Framing and availability of information regarding alternative cancer therapies by top U.S. cancer centers.

Abstract

e13713 Background: Patients with a cancer diagnosis increasingly encounter online claims promoting alternative treatment therapies, including repurposed pharmacologic agents, when researching potential treatment options. Recent studies have shown as many as 1 in 4 adult cancer patients may receive advice regarding alternative means to cure their cancer, and up to 70% of adult cancer patients are exposed to misinformation regarding treatment online. The extent to which leading cancer centers address these claims and alternative therapies on patient-facing websites is not well characterized. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional review of publicly available, patient-facing webpages of the top twenty U.S. cancer centers as ranked by U.S. News & World Report. Each institution’s website was systematically interrogated using a standardized manual web search strategy. This included (1) direct navigation from the homepage through patient education, treatment, integrative medicine, and supportive care sections, and (2) site-specific keyword searches using the terms “ivermectin”, “fenbendazole”, “methylene blue”, “alternative cancer therapy”, “integrative medicine”, and “complementary therapy”. Only content intended for patients or caregivers was included; provider-facing, academic, or internal materials were excluded. Descriptive statistics were reported using binomial proportions with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). When alternative therapies were discussed, sentiment was categorized as positive, neutral, or negative by two independent investigators. Results: None of the twenty cancer center websites which were examined discussed ivermectin, fenbendazole, or methylene blue. Nine out of twenty cancer centers (45%; 95% CI 23.0%-68.5%) provided patient-facing content addressing alternative cancer therapies more generally. Of the nine centers which discussed alternative cancer therapies, five framed them negatively (55.6%; 95% CI 21.2%-86.3%), while four centers were neutral in their discussion (44.4%, 95% CI 13.7%-78.8%). None of the cancer centers which discussed alternative therapies presented them in a positive or promotional manner. Conclusions: Among top U.S. cancer centers, patient-facing online information regarding alternative cancer therapies is limited. When addressed, alternative therapies are most likely to be framed critically, emphasizing caution rather than therapeutic benefit. These findings highlight an imbalance between the prevalence of alternative therapy claims encountered by patients online and institutional messaging from leading oncology centers, potentially impacting patients’ treatment decisions.