Read Original Story

Erbitux Cancer Drug Is Cleared For Use On Head, Neck Tumors

Rating

3 Star

Erbitux Cancer Drug Is Cleared For Use On Head, Neck Tumors

Our Review Summary

In this story we learn of a potentially important new development in the treatment of head and neck cancer. The FDA recently approved the drug Erbitux for head and neck cancer after granting the application a priority review, a status only given to treatments it believes represent ‘significant improvement’ over existing treatments. The author presents accurate information on the novelty of the drug, its availability and potential side effects and does not exaggerate the prevalence or seriousness of head and neck cancer. The author also quantifies the benefit of the drug in absolute terms by giving the survival for both arms of the study. However, the story contains phrases that appear identical to some in the FDA’s news release and apppears to rely on this release as the only source of information. No other sources are quoted. In doing so, the story misses some information that was not present in the press release. Most notably, it is still uncertain how Erbitux will compare with cisplatin, the current standard of care for chemotherapy, since the trials did not directly compare them. The author also does not mention the costs of Erbitux, which are likely to be substantial compared to the much cheaper cisplatin.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The author does not mention the costs of the drug, which are likely to be substantial compared to the much cheaper cisplatin.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

Quantitative estimates of survival are given for both the drug and the radiation-only groups.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The side effects of Erbitux are accurately presented.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

Although there is mention of two studies, the story not describe the study design. Nor does the story explain that the studies did not directly compare Erbitux to the current standard of care for chemotherapy – cisplatin. The fact that there has been no direct comparison between Erbitux and cisplatin makes it more difficult to interpret what the results mean for current practice.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There is no obvious disease-mongering. The story accurate represents the prevalence and seriousness of head and neck cancer.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

Only a single source – the FDA – is quoted.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

Although the author does mention radiation as the alternative and that the side effects of Erbitux plus radiation are similar to that of radiation alone, there is no mention of cisplatin and other newer chemotherapy drugs that are the current standard of care.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story accurately states that Erbitux has recently been approved by the FDA

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story is clear that Erbitux was first used to treat colon cancer, but is now approved to treat head and neck cancer.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Satisfactory

Identical phrases appear in the story and in the FDA’s news release. The lack of independent sources also suggests that the author has relied on the press release as the only information source.

Total Score: 5 of 10 Satisfactory

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.