over conventional fractionation. The relatively low a/ß ratio of prostate cancer, estimated to be between 1 and 2, suggests that tumor cells may be particularly sensitive to the high doses per fraction delivered in SBRT.^10-13 Compared with CFRT, SBRT-induced tumor cell death may also be mediated through different pathways; this pathway appears to be generated in a dose-dependent manner, particularly with doses > 8 Gy per fraction.^14,15 Additionally, the higher a/ß ratio for the surrounding organs at risk, such as the bladder and rectum, theoretically allows for an improved therapeutic ratio window that maximizes tumor control while minimizing damage to healthy tissues.

A substantial body of evidence from prospective studies and meta-analyses supports the use of SBRT for localized prostate cancer. HYPO-RT-PC, a significant phase 3 noninferiority study, enrolled 1200 patients with intermediate (89%) and high-risk (11%) prostate cancer randomized between 2 arms, including CFRT to 78 Gy in 39 fractions and SBRT to 42.7 Gy in 7 fractions, treated 3 days weekly. After a median follow-up of 60 months, the estimated 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival rate was 84% in both groups.⁹ This trial was notable because it was the first randomized study to demonstrate that SBRT was noninferior to CFRT in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients. Another pivotal phase 3 trial, the PACE-B study, enrolled 874 patients to compare SBRT (36.25 Gy to the prostate gland, with a secondary dose of 40 Gy to the gross tumor volume where applicable, in 5 fractions) with CFRT (78 Gy in 39 fractions) and moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) (62 Gy in 20 fractions) in patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. With a 74-month median follow-up, the study reported 5-year biochemical free rates of 94.6% for CFRT and 95.8% for SBRT, confirming the noninferiority of SBRT to CFRT.¹⁵

SBRT offers short, effective, and convenient treatment to many patients with localized prostate cancer. While previous guidelines were more restrictive, the March 2026 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines now list SBRT as a preferred treatment modality for high-risk prostate cancer.¹⁶

Given the growing body of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of SBRT, we implemented an SBRT program in 2014 at a tertiary care center for veterans. This retrospective study was undertaken to evaluate the early efficacy and toxicity of SBRT in patients with localized prostate cancer treated at our institution, including patients across all risk stratifications.

METHODS

We identified 242 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer who underwent SBRT treatment between November 2014 and October 2024 at Overland Park Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Clinic. For the final analysis, 46 patients with < 2 years of follow-up and 22 patients who died from causes other than prostate cancer were excluded, resulting in a cohort of 174 patients with ≥ 24-month follow-up.

Treatment

Patients eligible for staging underwent imaging according to NCCN guidelines, including computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis, bone scintigraphy, or, in recent years, prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography, primarily used for unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) and high-risk (HR) cancers. Patients with a negative staging work-up for nodal or skeletal disease were included. Prior to planning the CT simulation, patients were given bowel preparation instructions, including a low-fiber and low-gas-producing diet, simethicone, and enemas, the night before and morning of the simulation. Patients were instructed to arrive with a comfortably full bladder, having not voided for 2 to 3 hours prior to the procedure. At Kansas City Veterans Affairs Medical Center (KCVAMC), SBRT treatment was generally restricted to patients with a baseline American Urological Association symptom score of 15 to 20 out of 35 and a prostate gland size < 80 mL to minimize the risk of acute urinary toxicity. We did not use intraprostatic fiducials, hydrogel rectal spacers, or intravenous contrast agents for planning CT simulation.

Patients were placed in a supine position, and a vacuum bag was used for immobilization. Following the CT simulation, the images were transferred to the Eclipse treatment planning system. The clinical target volume (CTV) encompassed the prostate and the proximal 1.0 cm of the seminal vesicles for Gleason score (GS) 1 to 2, and the entire seminal vesicle was included for GS 3 to 5, which is consistent with KCVAMC practice and established safety protocols. The planning target volume (PTV) was created by uniformly expanding the CTV by 5 to 7 mm, except for the posterior margin, which was limited to 3 to 5 mm. When elective nodal radiotherapy was planned for HR prostate cancer, the pelvic field for CT simulation started at the L-2 upper border, with the lower border extending to the lesser trochanter. The pelvic nodes were delineated per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines.¹⁷ The CTV nodes (CTVn), including common iliac, external and internal iliac nodes, obturator, and presacral nodes, were created by uniformly expanding the CTVn by 2 to 3 mm. Slice-by-slice corrections were made to avoid bowel overlap in these patients.

The use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for a duration of 6 to 24 months was prescribed for patients with UIR or HR prostate cancer per NCCN guidelines.¹⁶ The prescribed dose to the PTV was 36.25 to 40 Gy (40 Gy was mostly used as a boost to the dominant lesion) in 5 fractions, with each fraction ranging from 7.25 to 8 Gy. For elective nodal radiotherapy in patients at HR, the prescribed dose was 25 Gy in 5 fractions. All patients were planned for VMAT, which aims to deliver ≥ 95% of the prescription dose to 95% of the PTV. Once the physician approved the treatment plan and physics quality assessment was completed, treatments commenced on an every-other-day schedule. Patients received the same bowel preparation instructions for each treatment as for the planning CT simulation. Daily treatment accuracy was confirmed via daily 3-dimensional cone-beam CT (CBCT) for IGRT. No fiducials or hydrogel rectal spacers were used.

Follow-up Schedule and Toxicity Assessment

Follow-up assessments were conducted 4 to 6 weeks after radiation therapy and then repeated every 6 months for 2 to 5 years, and annually thereafter. At each follow-up visit, patients were evaluated for genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, according to RTOG toxicity criteria. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were monitored; in patients receiving ADT, testosterone levels were also checked.

Statistical Analysis

Biochemical failure was defined using the Phoenix definition (nadir PSA + 2 ng/mL). Differences between dose cohorts were assessed using the log-rank test for survival outcomes and X² testing for categorical variables. GU and GI toxicities were summarized as cumulative incidences of RTOG grade ≥ II events. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-four patients were included in the retrospective review. Patients had a median follow-up of 45 months (range, 24-111) (Figure). The median age at treatment was 74 years (range, 51-88), and the median pretreatment PSA level was 11.9 ng/mL (range, 0.6-69.5). Twenty-six patients (14.9%) had a GS 1, 77 (44.3%) had GS 2, 41 (23.6%) had GS 3, 18 (10.3%) had GS 4, and 12 (6.9%) had GS 5. Fifty-one patients (29.3%) received elective pelvic nodal radiotherapy, and 93 patients (53.4%) received ADT (Table 1).

At 24 months follow-up, 6 patients (3.4%) had biochemical failures. One patient died from metastatic prostate cancer, and 5 patients are living with biochemical failure (Table 2). The actuarial 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 99.4%, and the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 96.6%. We performed a subanalysis comparing outcomes of the 36.25 Gy vs 40 Gy SBRT cohorts. There was no statistically significant difference in DFS, OS, or the cumulative incidence of grade II/III toxicity between patients treated with 40 Gy vs 36.25 Gy. Outcomes stratified by NCCN risk groups (low, intermediate, high/very high) are detailed in Table 3. As expected, DFS was slightly lower in the high-risk group, but overall disease control remained high across all stratifications.

The cumulative incidence of RTOG grade II and higher GU toxicity was 28.2% (Table 4). This included 46 patients (26.4%) with grade II GU toxicity and 2 patients (1.2%) who developed grade III GU complications (1 requiring self-catheterization and another a suprapubic catheter for urinary retention). One patient (0.6%) treated with a 40 Gy dose regimen experienced a grade IV GU complication in the form of a rectovesical fistula necessitating surgical intervention.

The cumulative incidence of RTOG grade II or higher GI toxicity was 3.4%, and no grade III or IV gastrointestinal toxicities were observed during the follow-up period. Importantly, intraprostatic fiducials, hydrogel rectal spacers, or intravenous contrast were not routinely used in this cohort of patients.

The high rates of actuarial 5-year DFS and OS observed suggest a favorable initial response to the SBRT regimen employed at KCVAMC. However, given the potential for late recurrence in patients with prostate cancer, longer follow-up is essential to determine the durability of these outcomes. The observed GU toxicity rate of 28.2% for grade II and higher events warrants careful consideration and compares with other published data on SBRT for prostate cancer.¹⁵ The occurrence of a grade IV rectovesical fistula, although rare, is a notable adverse event that warrants discussion in the context of the treatment approach. The low incidence of grade II or higher GI toxicity is an encouraging finding, particularly given that hydrogel rectal spacers are not routinely used to minimize rectal exposure.

DISCUSSION

The primary objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcomes of SBRT for patients with localized prostate cancer treated at KCVAMC and to compare these results with those reported in the literature. Our findings demonstrate promising intermediate-term efficacy, with an estimated 5-year DFS of 96.6% and OS of 99.4% at a median follow-up of 45 months. Furthermore, the observed toxicity profile appears acceptable, with a cumulative grade II and higher GU toxicity rate of 28.2% and a grade II or higher GI toxicity rate of 3.4%. Notably, these outcomes were achieved without the routine use of intraprostatic fiducials or hydrogel rectal spacers.

