HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Breaching a Barrier to Fight Brain Cancer
November 17, 2009
This story, on a novel approach to infusing chemotherapy for a brain tumor, just goes to show what a careful, engaged reporter can accomplish when given sufficient time and space to write a story.
Our Review Summary
This story, on a novel approach to infusing chemotherapy for a brain tumor, just goes to show what a careful, engaged reporter can accomplish when given sufficient time and space to write a story.
As the story's ratings show, the reporter follows all health reporting best practices.
But the story accomplishes a great deal more. Starting with a single patient's experience in a trial of a novel cancer treatment, the reporter illuminates the function of the blood-brain barrier; the nature of a deadly brain tumor recently in the news; the structure of clinical trials; some recent advances in chemotherapy; and the nuances of the patient-researcher relationship.
The reporter also manages to humanize the patient and locate the disease in a family's life, without getting mawkish or exploitive.
It's the kind of story that leaves one with hope--that quality health journalism does still exist.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story makes very clear that the approach described is experimental and not clinically available. It is the subject of a Phase I trial of 30 patients.
Costs of the treatment were not mentioned. But we can understand that in an article about an experimental approach so far from clinical use.
The article describes glioblastoma's deadliness with facts and data rather than appeals to emotion. The language is in some places dramatic but not inappropriately so.
The story plainly discloses that there is no evidence that the procedure treats glioblastoma successfully. (Although the anecdotes about spots on MRIs "melting away" did suggest efficacy. This was potentially misleading as they may recur in the vast majority of cases.)
The story explains that the infusion method has not been proven safe--indeed, that's what the current study is designed to find out.
In addition, the reporter cites the doctor's estimated risks of the treatment the featured patient faces: a 5 percent chance of becoming "visibly weak" and a 1 percent chance of left-side paralysis.
The novelty of this approach to glioblastomas is implicit: The featured patient is only the second to receive the treatment.
The story also explains that the studied method of infusion uses an existing drug in a novel way.
With only a Phase I study underway, there is no data to report. The story makes this clear.
There is no evidence that the story relied on a news release.
The reporter draws on three principal sources: two physicians involved with the research and an independent expert on glioblastoma from NIH.
The story describes the conventional treatments for glioblastoma--surgery, radiation and/or chemotherapy via pill or IV.
Total Score: 9 of 9 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.