The focus of this story is a report of new data showing a statistically significant association between lobular breast cancer and short-term HRT (3 years or less). The story creates an exaggerated sense of risk because there is no mention of absolute risk. For breast cancer, estimated excess risk is 8 women/10,000 women per year developing breast cancer after 4 years of combined HRT use as compared with no hormone use.
A current treatment approach for bothersome menopausal symptoms is a course of low-dose HRT for 3-5 years with frequent monitoring. This course of treatment is considered safe for most women not already at high risk of developing breast cancer. The clinician interviewed stresses frequent monitoring and an individualized approach to managing symptoms.
The story notes various combinations of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) available for reducing menopaual symptoms, such as hot flashes and vaginal dryness. However, there is no discussion that menopause is a natural part of aging and unless symptoms are very bothersome, many women do not need to take HRT to ease symptoms common in menopause such as hot flashes, night sweats and vaginal dryness and discomfort.
The story does strike a balance by interviewing the lead author of the study and a gynecologist who put the new information in clinical perspective. It would be helpful to hear from researchers of the Women’s Health Initiative for comment on how their data on breast cancer risk compared to the present study.
The story does not specifically address cost of treatment. However, since the focus is on causation of disease, the cost issue does not seem important here.
The interview with a clinician puts the benefit of taking HRT in perspective; however, we are given no quantitative data to compare the risk of devleoping lobular cancer against the benefit of reduced menopausal symtoms via HRT. The clinician interviewed stresses frequent monitoring and an individualized approach to managing symptoms.
The focus of this story is a report of new data showing a statistically significant association between lobular breast cancer and short-term HRT. Yet there is no mention of absolute risk. For breast cancer estimated excess risk is 8 women/10,000 women per year developing breast cancer after 4 years of combined HRT use as compared with no hormone use.
The story describes the design of this case-control study and discusses the connection between increased risk of developing lobular cancer and shorter-duration HRT . However, the story could have mentioned that the case-control design of the study carries some inherent limitations in establishing causality vs association (e.g. recall bias).
The story leaves the reader with an impression of an exaggerated sense of risk with short-term HRT, because it gives relative, not absolute risk data. Also, lobular carcinoma is detected in the same way as ductal carcinoma – either because of a palpable lump detected on exam by woman or physician, or on a screening mammogram.
The story interviews the lead author of the study, as well as a gynecologist who puts the study in clinical perspective. The latter interview gives balance to the report. It would be nice to hear from researchers of the Women’s Health Initiative, or other clinicians who could discuss treatment options for women considering HRT.
The story does not discuss other treatment options for managing menopausal symptoms. There is no discussion here that menopause is a natural part of aging and not a condition which necessitates medical intervention. Unless symptoms are very bothersome, many women do not need to take HRT to ease symptoms common in menopause such as hot flashes, night sweats and vaginal dryness and discomfort.
The story notes various combinations of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) available for reducing menopaual symptoms, such as hot flashes and vaginal dryness. The story notes that data from the Women’s Health Initiative on the risks of HRT have been available since 2002. (These risks include a slight increase risk of breast cancer for some women who take a longer course of HRT (> 4 years) and an increased risk of heart disease in older women.
Satisfactory because the story indicates that the treatment itself is not novel.
The story does not appear to rely solely or largely on a news release
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