Whether to give chemotherapy after surgery for localized colon cancer is controversial. Chemotherapy has significant side effects and the survival benefit is small. As is currently done for breast cancer, to be able to predict whether the tumor is likely to return after surgery would help guide treatment decisions about chemotherapy. This story reports on new results on a gene test for colon cancer tumors to be presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.
Unfortunately the new test was only modestly able to predict colon cancer recurrence and failed to predict response to chemotherapy. Future research is clearly needed.
This story adequately represents the novelty and availability of the test. It does not engage in disease mongering and is clear on the target of the test – colon cancers that are large but have not spread beyond the colon. It quotes multiples sources and is clear to point out who is invested in the development of the test.
The story could have been improved by describing what is currently done to determine need for chemotherapy (i.e. pathology and/or imaging tests), by providing the baseline average risk of recurrence as a comparison to the predicted risk from the test, and by describing potential harms of the test.
Finally, the story doesn’t really give any details on the current study or the overall strength of the evidence to support the use of the test. Although the story points out that the results will be presented at a meeting, it should have made the point that these studies are not rigorously peer-reviewed and evaluated prior to presentation, which makes it more difficult to evaluate the study at this time.
The story describes the cost of a similar existing test for breast cancer but is clear to point out that exact costs are not yet available. The story also mentions several times that the high cost of the test may not be worth the expense.
The story does provide a range of percentage risk of having a recurrence. The story could have provided the baseline average risk by way of comparison and could have described what the expected benefit in terms of improved survival could potentially be.
The story does not describe any harms of the test. Because the test does not predict whether an individual would actually benefit from chemotherapy, some people could decide to undergo chemotherapy based on the results of the test without realizing any benefit. The story didn’t explicitly state that potential harm and we think it should have.
The story doesn’t really give any details on the current study or the overall strength of the evidence to support the use of the test. Although the story points out that the results will be presented at a meeting, it should have made the point that these studies are not rigorously peer-reviewed and evaluated prior to presentation, which makes it more difficult to evaluate the study at this time.
The story does not exagerrate the seriousness or prevalence of colon cancer. The story is also clear to describe the target of the test – colon cancers that are large but have not spread beyond the colon.
The story quotes multiple experts.
Clearly not having the test is the alternative. The story did not need to spell that out, but it could have described what is currently done to determine need for chemotherapy, i.e. pathology and/or imaging tests.
The story clearly states that the test is not yet available but that it may be in the near future.
The story adequately describes the novelty of the test.
Because the story quotes multiple experts, it is reasonable to assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information. But it does also appear clear that the news release from the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting is driving the story. Otherwise why not wait until the actual presentation of results – or publication of a peer-reviewed paper?
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