The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Breast Cancer Symposium (September 2008) highlights several new studies on breast cancer screening, treatment, and access to care. Among these is a report of a novel imaging technique for detecting breast cancer. Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is a promising new technology that uses a radioactive tracer given by IV. This story did a good job, with the only exception being a significant one – that there was no discussion of the possible limitations of interpreting study results that are presented in a phone call news conference prior to the results being presented at a scientific meeting, much less peer reviewed and published.
This story provides cost information and indicates that MBI may prove to be a more cost-effective and accurate method than magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). (MRI is currently used for high risk women with dense breasts.) It is estimated that MBI will cost half as much as MRI, $500 versus $1,000.
This article describes the positive outcomes of the trial evaluating MBI in terms that are easily understandable to the lay reader. In absolute terms, MBI detected 10 of the 13 total tumors that were found over 15 months follow-up. These results were greater than mammography which found three of the 13 tumors, failing to detect 10. In addition, MBI had a lower rate of false positives than mammography, 7% versus 9%, respectively. While MBI led to more biopsies than mammograms, it had a higher predictive value. Three times more cancers were detected by MBI than by mammography.
MBI, as well as mammography, uses radiation to detect breast cancer tumors. This article provides information about a potentially significant downside of MBI as compared to mammogram: MBI delivers eight to 10 times more radiation than a mammogram.
This article does a very good job of summarizing the preliminary results of what appears to be a well-designed controlled trial evaluating MBI as a breast cancer screening method in high risk women. It provides detail on the subjects and methods, relevant outcomes, and provides a discussion of the implications of the findings. (See Quantification of Benefits of Treatment comments.)
This article does not commit disease mongering.
The story was based ono a telephone news briefing with the lead author prior to her presentation later in the week at an American Society of Clinical Oncology conference.
We have enough concerns about news coverage of scientific findings at a scientific meeting. But basing a story on a phone press conference prior to presentation of study results at a professional meeting? That suggests no peer review of scientific results prior to dissemination. Even the limited review and comment on new work that occurs at a professional meeting provides some opportunity for input by others unaffiliated with the study. This pre-conference release seems to increase the opportunity for biased presentation and lack of critical review of the work by independent experts.
The one independent expert’s quote that did appear in the story doesn’t help that much because Eric Winer’s comment relates to the limitations of MRI as an adjunct to mammography. It does not really comment on the study’s findings regarding MBI.
This article accurately states that mammography and MRI are used as breast cancer screening methods. It also adds that both methods have limitations, particularly false positives and unnecessary biopsies, which indicate the need for new, more effective technologies, such as MBI.
This article states that the molecular breast imaging (MBI) is an experimental method for breast cancer screening in high risk women. Other descriptive terms, including "first big step", "promising" and "might be an additional tool", imply that this technique is not currently available. The article also clearly indicates that this technique would not replace mammography.
As indicated in the article, MBI is an innovative imaging technique for breast cancer screening.
It does not appear that the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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