Two pivotal randomized phase 3 trials have established the noninferiority of ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy (UHRT) with SBRT over conventional fractionation. The HYPO-RT-PC trial compared SBRT (42.7 Gy in 7 fractions) with conventional fractionation (78 Gy in 39 fractions) in intermediate- and high-risk patients with prostate cancer and reported a 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival of 84% in both arms.⁹ The PACE-B trial, which included patients at low- and intermediate-risk, compared SBRT (36.25 Gy in 5 fractions) with conventional or moderate HFRT and reported a 5-year biochemical control rate of 95.8% in the SBRT arm and 94.6% in the control arm.¹⁵

A comprehensive review and meta-analysis of 7 phase 3 studies involving 6795 patients compared different radiotherapy regimens, namely, UHRT, HFRT, and CFRT, and reported that after 5 years, the DFS rates were 85.1% for CFRT, 86% for HFRT, and 85% for UHRT, with no significant difference in toxicity among the 3 different treatment approaches.¹⁸ This suggests that shorter, more intense radiotherapy schedules (UHRT and HFRT) may be as effective and safe as traditional, longer courses of radiation.

There are multiple published nonrandomized prospective trials in which thousands of patients with extreme hypofractionation have been treated with different doses, fractions, and techniques. While heterogeneity and limited long-term follow-up in the existing evidence are acknowledged, these data suggest that prostate SBRT provides appropriate biochemical control with few high-grade toxicities, supporting its ongoing global use and justifying further prospective investigations. Comparative data are shown in Table 5. Several ongoing studies are evaluating noninferiority, superiority, and cost-effectiveness using different methodologies (Table 6).^9,15,19-24

This study’s efficacy outcomes, particularly the high DFS rate, are consistent with the findings from these landmark trials, suggesting that the SBRT regimen used at KCVAMC is effective in achieving early disease control despite 17.2% of patients having high-risk disease. The GU toxicity observed in this study, with a 28.2% rate of grade II or higher events, is also comparable with the 26.9% reported in the 5-fraction SBRT arm of the PACE-B trial, which had a longer median follow-up of 74 months.¹⁵ It is important to note that a portion of these grade II events occurred in patients who were already on a blockers for pre-existing lower urinary tract symptoms before starting radiotherapy, which may inflate the observed cumulative acute toxicity score.

A critical comparison is how SBRT toxicity aligns with moderate hypofractionation (eg, 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 70 Gy in 28 fractions as reported by others).^4,6 Our observed grade III and higher GU toxicity rate (1.7%) and grade III and higher GI toxicity rate (0%) are highly favorable when compared with historical moderate hypofractionation data, which typically report grade III GU toxicity in the range of 2% to 3% and grade III GI toxicity around 1% to 2%. This suggests that despite the higher dose per fraction, SBRT does not necessarily lead to increased severe acute toxicity, potentially offering a superior therapeutic ratio for GI and GU sparing.

However, the occurrence of a grade IV rectovesical fistula in 1 patient (0.6%)—who received the 40 Gy dose—was a serious complication that warrants careful consideration. This rare, but severe, complication in the higher dose cohort underscores the potential for increased organ-at-risk toxicity, particularly in the absence of a hydrogel rectal spacer, which is designed to mitigate high-dose rectal exposure. While the overall rate of significant GU toxicity remains low, this event highlights the potential risks associated with SBRT. Hydrogel rectal spacers are designed to increase the distance between the prostate and the rectum, which can reduce the rectal radiation dose and potentially mitigate the risk of such fistulas. The low rate of grade II or worse GI toxicity (3.4%) in our study is noteworthy, especially considering that hydrogel spacers were not routinely used. This finding aligns with the 2.5% GI toxicity rate reported in the SBRT arm of the PACE-B trial, suggesting that careful treatment planning and delivery techniques, such as VMAT-IMRT and daily CBCT for IGRT, may contribute to minimizing GI toxicity even without the use of rectal spacers.¹⁵ The exclusive use of 3-dimensional CBCT for IGRT in our study, without the use of fiducial markers, suggests that accurate target localization can be achieved with this approach, contributing to the observed efficacy and reduced toxicity.

Strengths and Limitations

This study’s retrospective, single-center design may have introduced selection bias. The median follow-up of 45 months, while substantial, is still relatively short for assessing very late toxicities and long-term oncologic outcomes in prostate cancer, which is known for late recurrences. Additionally, the lack of a direct comparison group within KCVAMC limits the ability to definitively attribute the observed outcomes solely to SBRT treatment. However, the strengths of this study include the inclusion of a consecutive series of veteran patients with localized prostate cancer across all risk categories, providing a real-world perspective on SBRT outcomes in a diverse patient population. Furthermore, the detailed assessment of efficacy and toxicity via standardized RTOG criteria enhances the comparability of our findings with those of other published prospective studies, despite the retrospective nature of the data.

CONCLUSIONS

This single-institution retrospective analysis revealed that short-term SBRT (36.25 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions), with a minimum follow-up of 24 months and a median follow-up of 45 months, for localized prostate cancer, including patients at HR, is associated with promising early efficacy and acceptable toxicity, even in the absence of routine fiducial or hydrogel spacer use. The favorable actuarial 5-year DFS and OS rates, coupled with a manageable toxicity profile, suggest that SBRT is a safe and convenient treatment option for many patients with localized prostate cancer. However, a longer follow-up is necessary to confirm these findings and fully characterize the long-term efficacy and toxicity of this SBRT regimen. Nevertheless, the results contribute to the growing body of evidence suggesting that SBRT is a safe and convenient treatment option for many patients with localized prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in US males, with an estimated 313,780 new cases and 35,770 deaths in 2025.¹ Several treatment options are available for localized prostate cancer that have similar outcomes, including active surveillance for low-risk cancers, surgery, or radiotherapy.^2,3 Conventional fractionation radiotherapy (CFRT) with 40 to 45 fractions over 8 to 9 weeks has been used for decades. Over the past 2 decades, moderate hypofractionation schedules with 2.4 to 3.4 Gy per fraction over 20 to 28 fractions have become standard, as many noninferiority randomized clinical trials (RCTs) such as CHHiP (UK),⁴ PROFIT (Canada and Europe),⁵ NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 (US),⁶ HYPRO (Netherlands),^7,8 and HYPO-RT-PC (Sweden and Denmark),⁹ have shown the noninferiority of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy compared with CFRT. Notably, most of these noninferiority studies primarily included patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, except for the HYPO-RT-PC trial,⁹ which also included patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

These noninferiority studies, along with technological advances in radiotherapy, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), paved the path to ultrahypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) that is delivered in 5 fractions of ≥ 6 Gy. This high dose per fraction may have a radiobiologic advantage over conventional fractionation. The relatively low a/ß ratio of prostate cancer, estimated to be between 1 and 2, suggests that tumor cells may be particularly sensitive to the high doses per fraction delivered in SBRT.^10-13 Compared with CFRT, SBRT-induced tumor cell death may also be mediated through different pathways; this pathway appears to be generated in a dose-dependent manner, particularly with doses > 8 Gy per fraction.^14,15 Additionally, the higher a/ß ratio for the surrounding organs at risk, such as the bladder and rectum, theoretically allows for an improved therapeutic ratio window that maximizes tumor control while minimizing damage to healthy tissues.

A substantial body of evidence from prospective studies and meta-analyses supports the use of SBRT for localized prostate cancer. HYPO-RT-PC, a significant phase 3 noninferiority study, enrolled 1200 patients with intermediate (89%) and high-risk (11%) prostate cancer randomized between 2 arms, including CFRT to 78 Gy in 39 fractions and SBRT to 42.7 Gy in 7 fractions, treated 3 days weekly. After a median follow-up of 60 months, the estimated 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival rate was 84% in both groups.⁹ This trial was notable because it was the first randomized study to demonstrate that SBRT was noninferior to CFRT in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients. Another pivotal phase 3 trial, the PACE-B study, enrolled 874 patients to compare SBRT (36.25 Gy to the prostate gland, with a secondary dose of 40 Gy to the gross tumor volume where applicable, in 5 fractions) with CFRT (78 Gy in 39 fractions) and moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) (62 Gy in 20 fractions) in patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. With a 74-month median follow-up, the study reported 5-year biochemical free rates of 94.6% for CFRT and 95.8% for SBRT, confirming the noninferiority of SBRT to CFRT.¹⁵

SBRT offers short, effective, and convenient treatment to many patients with localized prostate cancer. While previous guidelines were more restrictive, the March 2026 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines now list SBRT as a preferred treatment modality for high-risk prostate cancer.¹⁶

Given the growing body of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of SBRT, we implemented an SBRT program in 2014 at a tertiary care center for veterans. This retrospective study was undertaken to evaluate the early efficacy and toxicity of SBRT in patients with localized prostate cancer treated at our institution, including patients across all risk stratifications.

METHODS

We identified 242 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer who underwent SBRT treatment between November 2014 and October 2024 at Overland Park Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Clinic. For the final analysis, 46 patients with < 2 years of follow-up and 22 patients who died from causes other than prostate cancer were excluded, resulting in a cohort of 174 patients with ≥ 24-month follow-up.

