MD Anderson gives proton therapy careful treatment in study recap

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

Satisfactory

The release spells out the different measurements in both relative and absolute terms about the benefits of the therapy, but it is full of so much medical jargon that journalists and others would have a hard time following. The clearest statement is that they found “an overall survival (OS) of 26.5 months. In contrast, the historical OS rate with standard of care concurrent chemotherapy and traditional radiation was 16 months at the time when the study was designed.” Contrast that with, “In sum, 39 patients experienced a relapse, with distant sites representing 62 percent of all recurrences.” What is a distant site? Were these people living on islands? What they mean is that in 62 percent of the cases where cancer came back, it was where the cancer had spread to other parts of the body. But it’s unclear what this means in relation to the overall purpose of the study.  The primary outcome reported is overall survival: 29 percent were alive at 5 years, meaning  71 percent had died. As discussed elsewhere, the key issue is, compared to what?

Does the news release adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The release says:

“Among the acute and late toxic effects diagnosed in patients were: esophagitis, pneumonitis and cardiac arrhythmia. Of note, said Chang, no patients developed the most severe, or grade five, toxicities, as seen in patients who receive standard of care.”

So we give the release credit for talking about harms. Some numbers to show how many of the 64 people enrolled had side effects would have been helpful.

Does the news release seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

We like how the release provided good explanations of the study’s limitations. The release says, for example:

“Chang noted his study is not without limitations. Of greatest significance: the study was designed more than a decade ago. While the study’s survival, recurrence rates and toxic effects are still favorable when compared to rates associated with the most advanced traditional photon radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), technology to diagnose and stage the disease, as well all treatment modalities have significantly improved.”

At the same time, this is also a lead-in for MD Anderson to advertise therapies that have little evidence behind them. The release goes on to say,

“For example, MD Anderson proton therapy patients with advanced lung cancer now can receive IMPT. The technique uses an intricate network of magnets to aim a narrow proton beam at a tumor and “paint” the radiation dose onto it layer by layer. Healthy tissue surrounding the tumor is spared, and side effects are even more reduced than earlier proton delivery, said Chang.”

OK, but that was not part of the study. So, in effect, the release is saying that there was a marginal benefit shown in a very small study but, hey, come try this new therapy instead!

This is also key info:

“The study opened at MD Anderson in 2006; in this research, Chang and his colleague report on the study’s five-year results. For the prospective Phase II trial, 64 patients with inoperable, Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled. The study’s primary endpoint was OS.”

It explains that this was a single site study, in a small number of individuals with a particular type and stage of lung cancer, with overall survival as the primary outcome. But it could have been more clear that there was no direct comparison group and the study was not experimental (randomized design).

Does the news release commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There is no disease mongering in the release. Despite the favorable reporting of outcomes, most patients were dead at 5 years.

Does the news release compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The release states that results were compared to historical controls, but then goes on to detail all of the limitations with this comparison. The release does mention intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) at the end and states the historical control was chemotherapy with conventional radiation.

The alternatives could have been presented in a more straight-forward way.

Does the news release establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The novelty of the findings are summarized in this sentence: “The findings are the final results of the single institution, Phase II study and represent the longest follow-up to date of stage 3 lung cancer patients who have received proton therapy.”

The release focuses on long-term efficacy and safety. This is what is supposedly novel. The treatment itself isn’t. Again, this could have been made clearer, but it can be discerned on a careful read.

Does the news release include unjustifiable, sensational language, including in the quotes of researchers?

Satisfactory

There is no unjustifiable language in the release. However, the headline could have been improved. It states, “Concurrent chemotherapy, proton therapy improves survival in patients with advanced lung cancer.” The first line of the release then clarifies this, “For patients with advanced, inoperable stage 3 lung cancer, concurrent chemotherapy and the specialized radiation treatment, proton therapy, offers improved survival compared to historical data for standard of care.”