AstraZeneca tweet on early breast cancer progression: complaint about substantiation (AUTH/2746/1/15)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2746/1/15
Complainant	Director of research (US-based; UK medical licence; husband of a breast cancer survivor)
Company	AstraZeneca
Material	Tweet from AstraZeneca global Twitter account (@AstraZeneca) with graphic
Date of tweet	11 December 2014
Claim at issue	“Approximately 30% of women with early breast cancer will develop advanced or metastatic breast cancer”
Context	San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (#SABCS14); hashtags #breastcancer and #SABCS14
Complaint themes	Substantiation; audience; potential distress; lack of formal response
Applicable Code	ABPI Code of Practice 2014
Clauses considered	7.2 and 7.4
Panel decision	No breach of Clause 7.2; No breach of Clause 7.4
Other Panel notes	No ruling on distress; no ruling under supplementary information to Clause 23.2 or Clause 25; no ruling under Clause 7.5; Panel queried certification requirement under Clause 14.3
Complaint received	12 January 2015
Case completed	27 March 2015
Appeal	No appeal

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

A director of research (US-based, with a UK medical licence) complained about an AstraZeneca tweet posted on 11 December 2014 from the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (#SABCS14).
The tweet stated: “Approximately 30% of women with early breast cancer will develop advanced or metastatic breast cancer” and included a graphic illustrating 30 out of 100 female symbols.
The complainant queried: (a) the evidence base for the 30% figure, (b) the intended/likely audience (Twitter is public), and (c) potential distress to women recently diagnosed with early breast cancer.
The complainant argued AstraZeneca’s cited source (O’Shaughnessy 2005) contained an unreferenced comment rather than data, and said the American Cancer Society could not find evidence supporting the statement.
The complainant also raised concerns about lack of a formal written response and that the tweet remained visible as of 9 January 2015 (later noted as deleted).
AstraZeneca said the tweet was non-promotional, created/peer-reviewed by global corporate affairs, and drawn from an infographic approved by global nominated signatories; because it was non-promotional it was not certified.
AstraZeneca said the tweet aimed to highlight unmet need and stimulate debate; the audience could include health professionals, patients, NGOs and media.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled in relation to substantiation and misleadingness.
No breach of Clause 7.2 (substantiation) was ruled.
No breach of Clause 7.4 (misleading claims) was ruled.
The Panel made no ruling regarding distress (not covered by the clauses raised).
The Panel made no ruling under the supplementary information to Clause 23.2 or Clause 25 (company was asked to note but not respond to those provisions).
The Panel made no ruling on response timeliness under Clause 7.5 because AstraZeneca had not been asked to consider that clause.
The Panel raised a concern that the tweet had not been certified and queried whether Clause 14.3 requirements had been met; it requested AstraZeneca be advised of its concerns.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access