Lung cancer is a devastating diagnosis. Few tumors are caught early; those that are can be successfully treated with surgery. However, some patients are not eligible for surgery for various reasons. For them, radiation may not cure the cancer but may control it for some time. A new type of radiation, Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) provides targeted, highly-focused radiation treatment to the tumor while leaving the surrounding tissue intact, important for those whose lung function may already be compromised. A small pilot study published in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association found that SBRT provided improvements in 3-year survival compared to what other studies have shown is achieved with conventional radiation. However, because this was a small, single-institution study with no direct comparison to other treatments, some caution must be taken in interpreting the results.
This story could have been improved in the following ways:
This story narrowly avoids some of the pitfalls of a common scenario in contemporary health care reporting – preliminary results about a potentially better treatment for a bad disease – this time a new form of radiation for lung cancer. The key words here are "preliminary" and "potentially" – the best this article did was insert the tiny word "may" in the first line when referring to the fact that this treatment "may control" this cancer better than currently available treatment. Readers shouldn’t have such a hard time seeing the reality. Without it, one can see desperate patients and families clamouring for insurers or the government to pay for this lifesaving treatment. Only by making the facts clear, not sensationalized, can they see that hope isn’t proof, and that the clamour should be to get the definitive study under way.
The story does not mention costs or insurance coverage. Likely given how experimental the treatment is, insurance will not cover the procedure. Given that it is not an approved treatment, a simple statement about its cost relative to current therapy could have been helpful. For desperate patients and families struggling with the treatment options, uNPRoven treatments that are likely not to be covered by insurance would require out of pocket coverage.
The story adequately quantifies the benefits of treatment by providing the number and percentage of participants who had complete or partial response to the therapy. However, the story should have defined what "complete" or "partial" response means. More importantly, the story was not explicit about the fact that the observed results can only be compared to historical data, not concurrent "best" standard care. We know what happened to the study patients, but what would have happened if they got standard therapy can only be speculated on.
The story indicates that 16% experienced significant but non-deadly side effects of treatment. But what were those side effects? How serious were they? Did they occur more or less often with SBRT than conventional radiation?
The story describes one small study but does not comment on the strength of the evidence. While the results are compelling, this was not a controlled trial, meaning there was no comparison made to any other treatments. This makes the interpretation of the results very difficult and a follow-up study is needed that directly compares a larger number of individuals randomly assigned to SBRT or conventional radiation.
The story does not exaggerate the seriousness of lung cancer. The story is clear that the study was in the context of early-stage lung cancer, however it could have pointed out more clearly that the results can’t be applied to later-stage cancer patients.
The story does not quote any sources other than the lead author of the study. Independent experts could have provided some much-needed perspective on the importance of the new findings.
The story describes surgery and conventional radiation as possible alternatives to SBRT.
The story states that SBRT is not FDA approved and is still "experimental" and in clinical trials. The story could have provided some information on how someone with inoperable lung tumors could get access to the clinical trial.
While radiation is not a new idea, stereotactic body radiation therapy is relatively new and has not been evaluated in lung cancer.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
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