Note to our followers: Our nearly 13-year run of daily publication of new content on HealthNewsReview.org comes to a close at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. But all of the 6,000+ articles we have published contain lessons to help you improve your critical thinking about health care interventions. And those will be still be alive on the site for a couple of years.
Read Original Story

WSJ fills holes left by incomplete news release on beta-blockers and ovarian cancer

Rating

5 Star

Heart Drug Linked to Extra Years for Cancer Patients

Our Review Summary

This Wall Street Journal article nicely summarizes the findings of a retrospective study of 1,400 cases of women with ovarian cancer; some of whom had been prescribed beta-blockers for high blood pressure and appeared to have better outcomes than those not taking beta-blockers. It hits on nearly all of our criteria, and was more thorough and balanced than an MD Anderson news release that initially announced the findings to the world. (More on that below.) A bit more detail on the cost of these drugs, and a bit more restraint in discussing the outcomes of a small group of women who were taking a particular class of beta-blocker and had much better survival statistics, would have rounded out this story.

 

Why This Matters

Sheep followingWe often say that news releases can set the tone for subsequent media coverage of new research, and that a poor news release can lead to a great deal of misinformation reaching the public. We’ve compared this phenomenon to sheep following one another. However, it’s also true that good reporting can fill in the holes left by an incomplete news release and present a more balanced portrait of findings to readers. In this case, MD Anderson announced the results of this study with a news release that has been reviewed separately on HealthNewsReview.org and found wanting in several areas. Specifically, it used inappropriate language to describe the benefits and lacked a discussion of harms and limitations of the research. This story by and large addresses those issues and demonstrates how good health reporting can play an important and useful role in informing the public. There are plenty of reporters out there who can’t be led like sheep, and our project aims to shine a light on them and hopefully cultivate many more of them.

 

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story mentions that beta-blockers are available as generics but doesn’t specifically mention costs. As a class, beta blockers drugs are low cost ($10 to $200 a month according to some estimates).

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

Satisfactory

The article describes the median survival time afforded the women with ovarian cancer under different scenarios – with or without beta blockers in addition to their chemotherapy. For example, women who had been taking any beta blocker at the time of their chemotherapy had a median survival of 47.8 months while women who were not being treated with beta blockers while on chemo had median survival time of 42 months.

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

Satisfactory

The article notes that the quoted source and the study authors cautioned that beta blockers carry some side effects and additional research is needed to determine if the drugs’ benefits outweigh their risks for cancer patients. It specifically mentions risks for people with asthma. Other specific harms from beta-blockers for the general population include depression and diarrhea. Beta-blockers may also cause complications for people with diabetes.

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

Satisfactory

The article provides a good overall description of the size of the study and how patients were followed. It describes the median survival time afforded the 1,425 women with ovarian cancer under different scenarios – with or without beta blockers in addition to their chemotherapy. The use of language is appropriate in that it says these drugs were “linked to” and “associated with” benefits, but never claims that the drugs “prolonged survival” as stated in the MD Anderson news release.

The story also briefly touched on the study limitations. Because the research was a retrospective look at 1,425 cases in a database of ovarian cancer cases, it wasn’t randomized. The article also notes that more research is needed to determine if the findings will translate into new treatments, and that “This is not something that people should rush out and start taking.”

One area of concern is that the subheadline touts the dramatic benefits seen in a subgroup of patients taking nonselective beta-blockers — “A type of beta blocker is tied to more than four-year increase in survival for women with ovarian cancer, study finds” — but the story never specifically cautions readers about the small size of this group (only 75 people). Findings from such a small subgroup should be treated very carefully, and we’re not sure that they should have been highlighted for readers in the headline. We say this knowing full well that reporters often have no control over what gets put in the headline.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

We observed no evidence of fear-mongering language in the story.

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

Satisfactory

The story includes an independent source who wasn’t affiliated with the research. Christina Annunziata, a director with the Center for Cancer Research at the National Institutes of Health, said that while she found the study “interesting” and “thought-provoking,” she cautioned that “I don’t think it’s practice-changing quite yet.” Annunziata co-authored an editorial accompanying the report which were both published in the American Cancer Society’s Cancer journal.

The story would have been even stronger had it outlined the funding sources for this study, which included government and foundation grants. However, since we didn’t find any significant conflicts in the list of funding sources, we didn’t think this omission unbalanced the coverage.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Applicable

The relevant research is based on evaluating the use of beta blockers in conjunction with conventional chemotherapy, not as an alternative to chemotherapy or other courses of treatment. As such, we’ll rate “Compare Alternatives” as Not Applicable.

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

Satisfactory

Beta blockers are called “common heart drugs” in the story and are thus generally understood to be widely available. Beta-blockers first came on the market more than 50 years ago and their use has become widespread as researchers found more applications for this class of drugs. Generic versions are available, making them some of the most affordable prescription drugs.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

A close call here. The story acknowledges previous research in this areas when it says, “Mouse and test-tube studies have shown that so-called nonselective beta blockers inhibit molecular pathways that promote tumor growth. Selective versions, designed to minimize side effects for heart patients, are less effective in hitting such targets. Dr. Sood and his colleagues wondered if the same effect would be found in people.” That’s good context, but the story could also have noted that a number of studies have indeed examined the impact of beta-blocker use on ovarian cancer patients, and did not find the same prolonged survival rates that are reported on in this story. The researchers think that’s because these earlier studies didn’t distinguish between the two types of beta-blockers.

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

Satisfactory

Because the article quotes an independent, unaffiliated cancer expert, we are confident the article doesn’t rely solely on a press release.

Total Score: 8 of 9 Satisfactory

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.