Health News Review

After all of the research about lumpectomy & radiation versus mastectomy, what made this study new and significant? This story should have done a better job of explaining what made this a “more real-world study.”

Our Review Summary

Strong point: The Independent expert perspectives added to the story.

Weaker points:  Harms not discussed.  Benefits not adequately quantified.  The true novelty of the study was not adequately explained. And why was there no mention of adjuvant chemotherapy or hormone therapy?


Why This Matters

Individuals diagnosed with breast cancer are in shock.  Psychologically challenged, they must then make major decisions about treatment.  Two common choices include mastectomy, or lumpectomy with radiation.  Both have major consequences, with little time to consider options. Any facts can help women and men make this decision, taking into account physical costs, psychological costs, and survival probabilities.


Criteria

Not Satisfactory

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There was no discussion of the differences in cost between the two options.

Not Satisfactory

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story only attempted to quantify a benefit for one subset of women, when it reported:

“The group that benefited the most — who had the biggest difference in breast cancer survival — were those women over 50 with estrogen-receptor positive disease,” Hwang said. This means their cancer depends on estrogen to grow.

Among those women, the lumpectomy group had a 13 percent lower risk of death from breast cancer and a 19 percent lower risk of death from any cause than those who had a mastectomy.”

But that was only a subset of women.  And even in that subset, what was the risk of death? Was the difference of 13% and 19% really that much of a difference?

Not Satisfactory

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There was no mention of possible harms from either treatment.  In particular, there was no mention of the possible long-term dangers of radiation.

Satisfactory

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

The story did turn to two independent sources to evaluate the quality of the evidence, one of whom said, “I am not sure the study convinces us that lumpectomy and radiation is better for breast cancer survival, but it may be.”

The story also pointed out that the “study was observational… It found a link or association but could not provide cause-and-effect proof that the breast-conserving treatment is more effective than mastectomy in early stage breast cancer.”

Satisfactory

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There was no disease mongering noted.

Satisfactory

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The article did include the perspectives of two independent sources.

Not Satisfactory

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story didn’t say anything about adjuvant chemotherapy or hormone therapy.

Not Applicable

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Applicable

No discussion of availability of either approach, but we don’t think that was necessary in this case.

Not Satisfactory

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

All the story said was that “Earlier research had also concluded that the two procedures are similarly effective, but Hwang’s is a more “real-world” study.”   But the story never adequately explained what that means and why it makes this analysis different.

Satisfactory

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

The story includes several independent sources.

Total Score: 4 of 9 Satisfactory


Comments

Katherine OBrien (@ihatebreastcanc) posted on January 29, 2013 at 10:33 pm

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/12/17/malignant-breast-cells-grow-normally-when-compressed/

Please take a look at this release–do you think the research merited a release?

No “reputable” site picked it up. However, this site offers a typical example of the release’s appeal: http://ireporterstv.co/squeezing-breasts-may-cure-breast-cancer-research/

Here’s a “tamer” version: http://kzok.cbslocal.com/2012/12/20/breast-squeezing-is-a-win-win/

Classy! But again, I wonder why a release was issued. Is there any news here????

Reply

    Gary Schwitzer posted on January 30, 2013 at 8:37 am

    Katherine,

    Thanks for your note.

    I am slow to criticize any university for sending out news releases about basic science. We need to do a much better job of science education in this country. And the UC Berkeley release didn’t have any wild claims in it. It is what people did with that news release after it was sent out that was out of line.

    A key line from the UC Berkeley news release: “(researchers) grew malignant breast epithelial cells in a gelatin-like substance that had been injected into flexible silicone chambers. The flexible chambers allowed the researchers to apply a compressive force in the first stages of cell development.” How that translates into what actually happens in the body is quite another matter.

    So the “tamer” KZOK story that you listed was actually way out of line when it stated: “but this news is just great, and fun. If you’re a boob lover, you have a new mission. A new study has reported that squeezing the breast can revert and stop the out-of-control growth of breast cancer cells….So, if you’ve got a willing partner, squeeze away!”

    Silly, unwarranted, not supported by the very limited evidence at this point.

    At the same time, I would love to launch a project parallel to our current HealthNewsReview.org – a sort of HealthNewsRELEASEReview.org – that would evaluate the content in health/medical/science news release. I need funding in order to try that. Stay tuned.

    Reply

m stewart posted on February 1, 2013 at 8:42 pm

This is a ricuculous statement…So they are saying results are better if you remove only the lump with radiation as opposed to the whole breast. What about stray cells that may not have been removed by the lumpectomy? Or other cancers in that breast that could develop later? No sense at all.

Reply

Pat Battaglia posted on February 4, 2013 at 10:41 am

m stewart, I understand your concerns. It seems counterintuitive that breast conserving surgery (lumpectomy) plus radiation therapy provides a similar outcome to mastectomy in terms of survival. But studies show just that. If you go to the article and click the link at the end to the American Cancer Society’s page, it describes just phenomenon.
The weaknesses of the above-mentioned article are highlighted well by the reviewers. This is nothing new in the world of breast cancer. But the fact is that lumpectomy and radiation are a viable option for many who are diagnosed with this disease. It’s a matter of discussing the benefits and harms of proposed treatment with your health care providers and coming to a decision you can live with.

Reply

Norman M Canter, M.D. posted on March 9, 2013 at 1:03 pm

When one evaluates the results of “lumpectomy” and in reviewing studies by Veronesi and Bernard Fisher, the critical factor is extent of “lumpectomy” as compared with classical studies. If the surgeon pays sufficient attention to disease free margins, and the presence or absence of in situ disease in the remaining breast, results will be predictable and satisfactory. Unfortunately, many lumpectomies are less than ideal. These problems are less likely to be present with mastectomy which has its own drawbacks and requires a separate array of skills in execution.

Reply

We Welcome Comments

But please note: We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who doesn't list what appears to be an actual email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don't give medical advice so we won't respond to questions asking for it. Please see more on our comments policy.