Abstract
Internet marketing may accelerate the use of care based on genomic or tumor-derived data. However, online marketing may be detrimental if it endorses products of unproven benefit. We conducted an analysis of Internet websites to identify personalized cancer medicine (PCM) products and claims. A Delphi Panel categorized PCM as standard or nonstandard based on evidence of clinical utility. Fifty-five websites, sponsored by commercial entities, academic institutions, physicians, research institutes, and organizations, that marketed PCM included somatic (58%) and germline (20%) analysis, interpretive services (15%), and physicians/institutions offering personalized care (44%). Of 32 sites offering somatic analysis, 56% included specific test information (range 1-152 tests). All statistical tests were two-sided, and comparisons of website content were conducted using McNemar's test. More websites contained information about the benefits than limitations of PCM (85% vs 27%, P < .001). Websites specifying somatic analysis were statistically significantly more likely to market one or more nonstandard tests as compared with standard tests (88% vs 44%, P = .04).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
