This
news release summarizes an association study comparing 140,000 women with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who received three different treatments. The study utilized the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program database to evaluate outcomes. DCIS is a noninvasive form of breast cancer, sometimes referred to as stage 0 breast cancer. There is debate as to whether it should be called cancer at all. The study reported outcomes in three groups of patients: 1) patients who underwent lumpectomy (surgery to remove the tumor) plus radiation versus lumpectomy alone; 2) patients who underwent lumpectomy without radiation versus mastectomy (surgery to remove the breast); and 3) patients who underwent lumpectomy plus radiation versus mastectomy. Women who received radiation had a slightly lower (0.27% reduction) risk of death from breast cancer at 15 years compared to women with lumpectomy alone.
The release mentions some limitations of the research but missing is a broader discussion of the potential for over treatment of DCIS, whether DCIS needs to be treated at all, and whether women with low-risk forms of the disease can be safely monitored without treatment. We’ve written about this previously.
Over treatment is a widely discussed issue in many areas of cancer, including DCIS, a noninvasive early form of breast cancer that some physicians believe should not be strictly labeled “cancer,” primarily when it’s low grade, or grade 1 DCIS. Exposing women to radiation in addition to lumpectomy has the potential for unnecessary harms. This brief release does not provide that context. The published study itself includes this comment: “It is doubtful whether a benefit of this size is large enough to warrant radiotherapy.”
The release does not include any cost information.
The summary gives an absolute risk reduction percentage of 0.27% for patients who received radiation compared to those who did not. It also includes the number needed to treat (370) to save one patient. This is good detail, but we would also have liked more context on the controversies of DCIS treatment. A HealthNewsReview.org podcast provides a deeper look here.
The release briefly discusses harms. The release says patients who received radiation and lumpectomy had more “local” recurrences of the cancer, but their overall survival was modestly better than patients who did not have radiation (a 0.27% reduction over 15 years).
The release should have given some mention to the harms of radiation treatment, particularly since the potential benefit of radiotherapy was very small.
The release provides details on the association study, which reviewed records from thousands of patients. The release also includes limitations of the study.
There is no disease mongering. The release provides context on the prevalence of DCIS in the U.S.
The style of this news release was to punt the question of funders and “conflicts” into a web link where the reader has to chase it down. It would better serve readers to have funders and any conflicts of interest spelled out in the release.
Here is what the release states:
Editor’s Note: The article contains conflict of interest disclosures. Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, financial disclosures, funding and support, etc.
The study notes that researchers received funding from Canadian government agencies.
The release let readers down in providing the broader context about controversies over appropriate treatment — if any — for women diagnosed with DCIS.
It’s common knowledge that radiation and surgery are widely available treatments.
There was no claim of novelty. The release stated that results are based on an association study of a national database containing more than 140,000 patient records. It’s unclear if similar studies have been completed.
We found no unjustifiable language.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
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