Trends in Cancer-Center Spending on Advertising in the United States, 2005 to 2014

In the United States, cancer centers commonly advertise clinical services directly to the public. Potential benefits of such advertising include informing patients about available treatments and reducing the stigma of cancer.1, 2 Potential risks include misleading vulnerable patients and creating false hopes, increasing demand for unnecessary tests and treatments, adversely affecting existing clinician-patient relationships, and increasing healthcare costs.3, 4 Understanding trends in the advertising spending of cancer centers and the characteristics of the centers that spend the most can inform the debate about the impact of these advertisements. Our hypothesis was that advertising spending has increased and that spending is concentrated among for-profit cancer centers

Cancer hospital advertising and outcomes: trust the messenger?

Hospitals have made substantial investments in advertising for cancer services in the past two decades, totalling over US$200 million in 2016 alone. Advertisements promoting cancer centres are unavoidable in the USA. They hang on highway billboards and on air during prime-time programming. Some advertisements claim superior outcomes, others highlight access to clinical trials, and many present heart-warming patient stories that might be non-representative of actual outcomes. Data suggest that patients are highly aware of advertisements and are likewise influenced by them

Impact of smoke-free ordinance strength on smoking prevalence and lung cancer incidence

Background: Smoke-free ordinances (SFO) have been shown to be effective public health interventions, but there is limited data on the impact SFO on lung cancer outcomes. We explored the effect of county-level SFO strength with smoking prevalence and lung cancer incidence in Indiana. Methods: We obtained county-level lung cancer incidence from the Indiana State Cancer Registry and county-level characteristics from the Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Commission's policy database between 1995 and 2016. Using generalized estimating equations, we performed multivariable analyses of smoking prevalence and age-adjusted lung cancer rates with respect to the strength of smoke-free ordinances at the county level over time. Results: Of Indiana's 92 counties, 24 had a SFO by 2011. In 2012, Indiana enacted a state-wide SFO enforcing at least moderate level SFO protection. Mean age-adjusted lung cancer incidence per year was 76.8 per 100,000 population and mean smoking prevalence per year was 25% during the study period. Counties with comprehensive or moderate SFO had a smoking prevalence 1.2% (95% CI [-1.88, -0.52]) lower compared with counties with weak or no SFO. Counties that had comprehensive or moderate SFO also had an 8.4 (95% CI [-11.5, -5.3]) decrease in new lung cancer diagnosis per 100,000 population per year compared with counties that had weak or no SFO. Conclusion: Counties with stronger smoke-free air ordinances were associated with decreased smoking prevalence and fewer new lung cancer cases per year. Strengthening SFO is paramount to decreasing lung cancer incidence

In the Valley

This article is made available for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic

A Randomized Clinical Trial Testing the Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Preemptive Inhaled Nitric Oxide in Human Liver Transplantation

<div><p>Decreases in endothelial nitric oxide synthase derived nitric oxide (NO) production during liver transplantation promotes injury. We hypothesized that preemptive inhaled NO (iNO) would improve allograft function (primary) and reduce complications post-transplantation (secondary). Patients at two university centers (Center A and B) were randomized to receive placebo (n = 20/center) or iNO (80 ppm, n = 20/center) during the operative phase of liver transplantation. Data were analyzed at set intervals for up to 9-months post-transplantation and compared between groups. Patient characteristics and outcomes were examined with the Mann-Whitney U test, Student t-test, logistic regression, repeated measures ANOVA, and Cox proportional hazards models. Combined and site stratified analyses were performed. MELD scores were significantly higher at Center B (22.5 vs. 19.5, p<0.0001), surgical times were greater at Center B (7.7 vs. 4.5 hrs, p<0.001) and warm ischemia times were greater at Center B (95.4 vs. 69.7 min, p<0.0001). No adverse metabolic or hematologic effects from iNO occurred. iNO enhanced allograft function indexed by liver function tests (Center B, p<0.05; and p<0.03 for ALT with center data combined) and reduced complications at 9-months (Center A and B, p = 0.0062, OR = 0.15, 95% CI (0.04, 0.59)). ICU (p = 0.47) and hospital length of stay (p = 0.49) were not decreased. iNO increased concentrations of nitrate (p<0.001), nitrite (p<0.001) and nitrosylhemoglobin (p<0.001), with nitrite being postulated as a protective mechanism. Mean costs of iNO were $1,020 per transplant. iNO was safe and improved allograft function at one center and trended toward improving allograft function at the other. ClinicalTrials.gov with registry number 00582010 and the following URL:<a href="http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00582010" target="_blank">http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00582010</a>.</p></div

Patient and Surgery Demographics for Center A Cohort.

<p>Values show median (range). P-values calculated from unpaired t-test for placebo vs. iNO. N = 20 except An = 19. Bn = 18.</p

Effects of iNO on liver nitrite levels pre- (LB1) and post-reperfusion (LB2).

<p>Nitrite was measured in paired liver biopsies and data normalized to protein. No significant differences in nitrite levels were observed pre- vs. post-reperfusion or between placebo and iNO treatments.</p

Changes in metHb and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) as a function of blood draw (BD) in placebo (○) or iNO (▪) groups.

<p>Data are mean ± SEM (n = 20 for each group, except UAB placebo where n = 19 and UW iNO where n = 17–20. *P<0.0001 by 2-way ANOVA with Bonferroni multiple comparisons post-test.</p