HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Erbitux OK for colorectal cancer patients with genetic marker
June 02, 2008
A new study shows which colorectal cancer patients may benefit from a drug — and which would be better off without it.
Our Review Summary
This report describes a study showing that colon cancer patients whose tumors have a certain genetic mutation don't benefit from the drug Erbitux. Since that drug is expensive and has serious side effects, it's important to know which patients will benefit. This study confirms previous research into the question.
The story follows nearly all medical journalism best practices, as the ratings show. It could have been improved in two ways:
- It might have put the studied treatment in context to other clinical approaches used to treat metastatic colon cancer.
- In the second paragraph, it says that the drug "doesn't work" in patients whose tumors have the genetic mutation. But it does not return to verify or elaborate on this point in less vernacular language.
For instance, later on the story reports that patients whose tumors do not have the mutation showed significant tumor shrinkage. It would have been useful to reiterate that patients who did have the mutation and took Erbitux saw outcomes no different from those taking the placebo--the core finding that supports the "doesn't work" formulation at the top of the story.
It's also important to note that tumor shrinkage should not be equated with considerable benefit - which should be expressed in terms of improved survival, lower recurrence or improved quality of life.
Overall, though, this story was well done, and it took only 391 words to do such a good job.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The article makes clear that Erbitux is available, as is the combination treatment examined in this report.
The article does an excellent job of comparing the price of Erbitux with the cost of testing for the genetic mutation that indicates whether it will be effective.
The article does nothing to exaggerate the benefits of the treatment or the severity of the underlying condition for which it is used, metastatic colon cancer.
While the description of the side effect of Erbitux is vivid, it's useful information that helps explain why it's so important to know which patients are likely to benefit from the drug.
The article is based on a clinical trial of sufficient size and quality to justify publication of the story.
The research was presented at a scientific meeting, however. While the story mentioned this fact, it should also have said that the research has not yet been subjected to peer review. Yet the meeting, ASCO, is an important annual scientific gathering with considerable credibility in the field.
All things considered, the article earns a satisfactory rating for this criterion.
The article does a good job of describing the harms of treatment with Erbitux: high costs and serious side effects--and, for people with a specific genetic profile, a lack of efficacy.
The article makes clear that the tested treatment is widely used.
It also explains that previous research has been done on this specific question, preventing readers from thinking the conclusions of this research are novel.
The article states that adding Erbitux does not work in patients whose tumors have a specific gene mutation.
The story reports that 36 percent of the study respondents' tumors had that genetic profile.
It is important to note that the marker of benefit used in the study (tumor shrinkage) may not result in better patient outcomes.
It does not appear that the story relied on a news release.
The article quotes one of the study co-authors and interviews a knowledgeable independent source familiar with the research and the condition.
The article makes plain that the studied options are standard chemotherapy and standard chemotherapy plus Erbitux.
It does not mention whether there are other treatments for newly diagnosed advanced colon cancer, however. Given the context, however, this omission is acceptable.
Total Score: 10 of 10 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.