This story reports on results from a recent randomized trial showing that a new cancer vaccine reduced the size of tumors and prolonged progression free survival in patients with metastatic melanoma.
It is a well written, balanced piece of health reporting about a trial which created a buzz at a national meeting of oncologists. It was clear, hopeful without hyping the new treatment, and included expert comment. If the writer had included absolute difference (not just relative difference) in treatment benefit it would have been even stronger. The story is also quick to point out that the results should be interpreted with caution, as additional research is needed to confirm the findings.
While the story meets many of our criteria, it could have been improved by making it clear that this research has not yet undergone a formal review process to ensure sound methodology and accurate calculations. Additional details on the eligibility requirements for patients enrolled in this trial would have also been beneficial for readers.
The story stated that the National Cancer Institute developed the vaccine and that it had not yet been commercially licensed. So we don’t criticize it for not discussing costs.
Although the story accurately reports the high-level results of the trial, it would have been more meaningful if the story also presented the absolute risk reductions rather than only the percent reductions in regards to the response rate.
The story also mentions that the vaccine can only be administered to patients with a “certain tissue type,” a group that only comprises about half of those with melanoma. To shed light on the applicability of the new treatment, more details on the characteristics of the patients included in this study would have been useful.
The story mentions that 15 of the 180 patients in the study developed a heart rhythm problem, which was successfully controlled by medication.
The story mentions that the results were recently presented at the American Society of Cancer Oncology meeting, but does not explicitly state that the research has yet to be published in a medical journal. Unlike published articles, this study has not gone through a review process to check for errors in the methodology. We think this is an important issue to tell readers about.
Despite this oversight, the story provides quotes from the study lead as well as a doctor from the American Cancer Society, stating that the results of the research should be interpreted with caution and larger and longer studies are warranted to confirm the results. The story also mentions that a placebo was used, indicating a well-designed trial.
The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of melanoma.
In addition to interviewing two of the study’s authors, this story provides commentary from a doctor at the American Cancer Society.
A patient whose lung tumors were eliminated with use of the new vaccine was also quoted in the story. In this case, it would have been beneficial for the story to note that not all patients may receive the same benefit.
The story mentions that the National Cancer Institute developed the vaccine and sponsored the study along with Novartis AG, the company that manufactures interleukin-2 which is the standard therapy used in the study.
The research compared the new treatment with interleukin-2, the standard therapy. The story provided additional information regarding the efficacy and side effects of interleukin-2. Furthermore, it would have been useful if the story mentioned that traditional chemotherapy and radiation are also part of the standard treatment for melanoma.
This story clearly states that the vaccine has not yet been made available commercially.
The story explicitly states that this is a novel therapy for the treatment of melanoma.
This story does not appear to rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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