[Journal of Cancer Education, 3 November 2023]

Health systems are interested in increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates as CRC is a leading cause of preventable cancer death. Learning health systems are ones that use data to continually improve care. Data can and should include qualitative local perspectives to improve patient and provider education and care. This study sought to understand local perspectives on CRC screening to inform future strategies to increase screening rates across our integrated health system. Health insurance plan members who were eligible for CRC screening were invited to participate in semi-structured phone interviews. Qualitative content analysis was conducted using an inductive approach. Forty member interviews were completed and analyzed. Identified barriers included ambivalence about screening options (e.g., “If it had the same performance, I’d rather do home fecal sample test. But I’m just too skeptical [so I do the colonoscopy].”), negative prior CRC screening experiences, and competing priorities. Identified facilitators included a positive general attitude towards health (e.g., “I’m a rule follower. There are certain things I’ll bend rules. But certain medical things, you just got to do.”), social support, a perceived risk of developing CRC, and positive prior CRC screening experiences. Study findings were used by the health system leaders to inform the selection of CRC screening outreach and education strategies to be tested in a future simulation model. For example, the identified barrier related to ambivalence about screening options led to a proposed revision of outreach materials that describe screening types more clearly.

[Current Oncology, 28 September 2023]

Despite the evidence that exercise is effective at mitigating common side effects in adults with cancer, it is rarely part of usual cancer care. One reason for this is the lack of economic evidence supporting the benefit of exercise. Economic evaluations often rely on the use of generic utility measures to assess cost effectiveness. This review identifies and synthesizes the literature on the use of generic utility measures used to evaluate exercise interventions for adults with cancer. A systematic search of the literature from January 2000 to February 2023 was conducted using four databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete). Exercise studies involving adults with any type of cancer that used a generic utility measure were eligible for inclusion. Of the 2780 citations retrieved, 10 articles were included in this review. Seven articles included economic evaluations, with varying results. Four studies reported on cost-effectiveness; however, detailed effectiveness data derived from the generic utility measure were often not reported. Generic utility measures help to compare baseline values of and changes in health utility weights across studies and to general population norms; however, to date, they are underutilized in exercise oncology studies. Consideration should be given to the identified research evidence, population, and methodological gaps.

[Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 10 November 2023]

This short communication concerns a biomarker adaptive Phase 2/3 design for new oncology drugs with an uncertain biomarker effect. Depending on the outcome of an interim analysis for adaptive decision, a Phase 2 study that starts in a biomarker enriched subpopulation may continue to the end without expansion to Phase 3, expand to Phase 3 in the same population or expand to Phase 3 in a broader population. Each path can enjoy full alpha for hypothesis testing without inflating the overall Type I error.

[JMIR Infodemiology, 31 May 2023]

Background: Alternative cancer treatment is associated with a greater risk of death than cancer patients undergoing conventional treatments. Anecdotal evidence suggests cancer patients view paid advertisements promoting alternative cancer treatment on social media, but the extent and nature of this advertising remain unknown. This context suggests an urgent need to investigate alternative cancer treatment advertising on social media.

Objective: This study aimed to systematically analyze the advertising activities of prominent alternative cancer treatment practitioners on Meta platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and Audience Network. We specifically sought to determine (1) whether paid advertising for alternative cancer treatment occurs on Meta social media platforms, (2) the strategies and messages of alternative cancer providers to reach and appeal to prospective patients, and (3) how the efficacy of alternative treatments is portrayed.

Methods: Between December 6, 2021, and December 12, 2021, we collected active advertisements from alternative cancer clinics using the Meta Ad Library. The information collected included identification number, URL, active/inactive status, dates launched/ran, advertiser page name, and a screenshot (image) or recording (video) of the advertisement. We then conducted a content analysis to determine how alternative cancer providers communicate the claimed benefits of their services and evaluated how they portrayed alternative cancer treatment efficacy.

Results: We identified 310 paid advertisements from 11 alternative cancer clinics on Meta (Facebook, Instagram, or Messenger) marketing alternative treatment approaches, care, and interventions. Alternative cancer providers appealed to prospective patients through eight strategies: (1) advertiser representation as a legitimate medical provider (n=289, 93.2%); (2) appealing to persons with limited treatments options (n=203, 65.5%); (3) client testimonials (n=168, 54.2%); (4) promoting holistic approaches (n=121, 39%); (5) promoting messages of care (n=81, 26.1%); (6) rhetoric related to science and research (n=72, 23.2%); (7) rhetoric pertaining to the latest technology (n=63, 20.3%); and (8) focusing treatment on cancer origins and cause (n=43, 13.9%). Overall, 25.8% (n=80) of advertisements included a direct statement claiming provider treatment can cure cancer or prolong life.

Conclusions: Our results provide evidence alternative cancer providers are using Meta advertising products to market scientifically unsupported cancer treatments. Advertisements regularly referenced “alternative” and “natural” treatment approaches to cancer. Imagery and text content that emulated evidence-based medical providers created the impression that the offered treatments were effective medical options for cancer. Advertisements exploited the hope of patients with terminal and poor prognoses by sharing testimonials of past patients who allegedly were cured or had their lives prolonged. We recommend that Meta introduce a mandatory, human-led authorization process that is not reliant upon artificial intelligence for medical-related advertisers before giving advertising permissions. Further research should focus on the conflict of interest between social media platforms advertising products and public health.