A recent paper in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute was entitled, "Gene Expression–Based Prognostic Signatures in Lung Cancer: Ready for Clinical Use?" The authors concluded, "From our review, it is clear that medical utility for any of the reported prognostic signatures has not yet been convincingly demonstrated. We hope that future research in this important field will strive to move away from being another exercise in clinical correlation to one that truly makes an impact on widespread medical practice." We wish the story had applied more of that kind of context to the coverage of this latest genetic signature.
The study reported on is of interest because any early diagnostic tests for lung cancer that worked and were available would have public health importance, given that lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in the US. But these findings reported on are very preliminary.
Not applicable. Given the early stage of research, it is understandable that costs weren’t estimated.
At a very elementary level, the story never reported on what would be the key quantifiable benefit – the sensitivity of the test. What were the numbers from the trial?
Given the early stage of research, and the fact that we don’t even know if the test will work in broader testing it seems early to speculate on whether the genetic chain reaction could be reversed by a drug, but at least the story referred to this as an "early hint among a handful of people."
Is there any risk in obtaining an endobronchial sample via bronchoscopy? The story didn’t tell us. And is there any harm from the un-named compund at the end of the story?
Our reviewers were split on this one. One felt it should have been emphasized that these were small scale studies that were actually inadequately powered to support the claims made.
But there was enough cautious language about the evidence for us to give this a satisfactory score. For example:
A quote from an apparently independent source was included in this story. Mentioning that Dr. Spira is a co-founder of a company promoting the test and the agent being tested as a treatment provided interesting insight.
There was no discussion of how the test described compared with other methods available or under development for detection of lung cancer.
Although the story describes the test as something that is being developed, there is no explicit mention that it is now purely a research tool, is currently not available nor FDA approved for the purpose described. And there is no discussion of the availabilty of the "compound" used. In fact, it’s not even named.
The story didn’t mention that several companies are following leads on various gene expression signatures as means of early lung cancer detection. That kind of context would have helped.
Given the fact that an independent researcher was interviewed, it does not appear that the story relied solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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