Treatment

Patients eligible for staging underwent imaging according to NCCN guidelines, including computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis, bone scintigraphy, or, in recent years, prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography, primarily used for unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) and high-risk (HR) cancers. Patients with a negative staging work-up for nodal or skeletal disease were included. Prior to planning the CT simulation, patients were given bowel preparation instructions, including a low-fiber and low-gas-producing diet, simethicone, and enemas, the night before and morning of the simulation. Patients were instructed to arrive with a comfortably full bladder, having not voided for 2 to 3 hours prior to the procedure. At Kansas City Veterans Affairs Medical Center (KCVAMC), SBRT treatment was generally restricted to patients with a baseline American Urological Association symptom score of 15 to 20 out of 35 and a prostate gland size < 80 mL to minimize the risk of acute urinary toxicity. We did not use intraprostatic fiducials, hydrogel rectal spacers, or intravenous contrast agents for planning CT simulation.

Patients were placed in a supine position, and a vacuum bag was used for immobilization. Following the CT simulation, the images were transferred to the Eclipse treatment planning system. The clinical target volume (CTV) encompassed the prostate and the proximal 1.0 cm of the seminal vesicles for Gleason score (GS) 1 to 2, and the entire seminal vesicle was included for GS 3 to 5, which is consistent with KCVAMC practice and established safety protocols. The planning target volume (PTV) was created by uniformly expanding the CTV by 5 to 7 mm, except for the posterior margin, which was limited to 3 to 5 mm. When elective nodal radiotherapy was planned for HR prostate cancer, the pelvic field for CT simulation started at the L-2 upper border, with the lower border extending to the lesser trochanter. The pelvic nodes were delineated per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines.¹⁷ The CTV nodes (CTVn), including common iliac, external and internal iliac nodes, obturator, and presacral nodes, were created by uniformly expanding the CTVn by 2 to 3 mm. Slice-by-slice corrections were made to avoid bowel overlap in these patients.

The use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for a duration of 6 to 24 months was prescribed for patients with UIR or HR prostate cancer per NCCN guidelines.¹⁶ The prescribed dose to the PTV was 36.25 to 40 Gy (40 Gy was mostly used as a boost to the dominant lesion) in 5 fractions, with each fraction ranging from 7.25 to 8 Gy. For elective nodal radiotherapy in patients at HR, the prescribed dose was 25 Gy in 5 fractions. All patients were planned for VMAT, which aims to deliver ≥ 95% of the prescription dose to 95% of the PTV. Once the physician approved the treatment plan and physics quality assessment was completed, treatments commenced on an every-other-day schedule. Patients received the same bowel preparation instructions for each treatment as for the planning CT simulation. Daily treatment accuracy was confirmed via daily 3-dimensional cone-beam CT (CBCT) for IGRT. No fiducials or hydrogel rectal spacers were used.

Follow-up Schedule and Toxicity Assessment

Follow-up assessments were conducted 4 to 6 weeks after radiation therapy and then repeated every 6 months for 2 to 5 years, and annually thereafter. At each follow-up visit, patients were evaluated for genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, according to RTOG toxicity criteria. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were monitored; in patients receiving ADT, testosterone levels were also checked.

Statistical Analysis

Biochemical failure was defined using the Phoenix definition (nadir PSA + 2 ng/mL). Differences between dose cohorts were assessed using the log-rank test for survival outcomes and X² testing for categorical variables. GU and GI toxicities were summarized as cumulative incidences of RTOG grade ≥ II events. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-four patients were included in the retrospective review. Patients had a median follow-up of 45 months (range, 24-111) (Figure). The median age at treatment was 74 years (range, 51-88), and the median pretreatment PSA level was 11.9 ng/mL (range, 0.6-69.5). Twenty-six patients (14.9%) had a GS 1, 77 (44.3%) had GS 2, 41 (23.6%) had GS 3, 18 (10.3%) had GS 4, and 12 (6.9%) had GS 5. Fifty-one patients (29.3%) received elective pelvic nodal radiotherapy, and 93 patients (53.4%) received ADT (Table 1).

At 24 months follow-up, 6 patients (3.4%) had biochemical failures. One patient died from metastatic prostate cancer, and 5 patients are living with biochemical failure (Table 2). The actuarial 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 99.4%, and the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 96.6%. We performed a subanalysis comparing outcomes of the 36.25 Gy vs 40 Gy SBRT cohorts. There was no statistically significant difference in DFS, OS, or the cumulative incidence of grade II/III toxicity between patients treated with 40 Gy vs 36.25 Gy. Outcomes stratified by NCCN risk groups (low, intermediate, high/very high) are detailed in Table 3. As expected, DFS was slightly lower in the high-risk group, but overall disease control remained high across all stratifications.

The cumulative incidence of RTOG grade II and higher GU toxicity was 28.2% (Table 4). This included 46 patients (26.4%) with grade II GU toxicity and 2 patients (1.2%) who developed grade III GU complications (1 requiring self-catheterization and another a suprapubic catheter for urinary retention). One patient (0.6%) treated with a 40 Gy dose regimen experienced a grade IV GU complication in the form of a rectovesical fistula necessitating surgical intervention.

The cumulative incidence of RTOG grade II or higher GI toxicity was 3.4%, and no grade III or IV gastrointestinal toxicities were observed during the follow-up period. Importantly, intraprostatic fiducials, hydrogel rectal spacers, or intravenous contrast were not routinely used in this cohort of patients.

The high rates of actuarial 5-year DFS and OS observed suggest a favorable initial response to the SBRT regimen employed at KCVAMC. However, given the potential for late recurrence in patients with prostate cancer, longer follow-up is essential to determine the durability of these outcomes. The observed GU toxicity rate of 28.2% for grade II and higher events warrants careful consideration and compares with other published data on SBRT for prostate cancer.¹⁵ The occurrence of a grade IV rectovesical fistula, although rare, is a notable adverse event that warrants discussion in the context of the treatment approach. The low incidence of grade II or higher GI toxicity is an encouraging finding, particularly given that hydrogel rectal spacers are not routinely used to minimize rectal exposure.

DISCUSSION

The primary objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcomes of SBRT for patients with localized prostate cancer treated at KCVAMC and to compare these results with those reported in the literature. Our findings demonstrate promising intermediate-term efficacy, with an estimated 5-year DFS of 96.6% and OS of 99.4% at a median follow-up of 45 months. Furthermore, the observed toxicity profile appears acceptable, with a cumulative grade II and higher GU toxicity rate of 28.2% and a grade II or higher GI toxicity rate of 3.4%. Notably, these outcomes were achieved without the routine use of intraprostatic fiducials or hydrogel rectal spacers.

Two pivotal randomized phase 3 trials have established the noninferiority of ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy (UHRT) with SBRT over conventional fractionation. The HYPO-RT-PC trial compared SBRT (42.7 Gy in 7 fractions) with conventional fractionation (78 Gy in 39 fractions) in intermediate- and high-risk patients with prostate cancer and reported a 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival of 84% in both arms.⁹ The PACE-B trial, which included patients at low- and intermediate-risk, compared SBRT (36.25 Gy in 5 fractions) with conventional or moderate HFRT and reported a 5-year biochemical control rate of 95.8% in the SBRT arm and 94.6% in the control arm.¹⁵

A comprehensive review and meta-analysis of 7 phase 3 studies involving 6795 patients compared different radiotherapy regimens, namely, UHRT, HFRT, and CFRT, and reported that after 5 years, the DFS rates were 85.1% for CFRT, 86% for HFRT, and 85% for UHRT, with no significant difference in toxicity among the 3 different treatment approaches.¹⁸ This suggests that shorter, more intense radiotherapy schedules (UHRT and HFRT) may be as effective and safe as traditional, longer courses of radiation.

There are multiple published nonrandomized prospective trials in which thousands of patients with extreme hypofractionation have been treated with different doses, fractions, and techniques. While heterogeneity and limited long-term follow-up in the existing evidence are acknowledged, these data suggest that prostate SBRT provides appropriate biochemical control with few high-grade toxicities, supporting its ongoing global use and justifying further prospective investigations. Comparative data are shown in Table 5. Several ongoing studies are evaluating noninferiority, superiority, and cost-effectiveness using different methodologies (Table 6).^9,15,19-24

This study’s efficacy outcomes, particularly the high DFS rate, are consistent with the findings from these landmark trials, suggesting that the SBRT regimen used at KCVAMC is effective in achieving early disease control despite 17.2% of patients having high-risk disease. The GU toxicity observed in this study, with a 28.2% rate of grade II or higher events, is also comparable with the 26.9% reported in the 5-fraction SBRT arm of the PACE-B trial, which had a longer median follow-up of 74 months.¹⁵ It is important to note that a portion of these grade II events occurred in patients who were already on a blockers for pre-existing lower urinary tract symptoms before starting radiotherapy, which may inflate the observed cumulative acute toxicity score.

A critical comparison is how SBRT toxicity aligns with moderate hypofractionation (eg, 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 70 Gy in 28 fractions as reported by others).^4,6 Our observed grade III and higher GU toxicity rate (1.7%) and grade III and higher GI toxicity rate (0%) are highly favorable when compared with historical moderate hypofractionation data, which typically report grade III GU toxicity in the range of 2% to 3% and grade III GI toxicity around 1% to 2%. This suggests that despite the higher dose per fraction, SBRT does not necessarily lead to increased severe acute toxicity, potentially offering a superior therapeutic ratio for GI and GU sparing.

