NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

More cancer patients removing 2nd, healthy breast

Rating

4 Star

More cancer patients removing 2nd, healthy breast

Our Review Summary

This article reports findings from a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that demonstrate a recent rise in double mastectomies among women diagnosed with cancer in one breast. It generally does a good job of explaining that the benefits of the treatment are unknown. It explores the question of what may motivate women to make this decision.

The anecdote is well chosen because the woman is a nurse and therefore more credible as someone making an informed choice. It also allows us to hear one woman explain how she made what she knows to be a decision based more on emotion than fact. 

The article would have been stronger had it taken a closer look at the risks and benefits of the whole range of breast cancer treatments, and what risks a woman diagnosed with breast cancer faces of the cancer spreading, returning or killing her. 

 

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

While cost is very unlikely to drive a decision about breast cancer treatment, it’s increasingly important for the media to educate readers about the true underlying costs of medical treatments. In this case, the reporter cites "higher costs" as one disadvantage of double mastectomy. This obligates the reporter to specify those costs.

To know how the cost of either a single or double mastectomy compares to the costs of lumpectomy plus radiation would have added additional value.

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

Not Satisfactory

Generally the article does a good job of using data to show how the number of double mastectomies has increased over six recent years. 

But there is one serious flaw: The report states that, "Women removing a single cancerous breast have a 1 percent chance per year of suffering cancer in the other breast." That sounds fearsome, and like a reasonable motivation to undergo double mastectomy. But we have no idea how that 1 percent compares to a woman of a similar age who has not been diagnosed, to a woman with high risk who has not been diagnosed, etc.

In addition, the reporter is rounding up from a recurrence rate of between .5 percent to .75 percent, as stated in the research article. The average reader may estimate a 40 year old woman with 40 more years life expectancy has risk of recurrence in other breast of 40 percent; but data suggest it is closer to 20 to 30 percent.

The article is also unclear about the evidence regarding mortality: Have no studies looked into the question of whether a double mastectomy increases lifespan, or are there studies that show no difference? 

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The report mentions slightly higher risks of surgical complications and infections. It would have been useful to specify how serious and frequent these outcomes are, but this is not a serious flaw.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

The article fairly reports that the study was based on an analysis of several years of data gathered for a large government study and reported in a credible medical journal.

The report makes clear early on the limitation that this study could not explain reasons for women making the choice.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The reporter does nothing to exaggerate the risks of cancer spreading from one breast to the other. In fact, the reporter does a good job making clear that the risk is lower than many patients think.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The reporter interviews the lead author of the study, two additional credible medical experts and one patient. The patient, a nurse, is a more credible source than one often finds in news stories.  

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The article sufficiently compares bilateral and single mastectomy, and reports that the lumpectomy with radiation option is more common. 

 

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The article implies, accurately, that double mastectomy is available at any facility that provides breast cancer treatment.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The article makes clear that this is the first large federal study of the issue. As for the procedure itself, no claims are made for its novelty.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

There is no evidence that the report relies on the journal’s press release.

Total Score: 8 of 10 Satisfactory

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.