While direct-to-consumer (DTC) medical advertising can provide useful information, it also risks oversimplification and being misleading. For an abbreviated prostate cancer treatment regimen called “ultrahypofractionation” (UHF), advertising has been used for CyberKnife (CK), a common delivery system for stereotactic body radiation therapy. We hypothesized that those viewing an advertisement for CK versus factual information would have inaccurate impressions of effectiveness and safety.
400 men aged 40–80 were randomly assigned to one of four arms: a de-identified CK advertisement, the same advertisement with disclaimers, scientific information obtained from review of contemporary peer-reviewed literature, and a control. Subjects answered questions regarding risks/benefits of CK and likelihood of pursuing CK versus other treatments. Regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with CK preference.
400 men were included. Compared to controls, those who viewed any of the three interventions were more likely to pursue CK over other treatments (p < 0.01), with a greater increase in the advertisement groups. Respondents who viewed scientific information were less likely to agree CK is superior regarding impotence and urinary dysfunction. Disclaimers decreased positive impressions of CK’s side effects, but not effectiveness. Both advertisement and advertisement with disclaimer respondents were more likely to consider CK superior.
DTC medical advertisements can be misleading and impact laypersons’ impressions. In this case, viewing an advertisement created inaccurate impressions regarding effectiveness and safety of UHF for prostate cancer.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $131.00 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Medical marketing in the United States, 1997–2016. JAMA. 2019;321:80–96.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Cancer center advertising-where hope meets hype. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1068–70.
Vater LB, Donohue JM, Arnold R, White DB, Chu E, Schenker Y. What are cancer centers advertising to the public? A content analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:813–20.
Corkum MT, Liu W, Palma DA, Bauman GS, Dinniwell RE, Warner A, et al. Online advertising and marketing claims by providers of proton beam therapy: are they guideline-based? Radiat Oncol. 2018;13:43.
Division of Cancer Prevention and Control CfDCaP. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate/statistics/index.htm. Accessed 29 May 2018.
Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Mossop H, Khoo V, Birtle A, Bloomfield D, et al. Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1047–60.
Catton CN, Lukka H, Gu CS, Martin JM, Supiot S, Chung PWM, et al. Randomized trial of a hypofractionated radiation regimen for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1884–90.
Incrocci L, Wortel RC, Alemayehu WG, Aluwini S, Schimmel E, Krol S, et al. Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with localised prostate cancer (HYPRO): final efficacy results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1061–9.
Lee WR, Dignam JJ, Amin MB, Bruner DW, Low D, Swanson GP, et al. Randomized phase iii noninferiority study comparing two radiotherapy fractionation schedules in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2325–32.
Pollack A, Walker G, Horwitz EM, Price R, Feigenberg S, Konski AA, et al. Randomized trial of hypofractionated external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3860–8.
Morgan SC, Hoffman K, Loblaw DA, Buyyounouski MK, Patton C, Barocas D, et al. Hypofractionated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: an ASTRO, ASCO, and AUA evidence-based guideline. J Urol. 2018;8:354–360.
Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, Chen RC, Crispino T, Fontanarosa J, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol. 2018;199:683–90.
Federal Trade Commission. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/1996/03/companies-purport-successfully-treat-cancer-agree-settle-ftc. Accessed 13 March 1996.
Widmark A, Gunnlaugsson A, Beckman L, Thellenberg-Karlsson C, Hoyer M, Lagerlund M, et al. Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the HYPO-RT-PC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019;394:385–95.
Zimmermann M, Taussky D, Menkarios C, Vigneault E, Beauchemin MC, Bahary JP, et al. Prospective phase II trial of once-weekly hypofractionated radiation therapy for low-risk adenocarcinoma of the prostate: late toxicities and outcomes. Clin Oncol. 2016;28:386–92.
Jackson WC, Silva J, Hartman HE, Dess RT, Kishan AU, Beeler WH, et al. Stereotactic Body radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 6000 patients treated on prospective studies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;104:778–89.
Zakaria AS, Dragomir A, Brimo F, Kassouf W, Tanguay S, Aprikian A. Changes in the outcome of prostate biopsies after preventive task force recommendation against prostate-specific antigen screening. BMC Urol. 2018;18:69.
Botejue M, Abbott D, Danella J, Fonshell C, Ginzburg S, Guzzo TJ, et al. Active surveillance as initial management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer: data from the PURC. J Urol. 2019;201:929–36.
Brand DH, Tree AC, Ostler P, van der Voet H, Loblaw A, Chu W, et al. Intensity-modulated fractionated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): acute toxicity findings from an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1531–43.
Yu JB, Cramer LD, Herrin J, Soulos PR, Potosky AL, Gross CP. Stereotactic body radiation therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: comparison of toxicity. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1195–201.
Fuller DB. Regarding relative toxicities of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3455–6.
Dess RT, Hartman HE, Aghdam N, Jackson WC, Soni PD, Abugharib AE, et al. Erectile function after stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;121:61–68.
Conflict of interest
All authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose
This research project is approved by the Columbia University Medical Center IRB.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Caputo, J.M., Lee, H.J., Chiles, B. et al. Exposure to direct-to-consumer advertising is associated with overestimation of benefits regarding ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-020-0234-2