However, the occurrence of a grade IV rectovesical fistula in 1 patient (0.6%)—who received the 40 Gy dose—was a serious complication that warrants careful consideration. This rare, but severe, complication in the higher dose cohort underscores the potential for increased organ-at-risk toxicity, particularly in the absence of a hydrogel rectal spacer, which is designed to mitigate high-dose rectal exposure. While the overall rate of significant GU toxicity remains low, this event highlights the potential risks associated with SBRT. Hydrogel rectal spacers are designed to increase the distance between the prostate and the rectum, which can reduce the rectal radiation dose and potentially mitigate the risk of such fistulas. The low rate of grade II or worse GI toxicity (3.4%) in our study is noteworthy, especially considering that hydrogel spacers were not routinely used. This finding aligns with the 2.5% GI toxicity rate reported in the SBRT arm of the PACE-B trial, suggesting that careful treatment planning and delivery techniques, such as VMAT-IMRT and daily CBCT for IGRT, may contribute to minimizing GI toxicity even without the use of rectal spacers.¹⁵ The exclusive use of 3-dimensional CBCT for IGRT in our study, without the use of fiducial markers, suggests that accurate target localization can be achieved with this approach, contributing to the observed efficacy and reduced toxicity.

Strengths and Limitations

This study’s retrospective, single-center design may have introduced selection bias. The median follow-up of 45 months, while substantial, is still relatively short for assessing very late toxicities and long-term oncologic outcomes in prostate cancer, which is known for late recurrences. Additionally, the lack of a direct comparison group within KCVAMC limits the ability to definitively attribute the observed outcomes solely to SBRT treatment. However, the strengths of this study include the inclusion of a consecutive series of veteran patients with localized prostate cancer across all risk categories, providing a real-world perspective on SBRT outcomes in a diverse patient population. Furthermore, the detailed assessment of efficacy and toxicity via standardized RTOG criteria enhances the comparability of our findings with those of other published prospective studies, despite the retrospective nature of the data.

CONCLUSIONS

This single-institution retrospective analysis revealed that short-term SBRT (36.25 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions), with a minimum follow-up of 24 months and a median follow-up of 45 months, for localized prostate cancer, including patients at HR, is associated with promising early efficacy and acceptable toxicity, even in the absence of routine fiducial or hydrogel spacer use. The favorable actuarial 5-year DFS and OS rates, coupled with a manageable toxicity profile, suggest that SBRT is a safe and convenient treatment option for many patients with localized prostate cancer. However, a longer follow-up is necessary to confirm these findings and fully characterize the long-term efficacy and toxicity of this SBRT regimen. Nevertheless, the results contribute to the growing body of evidence suggesting that SBRT is a safe and convenient treatment option for many patients with localized prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in US males, with an estimated 313,780 new cases and 35,770 deaths in 2025.¹ Several treatment options are available for localized prostate cancer that have similar outcomes, including active surveillance for low-risk cancers, surgery, or radiotherapy.^2,3 Conventional fractionation radiotherapy (CFRT) with 40 to 45 fractions over 8 to 9 weeks has been used for decades. Over the past 2 decades, moderate hypofractionation schedules with 2.4 to 3.4 Gy per fraction over 20 to 28 fractions have become standard, as many noninferiority randomized clinical trials (RCTs) such as CHHiP (UK),⁴ PROFIT (Canada and Europe),⁵ NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 (US),⁶ HYPRO (Netherlands),^7,8 and HYPO-RT-PC (Sweden and Denmark),⁹ have shown the noninferiority of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy compared with CFRT. Notably, most of these noninferiority studies primarily included patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, except for the HYPO-RT-PC trial,⁹ which also included patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

These noninferiority studies, along with technological advances in radiotherapy, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), paved the path to ultrahypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) that is delivered in 5 fractions of ≥ 6 Gy. This high dose per fraction may have a radiobiologic advantage over conventional fractionation. The relatively low a/ß ratio of prostate cancer, estimated to be between 1 and 2, suggests that tumor cells may be particularly sensitive to the high doses per fraction delivered in SBRT.^10-13 Compared with CFRT, SBRT-induced tumor cell death may also be mediated through different pathways; this pathway appears to be generated in a dose-dependent manner, particularly with doses > 8 Gy per fraction.^14,15 Additionally, the higher a/ß ratio for the surrounding organs at risk, such as the bladder and rectum, theoretically allows for an improved therapeutic ratio window that maximizes tumor control while minimizing damage to healthy tissues.

A substantial body of evidence from prospective studies and meta-analyses supports the use of SBRT for localized prostate cancer. HYPO-RT-PC, a significant phase 3 noninferiority study, enrolled 1200 patients with intermediate (89%) and high-risk (11%) prostate cancer randomized between 2 arms, including CFRT to 78 Gy in 39 fractions and SBRT to 42.7 Gy in 7 fractions, treated 3 days weekly. After a median follow-up of 60 months, the estimated 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival rate was 84% in both groups.⁹ This trial was notable because it was the first randomized study to demonstrate that SBRT was noninferior to CFRT in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients. Another pivotal phase 3 trial, the PACE-B study, enrolled 874 patients to compare SBRT (36.25 Gy to the prostate gland, with a secondary dose of 40 Gy to the gross tumor volume where applicable, in 5 fractions) with CFRT (78 Gy in 39 fractions) and moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) (62 Gy in 20 fractions) in patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. With a 74-month median follow-up, the study reported 5-year biochemical free rates of 94.6% for CFRT and 95.8% for SBRT, confirming the noninferiority of SBRT to CFRT.¹⁵

SBRT offers short, effective, and convenient treatment to many patients with localized prostate cancer. While previous guidelines were more restrictive, the March 2026 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines now list SBRT as a preferred treatment modality for high-risk prostate cancer.¹⁶

Given the growing body of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of SBRT, we implemented an SBRT program in 2014 at a tertiary care center for veterans. This retrospective study was undertaken to evaluate the early efficacy and toxicity of SBRT in patients with localized prostate cancer treated at our institution, including patients across all risk stratifications.

METHODS

We identified 242 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer who underwent SBRT treatment between November 2014 and October 2024 at Overland Park Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Clinic. For the final analysis, 46 patients with < 2 years of follow-up and 22 patients who died from causes other than prostate cancer were excluded, resulting in a cohort of 174 patients with ≥ 24-month follow-up.

Treatment

Patients eligible for staging underwent imaging according to NCCN guidelines, including computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis, bone scintigraphy, or, in recent years, prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography, primarily used for unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) and high-risk (HR) cancers. Patients with a negative staging work-up for nodal or skeletal disease were included. Prior to planning the CT simulation, patients were given bowel preparation instructions, including a low-fiber and low-gas-producing diet, simethicone, and enemas, the night before and morning of the simulation. Patients were instructed to arrive with a comfortably full bladder, having not voided for 2 to 3 hours prior to the procedure. At Kansas City Veterans Affairs Medical Center (KCVAMC), SBRT treatment was generally restricted to patients with a baseline American Urological Association symptom score of 15 to 20 out of 35 and a prostate gland size < 80 mL to minimize the risk of acute urinary toxicity. We did not use intraprostatic fiducials, hydrogel rectal spacers, or intravenous contrast agents for planning CT simulation.

Patients were placed in a supine position, and a vacuum bag was used for immobilization. Following the CT simulation, the images were transferred to the Eclipse treatment planning system. The clinical target volume (CTV) encompassed the prostate and the proximal 1.0 cm of the seminal vesicles for Gleason score (GS) 1 to 2, and the entire seminal vesicle was included for GS 3 to 5, which is consistent with KCVAMC practice and established safety protocols. The planning target volume (PTV) was created by uniformly expanding the CTV by 5 to 7 mm, except for the posterior margin, which was limited to 3 to 5 mm. When elective nodal radiotherapy was planned for HR prostate cancer, the pelvic field for CT simulation started at the L-2 upper border, with the lower border extending to the lesser trochanter. The pelvic nodes were delineated per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines.¹⁷ The CTV nodes (CTVn), including common iliac, external and internal iliac nodes, obturator, and presacral nodes, were created by uniformly expanding the CTVn by 2 to 3 mm. Slice-by-slice corrections were made to avoid bowel overlap in these patients.

The use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for a duration of 6 to 24 months was prescribed for patients with UIR or HR prostate cancer per NCCN guidelines.¹⁶ The prescribed dose to the PTV was 36.25 to 40 Gy (40 Gy was mostly used as a boost to the dominant lesion) in 5 fractions, with each fraction ranging from 7.25 to 8 Gy. For elective nodal radiotherapy in patients at HR, the prescribed dose was 25 Gy in 5 fractions. All patients were planned for VMAT, which aims to deliver ≥ 95% of the prescription dose to 95% of the PTV. Once the physician approved the treatment plan and physics quality assessment was completed, treatments commenced on an every-other-day schedule. Patients received the same bowel preparation instructions for each treatment as for the planning CT simulation. Daily treatment accuracy was confirmed via daily 3-dimensional cone-beam CT (CBCT) for IGRT. No fiducials or hydrogel rectal spacers were used.

Follow-up Schedule and Toxicity Assessment

Follow-up assessments were conducted 4 to 6 weeks after radiation therapy and then repeated every 6 months for 2 to 5 years, and annually thereafter. At each follow-up visit, patients were evaluated for genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, according to RTOG toxicity criteria. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were monitored; in patients receiving ADT, testosterone levels were also checked.

