Two quotes in the story also demanded a challenge from another perspective. One saying the study "suggests more high-risk women should consider taking raloxifene." And one saying "If women were not so risk-averse, we might actually be able to reduce the risk of breast cancer in high-risk women." In point of fact, some women who are fully informed will still be risk averse and may choose not to take either drug. That’s a point that didn’t come through in the story.
This is just an option for women who are concerned about their risk, but it is not something they must do. This is a genuine shared decision-making issue – an issue of tradeoffs and choices that the AP story emphasized but this one didn’t.
There is no discussion of the cost of these drugs.
The story states that tamoxifen reduces the risk of breast cancer by 50% and Evista reduces it by 38%; however, we’re not given absolute data to determine what that really means – and the absolute numbers are really small. According to the trial, 247 women in the tamoxifen group developed invasive breast cancer versus 310 in the Evista group.
The story provides data indicating that tamoxifen “doubles the risk of endometrial cancer” from 1 in 1,000 to 2 in 1,000 and Evista “doesn’t substantially increase the risk of endometrial cancer.” It would have been useful to provide the data for Evista as well, 1.23 in 1,000. Furthermore, there was no mention of the rate of blood clots or cataracts for these drugs.
Satisfactory in that the story indicates that this was a large trial (20,000 postmenopausal women) with a follow-up time of 7 years. However, it could have noted that for a prevention study, 7 years is not that long (there were very few cases of breast cancer in either group).
This story does not engage in disease-mongering.
The story interviewed one expert not directly involved in the research. However there was no mention that one of the main authors of the study received funding from Eli Lilly, the maker of Evista.
The story discussed the benefits and harms of tamoxifen and Evista; however, it could have mentioned how they compare to the other drugs used for prevention (i.e. toremifene and tibolone).
This story makes it clear that tamoxifen and raloxifene (Evista) are widely available, but are not widely used as breast cancer preventives.
The story makes it clear that tamoxifen and Evista have been approved for preventing breast cancer in high risk women, but concerns about side effects prevent many of these women from taking them.
The story does not appear to be based largely on a news release.
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