Liz Szabo fits several important reminders into her story about the FDA’s approval of Provenge for prostate cancer. For example:
Benefits: the vaccine helped men with advanced prostate cancer live four months longer than men given placebo shots.
Harms: one in four Provenge patients had a serious side effect, with 3.5% suffering a stroke, compared to 2.6% of those on placebo.
Uncertainties: “doctors still have many questions about the vaccine”
Cost: “A February analysis by J.P. Morgan estimates that Provenge could cost closer to $70,000 to $100,000 … That could put the drug out of reach even for patients with insurance, as some plans require patients to pay 20% of their medication costs.”
There is no question this is a significant advance in introducing a new method of targeted cancer therapy, but some of the stories we’ve seen are caught up in hyperbolic language like “breakthrough” and “landmark. ” More stories should emphasize the life-extending benefit of four months at a time when Szabo reminds us:
‘A growing number of health economists and patient advocates have expressed concern about the skyrocketing cost of cancer drugs. Many health plans are raising out-of-pocket costs to help cover these expenses, research shows.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments (4)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Greg Pawelski
April 30, 2010 at 2:15 pmAmerican Cancer Society’s Dr. Len Lichtenfeld has some interesting perspectives about the Provenge vaccine cancer drug. The point about it being a vaccine and not so much a targeted drug. The treatment will only be available for men whose disease has progressed despite hormone treatments, and the men have to either be free of symptoms or have only minimal symptoms at the time of treatment.
http://www.cancer.org/aspx/blog/Comments.aspx?id=353
Bill
November 7, 2011 at 8:28 amYou seem to only want to show part of the USA Today article. You pull out:
” one in four Provenge patients had a serious side effect, with 3.5% suffering a stroke, compared to 2.6% of those on placebo. ”
Maybe you would have been more even handed in your reporting by including more of the paragraph:
“Many men on Provenge developed mild symptoms, such as fevers, chills and headaches. One in four patients had a serious side effect, whether they took Provenge or a placebo, with 3.5% suffering a stroke, compared with 2.6% of those on placebo, according to the FDA. Chemo can cause many serious side effects, such as fatigue, loss of appetite and dangerous infections.”
or maybe even-handed reporting is NOT what you are about!
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning 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.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like