Statistical Analysis

Biochemical failure was defined using the Phoenix definition (nadir PSA + 2 ng/mL). Differences between dose cohorts were assessed using the log-rank test for survival outcomes and X² testing for categorical variables. GU and GI toxicities were summarized as cumulative incidences of RTOG grade ≥ II events. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-four patients were included in the retrospective review. Patients had a median follow-up of 45 months (range, 24-111) (Figure). The median age at treatment was 74 years (range, 51-88), and the median pretreatment PSA level was 11.9 ng/mL (range, 0.6-69.5). Twenty-six patients (14.9%) had a GS 1, 77 (44.3%) had GS 2, 41 (23.6%) had GS 3, 18 (10.3%) had GS 4, and 12 (6.9%) had GS 5. Fifty-one patients (29.3%) received elective pelvic nodal radiotherapy, and 93 patients (53.4%) received ADT (Table 1).

At 24 months follow-up, 6 patients (3.4%) had biochemical failures. One patient died from metastatic prostate cancer, and 5 patients are living with biochemical failure (Table 2). The actuarial 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 99.4%, and the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 96.6%. We performed a subanalysis comparing outcomes of the 36.25 Gy vs 40 Gy SBRT cohorts. There was no statistically significant difference in DFS, OS, or the cumulative incidence of grade II/III toxicity between patients treated with 40 Gy vs 36.25 Gy. Outcomes stratified by NCCN risk groups (low, intermediate, high/very high) are detailed in Table 3. As expected, DFS was slightly lower in the high-risk group, but overall disease control remained high across all stratifications.

The cumulative incidence of RTOG grade II and higher GU toxicity was 28.2% (Table 4). This included 46 patients (26.4%) with grade II GU toxicity and 2 patients (1.2%) who developed grade III GU complications (1 requiring self-catheterization and another a suprapubic catheter for urinary retention). One patient (0.6%) treated with a 40 Gy dose regimen experienced a grade IV GU complication in the form of a rectovesical fistula necessitating surgical intervention.

The cumulative incidence of RTOG grade II or higher GI toxicity was 3.4%, and no grade III or IV gastrointestinal toxicities were observed during the follow-up period. Importantly, intraprostatic fiducials, hydrogel rectal spacers, or intravenous contrast were not routinely used in this cohort of patients.

The high rates of actuarial 5-year DFS and OS observed suggest a favorable initial response to the SBRT regimen employed at KCVAMC. However, given the potential for late recurrence in patients with prostate cancer, longer follow-up is essential to determine the durability of these outcomes. The observed GU toxicity rate of 28.2% for grade II and higher events warrants careful consideration and compares with other published data on SBRT for prostate cancer.¹⁵ The occurrence of a grade IV rectovesical fistula, although rare, is a notable adverse event that warrants discussion in the context of the treatment approach. The low incidence of grade II or higher GI toxicity is an encouraging finding, particularly given that hydrogel rectal spacers are not routinely used to minimize rectal exposure.

DISCUSSION

The primary objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcomes of SBRT for patients with localized prostate cancer treated at KCVAMC and to compare these results with those reported in the literature. Our findings demonstrate promising intermediate-term efficacy, with an estimated 5-year DFS of 96.6% and OS of 99.4% at a median follow-up of 45 months. Furthermore, the observed toxicity profile appears acceptable, with a cumulative grade II and higher GU toxicity rate of 28.2% and a grade II or higher GI toxicity rate of 3.4%. Notably, these outcomes were achieved without the routine use of intraprostatic fiducials or hydrogel rectal spacers.

Two pivotal randomized phase 3 trials have established the noninferiority of ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy (UHRT) with SBRT over conventional fractionation. The HYPO-RT-PC trial compared SBRT (42.7 Gy in 7 fractions) with conventional fractionation (78 Gy in 39 fractions) in intermediate- and high-risk patients with prostate cancer and reported a 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival of 84% in both arms.⁹ The PACE-B trial, which included patients at low- and intermediate-risk, compared SBRT (36.25 Gy in 5 fractions) with conventional or moderate HFRT and reported a 5-year biochemical control rate of 95.8% in the SBRT arm and 94.6% in the control arm.¹⁵

A comprehensive review and meta-analysis of 7 phase 3 studies involving 6795 patients compared different radiotherapy regimens, namely, UHRT, HFRT, and CFRT, and reported that after 5 years, the DFS rates were 85.1% for CFRT, 86% for HFRT, and 85% for UHRT, with no significant difference in toxicity among the 3 different treatment approaches.¹⁸ This suggests that shorter, more intense radiotherapy schedules (UHRT and HFRT) may be as effective and safe as traditional, longer courses of radiation.

There are multiple published nonrandomized prospective trials in which thousands of patients with extreme hypofractionation have been treated with different doses, fractions, and techniques. While heterogeneity and limited long-term follow-up in the existing evidence are acknowledged, these data suggest that prostate SBRT provides appropriate biochemical control with few high-grade toxicities, supporting its ongoing global use and justifying further prospective investigations. Comparative data are shown in Table 5. Several ongoing studies are evaluating noninferiority, superiority, and cost-effectiveness using different methodologies (Table 6).^9,15,19-24

This study’s efficacy outcomes, particularly the high DFS rate, are consistent with the findings from these landmark trials, suggesting that the SBRT regimen used at KCVAMC is effective in achieving early disease control despite 17.2% of patients having high-risk disease. The GU toxicity observed in this study, with a 28.2% rate of grade II or higher events, is also comparable with the 26.9% reported in the 5-fraction SBRT arm of the PACE-B trial, which had a longer median follow-up of 74 months.¹⁵ It is important to note that a portion of these grade II events occurred in patients who were already on a blockers for pre-existing lower urinary tract symptoms before starting radiotherapy, which may inflate the observed cumulative acute toxicity score.

A critical comparison is how SBRT toxicity aligns with moderate hypofractionation (eg, 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 70 Gy in 28 fractions as reported by others).^4,6 Our observed grade III and higher GU toxicity rate (1.7%) and grade III and higher GI toxicity rate (0%) are highly favorable when compared with historical moderate hypofractionation data, which typically report grade III GU toxicity in the range of 2% to 3% and grade III GI toxicity around 1% to 2%. This suggests that despite the higher dose per fraction, SBRT does not necessarily lead to increased severe acute toxicity, potentially offering a superior therapeutic ratio for GI and GU sparing.

However, the occurrence of a grade IV rectovesical fistula in 1 patient (0.6%)—who received the 40 Gy dose—was a serious complication that warrants careful consideration. This rare, but severe, complication in the higher dose cohort underscores the potential for increased organ-at-risk toxicity, particularly in the absence of a hydrogel rectal spacer, which is designed to mitigate high-dose rectal exposure. While the overall rate of significant GU toxicity remains low, this event highlights the potential risks associated with SBRT. Hydrogel rectal spacers are designed to increase the distance between the prostate and the rectum, which can reduce the rectal radiation dose and potentially mitigate the risk of such fistulas. The low rate of grade II or worse GI toxicity (3.4%) in our study is noteworthy, especially considering that hydrogel spacers were not routinely used. This finding aligns with the 2.5% GI toxicity rate reported in the SBRT arm of the PACE-B trial, suggesting that careful treatment planning and delivery techniques, such as VMAT-IMRT and daily CBCT for IGRT, may contribute to minimizing GI toxicity even without the use of rectal spacers.¹⁵ The exclusive use of 3-dimensional CBCT for IGRT in our study, without the use of fiducial markers, suggests that accurate target localization can be achieved with this approach, contributing to the observed efficacy and reduced toxicity.

Strengths and Limitations

This study’s retrospective, single-center design may have introduced selection bias. The median follow-up of 45 months, while substantial, is still relatively short for assessing very late toxicities and long-term oncologic outcomes in prostate cancer, which is known for late recurrences. Additionally, the lack of a direct comparison group within KCVAMC limits the ability to definitively attribute the observed outcomes solely to SBRT treatment. However, the strengths of this study include the inclusion of a consecutive series of veteran patients with localized prostate cancer across all risk categories, providing a real-world perspective on SBRT outcomes in a diverse patient population. Furthermore, the detailed assessment of efficacy and toxicity via standardized RTOG criteria enhances the comparability of our findings with those of other published prospective studies, despite the retrospective nature of the data.

CONCLUSIONS

This single-institution retrospective analysis revealed that short-term SBRT (36.25 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions), with a minimum follow-up of 24 months and a median follow-up of 45 months, for localized prostate cancer, including patients at HR, is associated with promising early efficacy and acceptable toxicity, even in the absence of routine fiducial or hydrogel spacer use. The favorable actuarial 5-year DFS and OS rates, coupled with a manageable toxicity profile, suggest that SBRT is a safe and convenient treatment option for many patients with localized prostate cancer. However, a longer follow-up is necessary to confirm these findings and fully characterize the long-term efficacy and toxicity of this SBRT regimen. Nevertheless, the results contribute to the growing body of evidence suggesting that SBRT is a safe and convenient treatment option for many patients with localized prostate cancer.

