This University of Warwick release promises much more than it should, considering the research was conducted not on humans or even mice but on cell lines in labs. The release headline claims that a new compound called FY26 is “49 times more potent” than an existing chemotherapy, and a subhead says, “Effectiveness shown in tests on ovarian and bowel cancer.” But it’s a bit misleading to claim increased potency for a drug that’s never even been tested in humans, because the compound may not work the same way in humans as it does in a petri dish. The drug certainly faces a very long and uncertain road before it might be approved for use in actual cancer patients — something the release never warned readers about. This is interesting research that’s worth writing about, but the release desperately needed a statement cluing readers in to the very preliminary nature of the study.
Millions of people with cancer are hoping for new therapies, and this release could set them up for false hope. The release promises that FY26 could be “cheaper to produce, less harmful to healthy cells than existing treatments and has been shown to be active against cancer cells which have become resistant to platinum-based drugs.” The release does not say that results from lab work will need to be tested for years before the therapy is proven safe and effective.
The release speculates that FY26 could be cheaper to produce than platinum-based chemotherapy drugs. That may well be true, but the release didn’t provide any evidence or reasoning as to why this would be the case. Nor does it explain that cheaper “production” might not mean cheaper pricing for patients. We know that platinum is expensive, but then again new drugs are typically far more expensive than existing generic treatments. We’d need more than a general claim that the drug “could be cheaper” to award a Satisfactory rating here.
The release claims that FY26 is “49 times more potent than Cisplatin” — a statement that strikes us as hyperbolic. There’s no explanation at all of how the researchers measured the “potency” of the drug, and we’re left wondering how they concluded that it was exactly “49 times” more potent. Rather than focus on this promotional-sounding claim, we’d have preferred some description of what the researchers actually did in the experiment and what their results showed.
The story promises so much of this compound, including that it could be less harmful to healthy cells than existing treatments. But it’s hard to know what side effects might exist because the drug has apparently never been tested in animals or humans. The release does mention the many side effects associated with existing chemotherapies, but we wish there had been a caution: “There may be side effects with FY26 that remain to be discovered.”
The release speculates that this research “could also lead to substantial improvements in cancer survival rates.” But the compound has only been administered to cell lines, not to any human subjects. The release does eventually get around to mentioning the fact that these were cell lines, but we would have welcomed a disclaimer – high up in the release – cautioning that any excitement surrounding this drug should be tempered by experience with past failures. Years of clinical research and many obstacles must be cleared before this is a practical alternative for patients.
The funding sources were carefully noted in the release.
One researcher does talk about a comparison with existing treatments and why new therapies are needed.
“Existing platinum-based cancer treatments often become less effective after the first course, as cancer cells learn how they are being attacked, but our new osmium compound with its different mechanism of action, remains active against cancer cells that have become resistant to drugs such as Cisplatin”.
It is clear that the compounds are not available to human patients yet.
The novelty of this compound and potential advantages over existing treatments are clear from the story. The release also notes that NIH is conducting similar studies.
The claim of increased potency, based on cell line research and with no qualifications, is not justifiable. The release also states, “Effectiveness shown in tests on ovarian and bowel cancer.”
We think people reading will think the research showed the compound killed ovarian and bowel cancer IN PATIENTS not just in a petri dish.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The @nytimeswell effort is shown to be unwell once again.
There's pervasive media bias toward hyping treatment benefits while neglecting negative results & harms.
Big part of this is reliance on experts with financial &/or intellectual conflicts of interest.
Att'n journalists: Use this list 100 independent experts to correct imbalance https://t.co/Twzc1Sp8Vw
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