Patients are likely to encounter misleading PCa treatment information online

Takeaway

• Much of the information about ablative treatments for prostate cancer (PCa) on academic and private practice websites is inaccurate and incomplete.

Why this matters

• Although cryotherapy and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) are alternatives for some patients with PCa, few websites mention that they are not standard-of-care options because of the lack of comparative evidence, say researchers.
• Urologists should counsel patients accordingly, to dispel confusion about eligibility for these treatments.

Study design

• Researchers queried Google and Bing search engines for "prostate cancer" and either "HIFU" or "cryotherapy."
• They then analyzed the top 50 websites resulting from each query for accuracy and completeness.
• Funding: None disclosed.

Key results

• For "prostate cancer" and "HIFU" results:
  • 15% of academic and 41% of private practice websites presented erroneous information on oncological efficacy.
  • Only 31% of academic and 66% of private practice websites presented criteria for treatment.
  • 78% of websites described adverse effects.
• For "prostate cancer" and "cryotherapy" results:
  • 73% of both academic and private practice websites presented erroneous information.
  • Only 27% of academic and 18% of private practice websites presented criteria for treatment.
  • 75% of websites described adverse effects.

Limitations

• Search engine results may vary based on user location.