Patients make unplanned appointments after elective soft tissue hand surgery for real or perceived complications when they experience pain, anxiety, or fear. Unplanned appointments can create travel and financial burdens for patients and families. These appointments take time away from scheduled appointments and can contribute to late arrivals and delays in other clinics. Unscheduled appointments contribute to poor access when staff are diverted from scheduled appointments. If predictive factors can be identified, unplanned appointments may either be ameliorated or avoided with better perioperative risk management or education.

Methods

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System (NFSGVAHS) and University of Florida Institutional Review Board approved a retrospective chart review of all plastic surgery cases performed at the Malcom Randall VA Medical Center (MRVAMC) and Lake City VAMC operating rooms from July 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019, and January 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022 (nonurgent surgeries were discouraged during the COVID-19 pandemic). Elective soft tissue hand surgery cases were identified based on the operative description found in the Surgical Service Surgeon Staffing Report reviewed monthly by the Service Chief. Potential indicators of unplanned visits were recorded, including age; sex; diagnosis of diabetes, depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); current smoking status; and residential zip code. We used the first 3 digits of the patients’ zip codes, which indicate region, as an estimate of proximity to the MRVAMC, which has a 50-county catchment area across North Florida and South Georgia. Diagnoses were found on the “problem list” from the electronic health record documented in the history and physical examinations before surgery. Clinic notes were examined for 3 months postsurgery to identify unplanned postoperative visits and the reason for the appointment. A χ² analysis was conducted using Excel Version 2402. P < .05 was used to determine whether age (> 60 years), sex, proximity to MRVAMC, diabetes, smoking, depression, anxiety, or PTSD were statistically significant independent risk factors for these appointments.

Results

A total of 1009 elective soft tissue hand surgeries at MRVAMC were reviewed. The patients median age was 61 years. Patients included 173 women (17.1%) and 836 men (82.9%). Eighty-one patients (8.0%) returned for unplanned visits. Age (P = .82); proximity to MRVAMC (P = .34); and diabetes (P = .60), smoking (P = .55), anxiety (P = .33), or PTSD (P = .37) were not statistically significant predictors of unplanned appointments. Depression diagnosis (P = .04) and female sex (P = .03) were found to be independent risk factors for an unplanned appointment (Table 1). The most common indication for the requested appointment was pain-related, followed closely by noninfectious wound concerns and persistent symptoms (Table 2).

Discussion

Improved access, quality, and efficiency for patients are goals for the VA.^1-3 The MRVAMC Plastic and Hand Surgery service provides care for the NFSGVAHS and receives an average of 15 to 20 consultation requests daily. The Veterans Health Administration is frequently challenged by staff shortages, and surgical services struggle to respond to consultation requests and treat patients within reasonable time frames.^4,5

The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for unplanned postoperative appointments following elective hand surgery. Unplanned appointments prevent scheduled patients from being seen on time and contribute to backlogs and delays. When patients schedule multiple appointments on the same day, delays in the first clinic’s scheduled appointments create delays for the second and third clinics. Hand surgery clinics can provide a better experience for patients and staff by identifying and mitigating factors prompting unplanned visits.

We anticipated that wound complications would prompt unscheduled visits. Diabetes is a known risk factor for wound healing complications after plastic and hand surgery.^6,7 A hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) screening protocol used by the NFSGVAHS plastic surgery service since 2015 to identify poorly controlled patients with diabetes before surgery may partially explain this finding.⁸ We did not find a statistically significant difference between patients with diabetes and patients without diabetes for scheduling unplanned appointments. The plastic surgery service does not perform elective hand surgery unless the patient’s HbA_1c level is < 9%, or violate the flexor sheath unless HbA_1c level is < 8%. However, Zhuang et al found an increase in soft tissue infections after hand surgery with HbA_1c levels ≥ 7%.⁹

Smoking is a potential factor in postoperative hand surgery complications.^10,11 Lans et al found an increased incidence of 30-day emergency room visits in current and former smokers after outpatient upper extremity fracture surgery.¹² The MRVAMC Plastic Surgery Service counsels patients about the risk of skin necrosis and delayed wound healing, but does not cancel cases or obtain laboratory values to verify abstinence in patients undergoing hand surgery. The VA has multiple resources available for patients interested in smoking cessation through mental health services.¹³

MRVAMC patients have been known to resist returning for scheduled appointments due to the costs or availability of transportation. We suspected that patients who lived further from MRVAMC would be less likely to return for unscheduled visits. We used the first 3 digits of the patients’ mailing zip code to estimate residential proximity to MRVAMC. An acknowledged limitation to this approach is that some veterans have primary addresses in other regions but still spend significant time in the MRVAMC catchment area and use the facility for their health care during the winter months. These “snowbirds” might reside near the facility despite having official addresses that are more distant. Additionally, there was no increased risk of unplanned visits after hand surgery in patients aged > 61 years (the median age of study participants) (P = .82). Dependence on a third party for transportation in older veterans could impact this finding.

Based on the observation that most patients needed reassurance rather than an intervention when they returned for unscheduled appointments, diagnoses of depression, anxiety, and PTSD were evaluated as separate predictive factors. In previous research, anxiety was found to be a risk factor for problematic recovery following carpal tunnel surgery.¹⁴ In the current study, depression was found to be a statistically significant predictor of unscheduled postoperative appointments (P = .04), while anxiety (P = .33) and PTSD (P = .37) were not statistically significant predictors. This is consistent with other studies that have found preexisting depression can predict complications after hand surgery.^15,16 Vranceanu et al found that depression predicted pain intensity and disability after elective hand surgery.¹⁶ Similarly, Oflazoglu et al found a 12% incidence of depression based on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 in new and returning hand patients who presented to an academic practice.¹⁷ They suggest patients should be assessed at all levels of care and that those with poor responses to surgical or nonsurgical management should be evaluated for depression. MRVAMC has a large mental health service consisting of psychiatrists, psychologists, addiction specialists, social workers, and homeless outreach, and patients tend to already have a diagnosis and mental health practitioner when they present to the clinic.

Recent studies found that wound problems, pain, and stiffness were the most common reasons for return visits.^18,19 Shetty et al identified younger age, worse preoperative pain scores, and poor access to transportation as predictors of preventable emergency room visits, which generate higher health care expenditures than an office visit.¹⁹ Our study’s top reasons for appointments (pain, wound/scar concerns, persistent symptoms) can be addressed with additional presurgery patient and family education. Additionally, clinicians encourage nonnarcotic pain management strategies including anti-inflammatories, acetaminophen, elevation, splinting, and hand therapy, and the hospital employs experienced, fellowship-trained anesthesia block faculty who help limit perioperative narcotic use. Patients are advised that pain can be used to guide them through the postoperative recovery by preventing overuse and alerting them to a problem that would be masked with narcotics, and long-standing problems such as chronic nerve compressions may continue to cause pain after surgery.

Patients and families can be given consistent and repetitive verbal and written information, instructions, and expectations at the initial consultation, preoperative appointment, and on the day of surgery. Postoperatively, outside their scheduled appointments, patients are encouraged to use the My HealtheVet secure messaging system or call the clinic to access an experienced registered nurse before making a long drive. Access to virtual or phone visits can reduce emergent in-person visits in a VA population.²⁰

Ozdag et al found that 42% of patients who had elective carpal tunnel surgery made unplanned electronic messages or phone contact within 2 weeks postsurgery. The authors point out the uncompensated administrative burden on the staff answering these messages and suggest pre-empting the contacts with more up-front education regarding postoperative pain expectations and management strategies.²¹

Fisher et al found that attending hand therapy reduced the number of emergency department visits in postoperative infection cases.²² At MRVAMC, a postoperative emergency department visit for a patient prompts an urgent unplanned appointment to the plastic surgery clinic, often on the same day. The MRVAMC occupational therapy clinic employed 3 on-site certified hand therapists during the study period. Because all hand surgery patients at the clinic receive hand therapy on the same day as their first postoperative appointment, attendance at hand therapy was not evaluated as a predictor of unplanned visits. Scheduled hand therapy is another point of contact where the clinic can provide reassurance and patient education.

While females made up 17.1% of the patients in this study, they constituted 12.5% of all veterans in Florida in fiscal year 2023.²³ This study found that women were more likely to present for unplanned postoperative appointments (P = .03). This is consistent with existing literature which has found that women are higher users of health care and office-based appointments.^24,25 This finding suggests the need for further study into whether our methods of communicating instructions to female patients undergoing plastic surgery may not be optimal.

Strengths and Limitations

As a retrospective review, the authors used information documented by multiple different health care practitioners, including trainees. The electronic medical record problem lists and templates provide consistency of information; however, less seasoned clinicians may interpret what they see and hear differently from more experienced clinicians in the postoperative setting. This study occurred in one part of the country with demographics that may not mirror other VA systems or the general population. The authors hope this study can be a starting point for other health care facilities to investigate ways to minimize the burden of unscheduled appointments. A strength of the study is that it was conducted within a closed system, as patients tend to stay within the VA system and documentation and communication among clinicians, even outside the immediate facility, are easily accessed through the electronic health record.

Conclusions

This study found that depression diagnosis and female sex are statistically significant predictors of unplanned postoperative visits after elective soft tissue hand surgery. More effective patient education during the preoperative period, particularly in patients with depression, may be warranted.

