HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
The Kanzius Machine: A Cancer Cure?
April 13, 2008
(This segment aired on 60 Minutes, not the CBS Evening News.) If clinical trials pan out-and there's still a long way to go-the Kanzius machine will zap cancer cells all through your body without the need for drugs or surgery and without side effects. None at all. At least that's the idea.
Our Review Summary
The elephant in the room: Should a credible news program - CBS' 60 Minutes - devote so much attenton to this story about a promising but completely unproven technique for "curing all cancers"? There are several reasons the answer should be no.
(1) Far from being a breakthrough, at this point the technique (it's not a treatment yet) shows some characteristics which may benefit cancer treatment at some point in the future. This is assuming, generously, that many years of research ahead will lead to human trials, which in turn will produce safe and positive outcomes superior to those of current treatments.
(2) The story features a very sympathetic figure who is terminally ill and "racing the clock" to find a cure for others before he dies. This creates a context of unjustified hope and emotional support.
(3) The technique is subject of a publicity and fundraising campaign which the program, by virtue of its crediblity and audience, is supporting.
If the report were to be done and broadcast on 60 Minutes, it would have benefitted considerably from additional context provided by other credible researchers. Did CBS look for and fail to find anyone skeptical of this technique? None was interviewed.
The story has elements that make it appealing as an act of infotainment: a lone-wolf outsider who can cure cancer with pie pans and hot dogs, a man motivated by his desire to help "hollow-eyed kids" with cancer, and hopeful researchers with impressive institutional affiliations, including a Nobel laureate said to have turned from skeptic to believer by the time he died from cancer.
But good stories don't always make good journalism. This is such a case.
The segment is likely to raise hopes, clearly prematurely if not falsely, of millions of people affected by cancer, or even cancer risk. This is the opposite of public service.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The segment makes clear that the technique is not available for human use. It says it is at least four years away from human trials, assuming all goes well.
The costs at this point would be purely speculative, as it's not clear what kind of nanoparticles would be used, what the machines would cost to build, the many factors which will likely complicate the process even before it reaches human testing.
It's not necessary in this case for the story to mention costs.
The question here is whether the story uses anecdote, emotional appeal and speculation to falsely raise hopes about a safe cure for all cancers. The answer clearly is yes.
The anecdotes and stories from the cancer ward (hollow eyes of children with cancer, etc.) may distort viewers' perceptions about the problem. Would the technique even work for the kinds of cancers those children had? Note that the story said, "So far the Kanzius method has only been appolied to solid, localized tumors in animals."
The only evidence of benefit cited is a microscopic evaluation of rat tumor cells that makes it appear cancer cells were killed without harming the tissues around it.
The report should have made clear that this is very flimsy evidence to justify the enthusiasm that a small group of researchers is showing at this point. Instead, we got an awe-struck comment from the reporter: "Gosh, it does look like one of those science fiction movies."
The segment repeatedly states that the treatment has no side effects. This is at least premature, at worst deceptive.
The segment should have stated that meaningful clinical outcomes (such as death and quality of life) even in animals have not been demonstrated, that little is known about the long-term effects of the treatment on surrounding tissues, and that the use of nanoparticles in cancer treatment is so new that it's premature to declare that their use in cancer treatment is without side effects.
One researcher interviewed makes clear that the inference that the technique does no harm to surrounding tissue is based only on "gross inspection" of that tissue. But the story simplistically states at one point, "Kanzius put his hand in the field to demonstrate that radio waves are harmless to humans." That's not proof of anything.
The segment implies the technique is a breakthrough and entirely novel. This is not true. The technique is a combination of three treatment approaches familiar to cancer researchers:
- Nanoparticles are being widely used in research
- Antibodies are used to target malignant cells
- Radiofrequency ablation is used to destroy cells
The segment should have mentioned these things.
The only evidence of benefits given is a brief description of the effects the technique appears to have had on the cells of rat tumors. Even within the realm of animal testing, there is no quantification of benefit. Were all cancer cells killed in all rabbits and rats tested? Some in all? Some in some? None in some? Sweeping statements such as "They've already shown that the Kanzius machine can heat nanoparticles and cook cancer to death in animals" does nothing to educate viewers.
We can't be sure if the segment relied solely or largely on a news release. We do know that the segment only discussed the perspectives of the inventor and three potentially self-interested supporters, one of whom is dead.
The segment draws exclusively on the inventor and three credible but potentially self-interested supporters, one of whom is dead.
This is unsatisfactory: One or more independent cancer researchers should have been interviewed, including one who is currently doing other research with nanoparticles and one expert radiologist.
These sources could have provided necessary context for this history and outcomes of previous promised "breakthroughs," the implications of novelty and the many things which remain unknown.
The segment should have reported whether the researchers interviewed have a financial or other interest in the procedure.
The segment mentions other treatment options only in a glancing way and in the most negative light--and without indicating that many cancers are treatable, and sent into remission, with current techniques.
Total Score: 1 of 8 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.