This story, on a novel approach to infusing chemotherapy for a brain tumor, just goes to show what a careful, engaged reporter can accomplish when given sufficient time and space to write a story.
As the story’s ratings show, the reporter follows all health reporting best practices.
But the story accomplishes a great deal more. Starting with a single patient’s experience in a trial of a novel cancer treatment, the reporter illuminates the function of the blood-brain barrier; the nature of a deadly brain tumor recently in the news; the structure of clinical trials; some recent advances in chemotherapy; and the nuances of the patient-researcher relationship.
The reporter also manages to humanize the patient and locate the disease in a family’s life, without getting mawkish or exploitive.
It’s the kind of story that leaves one with hope–that quality health journalism does still exist.
Costs of the treatment were not mentioned. But we can understand that in an article about an experimental approach so far from clinical use.
With only a Phase I study underway, there is no data to report. The story makes this clear.
The story explains that the infusion method has not been proven safe–indeed, that’s what the current study is designed to find out.
In addition, the reporter cites the doctor’s estimated risks of the treatment the featured patient faces: a 5 percent chance of becoming "visibly weak" and a 1 percent chance of left-side paralysis.
The story plainly discloses that there is no evidence that the procedure treats glioblastoma successfully. (Although the anecdotes about spots on MRIs "melting away" did suggest efficacy. This was potentially misleading as they may recur in the vast majority of cases.)
The article describes glioblastoma’s deadliness with facts and data rather than appeals to emotion. The language is in some places dramatic but not inappropriately so.
The reporter draws on three principal sources: two physicians involved with the research and an independent expert on glioblastoma from NIH.
The story describes the conventional treatments for glioblastoma–surgery, radiation and/or chemotherapy via pill or IV.
The story makes very clear that the approach described is experimental and not clinically available. It is the subject of a Phase I trial of 30 patients.
The novelty of this approach to glioblastomas is implicit: The featured patient is only the second to receive the treatment.
The story also explains that the studied method of infusion uses an existing drug in a novel way.
There is no evidence that the story relied 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