This is a solid report on a controversy over potential risks of heart failure associated with a class of commonly used breast cancer chemotherapy drugs called anthracyclines. The reporter draws on a variety of sources and provides differing perspectives about risks and benefits.
However, the story is really about new understanding of which subgroups benefit from anthracyclines, not that they "work no better" than other drugs.
The article would have been stronger if it had included statistics about how effective the various cancer drugs were.
The story is made weaker, not stronger, by the anecdote at the end. The woman interviewed was an overweight smoker at elevated risk for heart disease, and we don’t know enough about her treatment to know whether anthracyclines had anything to do with her heart problems or recovery. This is at best confusing, at worst misleading.
The article does not report how much the drugs costs, but the price is not necessary or useful in this story. The issues with both treatment and side effects are literally life and death. The relative cost of the drugs is not an issue.
While the report states that the controversy is triggered by new research suggesting anthracyclines "work no better" than less risky drugs, it does not compare efficacy of the treatments directly.
The article does report that only around 8 percent of breast cancer patients would get unique benefit from the drug. This is useful, but it is not proof that anthracyclines "work no better" than the alternatives.
The story is quite clear about the nature and size of the drugs’ risks.
The reporter cites a credible source’s analysis of nine studies that shows only 20 percent of breast cancer patients with an overactive Her2 gene respond to anthracyclines, and only 8 percent of the group gets special benefit from the drugs. (Although the reporter could have noted that the source is NOT a disinterested party – since he is discussing the findings from some of his own research.)
The report also cites a new Journal of Clinical Oncology study that shows people who had taken anthracyclines were 26 percent more likely to have developed heart failure in the following decade. The report provides sufficient detail about the study’s methodology.
The article does nothing to exaggerate the seriousness of breast cancer or heart failure, nor does it exaggerate the benefits of chemotherapy with anthracyclines or other drugs.
The report quotes three credible sources–two researchers and one clinician. They do not appear to have conflicts of interest.
The recent study described is from a peer-reviewed journal.
The article does a decent job of indicating that other chemo drugs are available. It would be useful to know a bit more about how many alternatives there are and how widely they are used.
The article states that anthracyclines are a "mainstay" and a "staple" of chemotherapy for breast cancer. While this makes clear that the drugs are widely available, it would have been useful to know what percentage of chemo patients get these drugs compared to others.
The story implies the side effect issue is novel, while in fact the heart-related side effects of these drugs are well-known.
There is no evidence that the article draws on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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