U.S. Cancer Centers Deceptive Testimonials Database

TINA.org conducted a review of patient testimonials used to promote the 50 cancer treatment centers in the U.S. that spent the most money on advertising in 2017. Our results revealed that, of the cancer centers still in business in 2018, 43 out of 48 – or 90% – deceptively used patient testimonials in their marketing materials by promoting anecdotal, atypical patient results without clearly and conspicuously disclosing what the generally expected results for a patient in a similar situation would be.

Specifically, TINA.org’s investigation found hundreds of testimonials featuring patients with cancer types that have a less than 50 percent five-year survival rate,* being used in direct-to-consumer marketing materials to advance the narrative, either explicitly or implicitly, that treatment at a specific cancer center will provide patients with a therapeutic advantage, allowing them to beat the odds and live beyond five years. Moreover, within this sampling of deceptive testimonials many also promote clinical trials (i.e., research endeavors with no guarantee of therapeutic benefit), as well as novel treatments, such as immunotherapy and/or experimental procedures, without clearly and conspicuously disclosing their limitations, risks and relative rarity.

The below table lists the top 50 advertising cancer centers for 2017, the amount each center spent on advertising in 2017, whether the center is nonprofit or for-profit, and whether or not it is NCI-designated (i.e., accredited by the National Cancer Institute).  The names of all the centers, as well as the amount each center spent on advertising, was obtained from Kantar Media.** The profit status for each cancer center was determined based on available information.  The NCI-designation of each cancer center was found here.

TINA.org has compiled databases for 43 of the 50 cancer centers. As for the remaining seven centers, TINA.org did not readily find examples of deceptively used testimonials for five of the cancer centers, and two of the centers have gone out of business.

To view TINA.org’s database of deceptively used patient testimonials for each center, click on the cancer center name.***

Note: TINA.org has shortened the length of some videos in the databases in order to pinpoint the deceptive claims at issue.

Rank Cancer Center 2017 Marketing Spend For-profit or Nonprofit NCI-Designated
1

Cancer Treatment Centers of America

$68,856,300 For-profit No
2

MD Anderson Cancer Center

$15,617,800 Nonprofit Yes
3

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

$11,705,600 Nonprofit Yes
4

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

$6,480,100 Nonprofit Yes
5

Moffitt Cancer Center

$3,963,400 Nonprofit Yes
6

Texas Oncology

$3,400,400 For-profit No
7

Fox Chase Cancer Center

$2,885,600 Nonprofit Yes
8  

New York University

$2,841,300 Nonprofit Yes
9  

Siteman Cancer Center

$2,670,800 Nonprofit Yes
10

Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute

$1,842,000 For-profit No
11  

Penn Medicine Abramson Cancer Center

$1,563,600 Nonprofit Yes
12  

Seattle Cancer Care

$1,521,200 Nonprofit No
13  

Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey

$1,483,000 Nonprofit Yes
14

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

$1,410,600 Nonprofit Yes
15 International HIFU Prostate Cancer Centers $1,312,100 For-profit No
16

Sutter Cancer Center

$983,200 Nonprofit No
17

John Theurer Cancer Center

$944,800 Nonprofit No
18

University of Florida Health Cancer Center

$835,900 Nonprofit No
19

Winship Cancer Institute

$724,400 Nonprofit Yes
20

Houston Methodist

$710,400 Nonprofit No
21  

Scripps Proton Therapy Center

$694,000 Nonprofit No
22

Roswell Park Cancer Institute

$683,800 Nonprofit Yes
23

Karmanos Cancer Institute

$615,300 Nonprofit Yes
24 Regional Cancer Care Association $584,600 For-profit No
25  

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

$469,900 Nonprofit Yes
26

Northwestern Medicine Chicago Proton Center

$412,000 Nonprofit No
27

Miami Cancer Institute

$407,500 Nonprofit No
28

Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada

$365,200 For-profit No
29

Methodist Cancer Care Center

$361,300 Nonprofit No
30 Brachytherapy Centers of TX 

(Not in business as of October 2018)