Patients make unplanned appointments after elective soft tissue hand surgery for real or perceived complications when they experience pain, anxiety, or fear. Unplanned appointments can create travel and financial burdens for patients and families. These appointments take time away from scheduled appointments and can contribute to late arrivals and delays in other clinics. Unscheduled appointments contribute to poor access when staff are diverted from scheduled appointments. If predictive factors can be identified, unplanned appointments may either be ameliorated or avoided with better perioperative risk management or education.

Methods

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System (NFSGVAHS) and University of Florida Institutional Review Board approved a retrospective chart review of all plastic surgery cases performed at the Malcom Randall VA Medical Center (MRVAMC) and Lake City VAMC operating rooms from July 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019, and January 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022 (nonurgent surgeries were discouraged during the COVID-19 pandemic). Elective soft tissue hand surgery cases were identified based on the operative description found in the Surgical Service Surgeon Staffing Report reviewed monthly by the Service Chief. Potential indicators of unplanned visits were recorded, including age; sex; diagnosis of diabetes, depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); current smoking status; and residential zip code. We used the first 3 digits of the patients’ zip codes, which indicate region, as an estimate of proximity to the MRVAMC, which has a 50-county catchment area across North Florida and South Georgia. Diagnoses were found on the “problem list” from the electronic health record documented in the history and physical examinations before surgery. Clinic notes were examined for 3 months postsurgery to identify unplanned postoperative visits and the reason for the appointment. A χ² analysis was conducted using Excel Version 2402. P < .05 was used to determine whether age (> 60 years), sex, proximity to MRVAMC, diabetes, smoking, depression, anxiety, or PTSD were statistically significant independent risk factors for these appointments.

Results

A total of 1009 elective soft tissue hand surgeries at MRVAMC were reviewed. The patients median age was 61 years. Patients included 173 women (17.1%) and 836 men (82.9%). Eighty-one patients (8.0%) returned for unplanned visits. Age (P = .82); proximity to MRVAMC (P = .34); and diabetes (P = .60), smoking (P = .55), anxiety (P = .33), or PTSD (P = .37) were not statistically significant predictors of unplanned appointments. Depression diagnosis (P = .04) and female sex (P = .03) were found to be independent risk factors for an unplanned appointment (Table 1). The most common indication for the requested appointment was pain-related, followed closely by noninfectious wound concerns and persistent symptoms (Table 2).

Discussion

Improved access, quality, and efficiency for patients are goals for the VA.^1-3 The MRVAMC Plastic and Hand Surgery service provides care for the NFSGVAHS and receives an average of 15 to 20 consultation requests daily. The Veterans Health Administration is frequently challenged by staff shortages, and surgical services struggle to respond to consultation requests and treat patients within reasonable time frames.^4,5

The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for unplanned postoperative appointments following elective hand surgery. Unplanned appointments prevent scheduled patients from being seen on time and contribute to backlogs and delays. When patients schedule multiple appointments on the same day, delays in the first clinic’s scheduled appointments create delays for the second and third clinics. Hand surgery clinics can provide a better experience for patients and staff by identifying and mitigating factors prompting unplanned visits.

We anticipated that wound complications would prompt unscheduled visits. Diabetes is a known risk factor for wound healing complications after plastic and hand surgery.^6,7 A hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) screening protocol used by the NFSGVAHS plastic surgery service since 2015 to identify poorly controlled patients with diabetes before surgery may partially explain this finding.⁸ We did not find a statistically significant difference between patients with diabetes and patients without diabetes for scheduling unplanned appointments. The plastic surgery service does not perform elective hand surgery unless the patient’s HbA_1c level is < 9%, or violate the flexor sheath unless HbA_1c level is < 8%. However, Zhuang et al found an increase in soft tissue infections after hand surgery with HbA_1c levels ≥ 7%.⁹

Smoking is a potential factor in postoperative hand surgery complications.^10,11 Lans et al found an increased incidence of 30-day emergency room visits in current and former smokers after outpatient upper extremity fracture surgery.¹² The MRVAMC Plastic Surgery Service counsels patients about the risk of skin necrosis and delayed wound healing, but does not cancel cases or obtain laboratory values to verify abstinence in patients undergoing hand surgery. The VA has multiple resources available for patients interested in smoking cessation through mental health services.¹³

MRVAMC patients have been known to resist returning for scheduled appointments due to the costs or availability of transportation. We suspected that patients who lived further from MRVAMC would be less likely to return for unscheduled visits. We used the first 3 digits of the patients’ mailing zip code to estimate residential proximity to MRVAMC. An acknowledged limitation to this approach is that some veterans have primary addresses in other regions but still spend significant time in the MRVAMC catchment area and use the facility for their health care during the winter months. These “snowbirds” might reside near the facility despite having official addresses that are more distant. Additionally, there was no increased risk of unplanned visits after hand surgery in patients aged > 61 years (the median age of study participants) (P = .82). Dependence on a third party for transportation in older veterans could impact this finding.

Based on the observation that most patients needed reassurance rather than an intervention when they returned for unscheduled appointments, diagnoses of depression, anxiety, and PTSD were evaluated as separate predictive factors. In previous research, anxiety was found to be a risk factor for problematic recovery following carpal tunnel surgery.¹⁴ In the current study, depression was found to be a statistically significant predictor of unscheduled postoperative appointments (P = .04), while anxiety (P = .33) and PTSD (P = .37) were not statistically significant predictors. This is consistent with other studies that have found preexisting depression can predict complications after hand surgery.^15,16 Vranceanu et al found that depression predicted pain intensity and disability after elective hand surgery.¹⁶ Similarly, Oflazoglu et al found a 12% incidence of depression based on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 in new and returning hand patients who presented to an academic practice.¹⁷ They suggest patients should be assessed at all levels of care and that those with poor responses to surgical or nonsurgical management should be evaluated for depression. MRVAMC has a large mental health service consisting of psychiatrists, psychologists, addiction specialists, social workers, and homeless outreach, and patients tend to already have a diagnosis and mental health practitioner when they present to the clinic.

Recent studies found that wound problems, pain, and stiffness were the most common reasons for return visits.^18,19 Shetty et al identified younger age, worse preoperative pain scores, and poor access to transportation as predictors of preventable emergency room visits, which generate higher health care expenditures than an office visit.¹⁹ Our study’s top reasons for appointments (pain, wound/scar concerns, persistent symptoms) can be addressed with additional presurgery patient and family education. Additionally, clinicians encourage nonnarcotic pain management strategies including anti-inflammatories, acetaminophen, elevation, splinting, and hand therapy, and the hospital employs experienced, fellowship-trained anesthesia block faculty who help limit perioperative narcotic use. Patients are advised that pain can be used to guide them through the postoperative recovery by preventing overuse and alerting them to a problem that would be masked with narcotics, and long-standing problems such as chronic nerve compressions may continue to cause pain after surgery.

Patients and families can be given consistent and repetitive verbal and written information, instructions, and expectations at the initial consultation, preoperative appointment, and on the day of surgery. Postoperatively, outside their scheduled appointments, patients are encouraged to use the My HealtheVet secure messaging system or call the clinic to access an experienced registered nurse before making a long drive. Access to virtual or phone visits can reduce emergent in-person visits in a VA population.²⁰

Ozdag et al found that 42% of patients who had elective carpal tunnel surgery made unplanned electronic messages or phone contact within 2 weeks postsurgery. The authors point out the uncompensated administrative burden on the staff answering these messages and suggest pre-empting the contacts with more up-front education regarding postoperative pain expectations and management strategies.²¹

Fisher et al found that attending hand therapy reduced the number of emergency department visits in postoperative infection cases.²² At MRVAMC, a postoperative emergency department visit for a patient prompts an urgent unplanned appointment to the plastic surgery clinic, often on the same day. The MRVAMC occupational therapy clinic employed 3 on-site certified hand therapists during the study period. Because all hand surgery patients at the clinic receive hand therapy on the same day as their first postoperative appointment, attendance at hand therapy was not evaluated as a predictor of unplanned visits. Scheduled hand therapy is another point of contact where the clinic can provide reassurance and patient education.

While females made up 17.1% of the patients in this study, they constituted 12.5% of all veterans in Florida in fiscal year 2023.²³ This study found that women were more likely to present for unplanned postoperative appointments (P = .03). This is consistent with existing literature which has found that women are higher users of health care and office-based appointments.^24,25 This finding suggests the need for further study into whether our methods of communicating instructions to female patients undergoing plastic surgery may not be optimal.

Strengths and Limitations

As a retrospective review, the authors used information documented by multiple different health care practitioners, including trainees. The electronic medical record problem lists and templates provide consistency of information; however, less seasoned clinicians may interpret what they see and hear differently from more experienced clinicians in the postoperative setting. This study occurred in one part of the country with demographics that may not mirror other VA systems or the general population. The authors hope this study can be a starting point for other health care facilities to investigate ways to minimize the burden of unscheduled appointments. A strength of the study is that it was conducted within a closed system, as patients tend to stay within the VA system and documentation and communication among clinicians, even outside the immediate facility, are easily accessed through the electronic health record.

Conclusions

This study found that depression diagnosis and female sex are statistically significant predictors of unplanned postoperative visits after elective soft tissue hand surgery. More effective patient education during the preoperative period, particularly in patients with depression, may be warranted.

