This is a solid, concise report on the benefits of adding chemotherapy to radiation treatment for brain cancer.
It does a good job reporting the key findings of benefit responsibly and clearly, using both absolute and relative terms. It also describes the methodology and caveats.
The reader comes away understanding that the new report shows improved survival but is by no means a cure. It makes plain that with either therapy, a large majority of patients die within 5 years of diagnosis.
The reporter also does a fine job of putting the findings in the context of Sen. Edward Kennedy’s recent diagnosis and treatment of the same kind of tumor. This makes the story relevant and personal. Yet the reporter does not distort the story so it’s more about Kennedy rather than the findings.
As the ratings show, the reporter should have consulted with one source with no connection to the study or the treatment.
Further, the failure to mention the potential harms of the treatment–a paramount quality-of-life issue for patients–is a significant omission.
The story fails to report the costs of the treatments alone and together.
As a matter of course, costs should be reported, even when not central to the story’s theme.
The story does a solid job of presenting the benefits in absolute terms with the most relevant clinical endpoint–10 percent of people who got the combination treatment were alive 5 years after diagnosis.
It uses absolute data to compare results at the three-year mark as well.
Elsewhere it compares survival rates in relative terms, i.e., "five times more likely to be alive."
Because the death rate is so high with either treatment approach, quality of life remaining–which is seriously affected by harms or side-effects of treatment–is a relevant, perhaps dominant, issue.
The reporter should have explored the side effects of the treatment and the quality of life issues for each treatment.
The published study at the center of the story is a clinical trial of techniques currently in use.
The reportage about the study, including quotes from two oncologists, makes clear that the evidence shows improved outcomes but not a "cure."
The reporter mentions the caveats that the findings apply only to those 70 and younger, and that those under 50 benefitted the most.
The story sticks closely to the facts of the published study, without exaggerating the gravity of the disease.
The mention of Ted Kennedy getting the treatment serves to make the story timely, interesting and relevant without excessive emotion.
But the story does overgeneralize the application of this treatment. The story refers to "brain cancer" and "tumors," yet the findings apply only to glioblastoma, a small subset of brain cancers. This could invite unwarranted hope in readers that the findings apply to many types of brain cancer.
The story cites two sources, the lead author of the study and the oncologist who treated Sen. Kennedy.
While it’s appropriate to interview both, neither is a disinterested observer. A third source, entirely independent of the study and its findings, should have been consulted.
The study explains that surgery with radiation is the longstanding treatment, and that the addition of chemotherapy to the treatment is in increasing use.
The reporter should have acknowledged, however, that doing nothing is an option. It would be good for readers to know what life expectancy is with no treatment.
The story makes clear that the both parts of the brain cancer treament, radiation and chemotherapy, are available and sometimes used together.
Citing the fact that Sen. Edward Kennedy received a similar treatment emphasizes its availability.
The story makes clear the combination treatment is available and currently in use.
It explains that the current publication follows previously published studies of the treatment.
There does not appear to be a press release linked to the study’s publication.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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