Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Getting real about NCI-designated Cancer Center advertising

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology volume 14, pages 195–196 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

The 69 National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Centers are premier academic institutions that place significant value on research integrity and an ethic that rigorous evidence should guide patient care and define expectations. Recent patient-focused advertising has strayed from these values, obscuring valid reasons for seeking care at these centres.

Turn on the TV, surf the Internet, or drive down a billboard-laden highway in the USA, and you are likely to be exposed to an advertisement by one of the 69 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Cancer Centers. These include claims that research excellence results in superior medical care. Examples of the catchphrases include 'science saving lives', 'more science, less fear', and 'the promise of discovery'. Emphasizing research excellence in patient-focused advertising is complex because research integrity depends on long-term processes of rigorous data analysis and reproducibility. Thus, inappropriate marketing can create false hope and might divert patients from the most important and immediate reasons for seeking care at an NCI-designated Cancer Center.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vater, L. B., Donohue, J. M., Park, S. Y. & Schenker, Y. Trends in cancer-center spending on advertising in the United States, 2005 to 2014. JAMA Intern. Med. 176, 1214–1216 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bower, H. et al. Life expectancy of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia approaches the life expectancy of the general population. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 2851–2857 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Reck, M. et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Eng. J. Med. 375, 1823–1833 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fojo, T., Mailankody, S. & Lo, A. Unintended consequences of expensive cancer therapeutics — the pursuit of marginal indications and a me-too mentality that stifles innovation and creativity. The John Conley Lecture. JAMA Otolarynogol. Head Neck Surg. 140, 1225–1236 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Niraula, S. et al. Risk of incremental toxicities and associated costs of new anticancer drugs: a meta-analysis. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 3634–3642 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Garrido-Laguna, I. & Hidalgo, M. Pancreatic cancer: from state-of-the-art treatments to promising novel therapies. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 12, 319–334 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Larson, R. J., Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S. & Welch, H. G. Advertising by academic medical centers. Arch. Intern. Med. 165, 645–651 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Society for Healthcare Strategy & Market Development of the American Hospital Association. SHSMD advisory: principles and practices for marketing communications in hospitals and health systems. WHA http://www.wha.org/data/sites/1/pubArchive/news_releases/marketingcommunicationsadvisory.pdf (2010).

  9. Prasad, V. & Vandross, A. Characteristics of exceptional or super responders to cancer drugs. Mayo Clin. Proc. 90, 1639–1649 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gooiker, G. A. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the volume-outcome relationship in pancreatic surgery. Br. J. Surg. 98, 485–494 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Schwartz, L. A. & Woloshin, S. Cancer center advertising — where hope meets hype. JAMA Intern. Med. 176, 1068–1070 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NoBadSlides.com, 3272 Purdue Avenue, Los Angeles, 90066, California, USA

    David Rubenson

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, Stanford, 94305–5847, California, USA

    Daniel S. Kapp

Authors
  1. David Rubenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel S. Kapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Rubenson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rubenson, D., Kapp, D. Getting real about NCI-designated Cancer Center advertising. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14, 195–196 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.28

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.28

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research