$356,100 N/A N/A
31 Ironwood Cancer & Research Center $342,400 For-profit No
32

University of Wisconsin Cancer Center

$333,500 Nonprofit Yes
33  

University of Kansas Cancer Center

$308,800 Nonprofit Yes
34

Hartford Healthcare

$297,200 Nonprofit No
35

Maryland Proton Treatment Center

$293,900 For-profit No
36

Provision Center for Proton Therapy

$278,100 Nonprofit No
37 CCS Oncology 

(Not in business as of October 2018)

$267,600 N/A N/A
38

Smilow Cancer Hospital

$245,700 Nonprofit Yes
39

21st Century Oncology

$242,400 For-profit No
40 CyberKnife Center of NY $242,000 Nonprofit No
41

Northshore Kellogg Cancer Center

$238,200 Nonprofit No
42

Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center

$236,900 Nonprofit No
43

Sarah Cannon Cancer Center

$184,900 For-profit No
44

New England Cancer Specialists

$174,300 For-profit No
45

Rush University Cancer Center

$167,200 Nonprofit No
46

Mesothelioma Treatment Center

$167,000 Nonprofit No
47  

Ohio State University

$166,900 Nonprofit Yes
48 Rocky Mountain Cancer Center $166,700 Nonprofit No
49

Cedars-Sinai Health System

$165,700 Nonprofit No
50

Columbus CyberKnife

$160,000 Nonprofit No

*TINA.org used the five-year survival statistics published on the NIH National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program website (https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/) in determining which testimonials portray atypical results. In cases where such statistics were not available, TINA.org looked to other sources, including Cancer.org and Cancer.net.

The NIH SEER Cancer Survival Statistics provide overall statistics for different cancer types (e.g., brain, lung, breast, ovarian), as well as individual survival statistics for each stage of a given cancer type. These statistics describe cancer stages using words (“Localized,” “Regional,” “Distant”) as opposed to numbers (stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, stage 4). In aligning the staging system used in the testimonials to the NIH SEER stages, TINA.org classified stage 1 as “Localized,” stages 2 and 3 as “Regional,” and stage 4 as “Distant,” which is consistent with the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Staging definitions. See NIH National Cancer Institute Cancer Staging, https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/diagnosis-staging/staging.

If a testimonial provided the stage, TINA.org used the statistic for that particular stage.  If a testimonial did not provide a stage, TINA.org used the overall statistic for that type of cancer. In those cases in which a particular patient is featured more than once in a database – i.e., the cancer center featured the patient in multiple marketing materials – TINA.org catalogued the specific cancer stage for that patient based on related posts even if one or more of the patient’s testimonials did not provide staging information. However, in those instances, the patient’s testimonials present an atypical result whether general or specific survival statistics are used. That is to say, regardless of which survival statistics are used, the five-year life expectancy is under 50 percent.

All the testimonials in TINA.org’s database feature patients who are not likely to survive beyond five years from diagnosis based on their cancer types but nevertheless state expressly or imply that they have lived beyond five years or will live past the five-year mark, which is, by definition, an atypical result.

** In some cases, Kantar Media lists two names for a cancer center – the name of the “Advertiser” and the name of the “Ultimate Owner.” The names listed above, and those featured at the top of each database, are the “Advertiser” names provided by Kantar Media. In some cases, however, individual examples of deceptively used patient testimonials derive from either the “Advertiser” or the “Ultimate Owner” of the center provided by Kantar Media.

*** Some of the database entries consist of deceptive social media posts. On occasion, the social media posts provide a link to another source and, in some of those cases, the additional source discloses survival statistics or more information about the cancer type or stage the featured patient has. However, hyperlinking is not an adequate way of disclosing material information and thus does not render the post any less deceptive.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags:



Leave a Reply

Back to Top ↑