This release describes a phase 1 safety trial using a modified vaccine that researchers said showed a clinical benefit in some patients diagnosed with metastatic HER2 positive cancers. None of the 11 patients in the trial had previously been treated with standard therapies. The study was presented at a recent medical conference on immunotherapy.
The release makes projections about the “promise” of the study results although phase 1 trials are fundamentally designed to assess safety and toxicity from different dosages. This trial had no control group with which to compare results. The release makes mention of these limitations but not until the very last sentence.
Using immunotherapy through vaccines to combat breast cancer is an emerging area that in mice studies have shown some promising results. However, this study was a phase I clinical trial which is focused on a drug’s safety. It’s unclear what the outcomes in the human patients really mean without a comparison control group to truly understand what this vaccine could contribute in terms of treatment of metastatic cancer.
The release noted that the vaccines were individually customized using each person’s immune cells. That technology does not sound cheap yet there was no discussion of cost.
The release explains that six of 11 patients had a complete response, partial response, or stable disease using the experimental treatment. To the lay audience, it’s not clear what is meant by these different levels of response. Also, this is a phase 1 trial which is testing the safety of the vaccine and not focused or powered to compare benefits with current available treatments.
The only harm mentioned in the release was some injection site discomfort. The release also mentioned that the patients were tested to see if there was cardiotoxicity (heart dysfunction or muscle damage) and none was found.
The release gives a fairly detailed description of the study protocol, and dosing in particular. The release described the limitations of the current study at the very end of the release, notably that since it was a phase 1 trial it had a small sample size and there was no control group to compare the results.
The release did not engage in disease mongering. It provides brief background on what HER2 cancer is and how it drives the growth of different types of cancer, including breast, ovarian, lung, colorectal, and gastroesophageal.
The release notes that the research was funded by the National Cancer Institute at NIH. The study abstract states the lead scientist declared no conflicts of interest.
No alternatives were mentioned in the release. The only focus was on the current phase 1 clinical trial results.
There was no discussion of the availability, although with it being a phase 1 clinical trial, you can assume that it is not available yet. There was no mention about scaling this work since the vaccine was produced using each individual’s immune cells to create the vaccine. It’s unclear if the trial moves forward and enrolls more subjects, how difficult (or costly) it would be to bring this method of treatment to a wider audience.
Although using immunotherapy to combat cancer is becoming a well known field, the approach the authors are taking with this treatment appears to be novel. The release also mentions how the vaccine was previously studied in animal models.
The release does not rely on unjustifiable language.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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