Patients make unplanned appointments after elective soft tissue hand surgery for real or perceived complications when they experience pain, anxiety, or fear. Unplanned appointments can create travel and financial burdens for patients and families. These appointments take time away from scheduled appointments and can contribute to late arrivals and delays in other clinics. Unscheduled appointments contribute to poor access when staff are diverted from scheduled appointments. If predictive factors can be identified, unplanned appointments may either be ameliorated or avoided with better perioperative risk management or education.

Methods

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System (NFSGVAHS) and University of Florida Institutional Review Board approved a retrospective chart review of all plastic surgery cases performed at the Malcom Randall VA Medical Center (MRVAMC) and Lake City VAMC operating rooms from July 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019, and January 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022 (nonurgent surgeries were discouraged during the COVID-19 pandemic). Elective soft tissue hand surgery cases were identified based on the operative description found in the Surgical Service Surgeon Staffing Report reviewed monthly by the Service Chief. Potential indicators of unplanned visits were recorded, including age; sex; diagnosis of diabetes, depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); current smoking status; and residential zip code. We used the first 3 digits of the patients’ zip codes, which indicate region, as an estimate of proximity to the MRVAMC, which has a 50-county catchment area across North Florida and South Georgia. Diagnoses were found on the “problem list” from the electronic health record documented in the history and physical examinations before surgery. Clinic notes were examined for 3 months postsurgery to identify unplanned postoperative visits and the reason for the appointment. A χ² analysis was conducted using Excel Version 2402. P < .05 was used to determine whether age (> 60 years), sex, proximity to MRVAMC, diabetes, smoking, depression, anxiety, or PTSD were statistically significant independent risk factors for these appointments.

Results

A total of 1009 elective soft tissue hand surgeries at MRVAMC were reviewed. The patients median age was 61 years. Patients included 173 women (17.1%) and 836 men (82.9%). Eighty-one patients (8.0%) returned for unplanned visits. Age (P = .82); proximity to MRVAMC (P = .34); and diabetes (P = .60), smoking (P = .55), anxiety (P = .33), or PTSD (P = .37) were not statistically significant predictors of unplanned appointments. Depression diagnosis (P = .04) and female sex (P = .03) were found to be independent risk factors for an unplanned appointment (Table 1). The most common indication for the requested appointment was pain-related, followed closely by noninfectious wound concerns and persistent symptoms (Table 2).

Discussion

Improved access, quality, and efficiency for patients are goals for the VA.^1-3 The MRVAMC Plastic and Hand Surgery service provides care for the NFSGVAHS and receives an average of 15 to 20 consultation requests daily. The Veterans Health Administration is frequently challenged by staff shortages, and surgical services struggle to respond to consultation requests and treat patients within reasonable time frames.^4,5

The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for unplanned postoperative appointments following elective hand surgery. Unplanned appointments prevent scheduled patients from being seen on time and contribute to backlogs and delays. When patients schedule multiple appointments on the same day, delays in the first clinic’s scheduled appointments create delays for the second and third clinics. Hand surgery clinics can provide a better experience for patients and staff by identifying and mitigating factors prompting unplanned visits.

We anticipated that wound complications would prompt unscheduled visits. Diabetes is a known risk factor for wound healing complications after plastic and hand surgery.^6,7 A hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) screening protocol used by the NFSGVAHS plastic surgery service since 2015 to identify poorly controlled patients with diabetes before surgery may partially explain this finding.⁸ We did not find a statistically significant difference between patients with diabetes and patients without diabetes for scheduling unplanned appointments. The plastic surgery service does not perform elective hand surgery unless the patient’s HbA_1c level is < 9%, or violate the flexor sheath unless HbA_1c level is < 8%. However, Zhuang et al found an increase in soft tissue infections after hand surgery with HbA_1c levels ≥ 7%.⁹

Smoking is a potential factor in postoperative hand surgery complications.^10,11 Lans et al found an increased incidence of 30-day emergency room visits in current and former smokers after outpatient upper extremity fracture surgery.¹² The MRVAMC Plastic Surgery Service counsels patients about the risk of skin necrosis and delayed wound healing, but does not cancel cases or obtain laboratory values to verify abstinence in patients undergoing hand surgery. The VA has multiple resources available for patients interested in smoking cessation through mental health services.¹³

MRVAMC patients have been known to resist returning for scheduled appointments due to the costs or availability of transportation. We suspected that patients who lived further from MRVAMC would be less likely to return for unscheduled visits. We used the first 3 digits of the patients’ mailing zip code to estimate residential proximity to MRVAMC. An acknowledged limitation to this approach is that some veterans have primary addresses in other regions but still spend significant time in the MRVAMC catchment area and use the facility for their health care during the winter months. These “snowbirds” might reside near the facility despite having official addresses that are more distant. Additionally, there was no increased risk of unplanned visits after hand surgery in patients aged > 61 years (the median age of study participants) (P = .82). Dependence on a third party for transportation in older veterans could impact this finding.

Based on the observation that most patients needed reassurance rather than an intervention when they returned for unscheduled appointments, diagnoses of depression, anxiety, and PTSD were evaluated as separate predictive factors. In previous research, anxiety was found to be a risk factor for problematic recovery following carpal tunnel surgery.¹⁴ In the current study, depression was found to be a statistically significant predictor of unscheduled postoperative appointments (P = .04), while anxiety (P = .33) and PTSD (P = .37) were not statistically significant predictors. This is consistent with other studies that have found preexisting depression can predict complications after hand surgery.^15,16 Vranceanu et al found that depression predicted pain intensity and disability after elective hand surgery.¹⁶ Similarly, Oflazoglu et al found a 12% incidence of depression based on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 in new and returning hand patients who presented to an academic practice.¹⁷ They suggest patients should be assessed at all levels of care and that those with poor responses to surgical or nonsurgical management should be evaluated for depression. MRVAMC has a large mental health service consisting of psychiatrists, psychologists, addiction specialists, social workers, and homeless outreach, and patients tend to already have a diagnosis and mental health practitioner when they present to the clinic.

Recent studies found that wound problems, pain, and stiffness were the most common reasons for return visits.^18,19 Shetty et al identified younger age, worse preoperative pain scores, and poor access to transportation as predictors of preventable emergency room visits, which generate higher health care expenditures than an office visit.¹⁹ Our study’s top reasons for appointments (pain, wound/scar concerns, persistent symptoms) can be addressed with additional presurgery patient and family education. Additionally, clinicians encourage nonnarcotic pain management strategies including anti-inflammatories, acetaminophen, elevation, splinting, and hand therapy, and the hospital employs experienced, fellowship-trained anesthesia block faculty who help limit perioperative narcotic use. Patients are advised that pain can be used to guide them through the postoperative recovery by preventing overuse and alerting them to a problem that would be masked with narcotics, and long-standing problems such as chronic nerve compressions may continue to cause pain after surgery.

Patients and families can be given consistent and repetitive verbal and written information, instructions, and expectations at the initial consultation, preoperative appointment, and on the day of surgery. Postoperatively, outside their scheduled appointments, patients are encouraged to use the My HealtheVet secure messaging system or call the clinic to access an experienced registered nurse before making a long drive. Access to virtual or phone visits can reduce emergent in-person visits in a VA population.²⁰

Ozdag et al found that 42% of patients who had elective carpal tunnel surgery made unplanned electronic messages or phone contact within 2 weeks postsurgery. The authors point out the uncompensated administrative burden on the staff answering these messages and suggest pre-empting the contacts with more up-front education regarding postoperative pain expectations and management strategies.²¹

Fisher et al found that attending hand therapy reduced the number of emergency department visits in postoperative infection cases.²² At MRVAMC, a postoperative emergency department visit for a patient prompts an urgent unplanned appointment to the plastic surgery clinic, often on the same day. The MRVAMC occupational therapy clinic employed 3 on-site certified hand therapists during the study period. Because all hand surgery patients at the clinic receive hand therapy on the same day as their first postoperative appointment, attendance at hand therapy was not evaluated as a predictor of unplanned visits. Scheduled hand therapy is another point of contact where the clinic can provide reassurance and patient education.

While females made up 17.1% of the patients in this study, they constituted 12.5% of all veterans in Florida in fiscal year 2023.²³ This study found that women were more likely to present for unplanned postoperative appointments (P = .03). This is consistent with existing literature which has found that women are higher users of health care and office-based appointments.^24,25 This finding suggests the need for further study into whether our methods of communicating instructions to female patients undergoing plastic surgery may not be optimal.

Strengths and Limitations

As a retrospective review, the authors used information documented by multiple different health care practitioners, including trainees. The electronic medical record problem lists and templates provide consistency of information; however, less seasoned clinicians may interpret what they see and hear differently from more experienced clinicians in the postoperative setting. This study occurred in one part of the country with demographics that may not mirror other VA systems or the general population. The authors hope this study can be a starting point for other health care facilities to investigate ways to minimize the burden of unscheduled appointments. A strength of the study is that it was conducted within a closed system, as patients tend to stay within the VA system and documentation and communication among clinicians, even outside the immediate facility, are easily accessed through the electronic health record.

Conclusions

This study found that depression diagnosis and female sex are statistically significant predictors of unplanned postoperative visits after elective soft tissue hand surgery. More effective patient education during the preoperative period, particularly in patients with depression, may be warranted.