A new study published in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association supports more conservative use of hormone therapy in men with advanced prostate cancer who also have heart disease risk factors. Although it has been known for some time that hormone therapy increases the risk of heart disease, the new study suggests that any benefit hormone therapy may provide from treating the prostate cancer may be cancelled out by harms from heart disease, particularly in men who are already at high risk. In these men, the study found an overall increase in mortality related to the hormone therapy. This study may change the risk-benefit equation for many men considering hormone therapy. What is clear is that heart disease risk must be a part of that decision.
This story, in only about 500 words, meets the basic standard for all of our criteria. It is comprehensive in listing the side effects and harms of hormone therapy, which are numerous and varied. It quotes multiple sources and explains the design of the current study. It does a good job of quantifying the risk of heart disease by providing multiple ways of expressing that risk, both absolute and relative terms. The story also mentions the monthly cost of the therapy of $1,400 and that it is taken for 4 months on average.
The story could have been improved by providing more content on the pros and cons of the alternatives to hormone therapy such as radiation/brachytherapy and surgery.
But, overall, this was a good demonstration of how a story can address our ten criteria even in a relatively short piece.
The story mentions the monthly cost of the therapy of $1,400 and that it is taken for 4 months on average.
The story does a good job of quantifying the risk of heart disease by providing multiple ways of expressing that risk, that is in both absolute and relative terms.
The story clearly describes the side effects and harms of hormone therapy, which are numerous and varied.
The story adequately describes the current study, including details about the subjects’ demographics, tumor characteristics, medical conditions and treatments to help readers better interpret the results.
Because the story is clear that the new data concerns men with advanced prostate disease AND a history of heart disease, the story does not engage in disease mongering.
The story quotes two experts who provide valuable perspectives. The story is also clear to point out whether or not they were involved in the current study.
The story also mentions radiation and surgery as alternatives, although it could have provided more content on the pros and cons of these options.
It’s clear from the story that hormone therapy for prostate cancer is widely available.
Clearly hormone therapy for advanced prostate cancer is not a new idea but what is new is that the man’s history of heart disease should be taken into consideration before initiation of treatment.
Because the story quotes multiple sources the reader can assume that it did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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