NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Celebrex study: Drug may cut cancer rate, pose heart risk

Rating

3 Star

Celebrex study: Drug may cut cancer rate, pose heart risk

Our Review Summary

This article presents information on two studies regarding the competing risks of colorectal cancer and heart disease. The potential for prevention of colorectal cancer were somewhat overstated while the risks associated with heart problems were minimized. Lumping all polyps together without mention of the percentage that are likely to go on to develop into malignancies is a disservice because it exaggerates the cancer risk. In that regard, this story is an example of disease mongering because it fails to make the distinction between colonic polyps and cancerous polyps. The majority of polyps found and removed during the course of colonoscopy are neither malignant nor invasive.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There is no mention of the costs of treatment.

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

Satisfactory

The heart related side effects observed in the two studies are provided in absolute frame (3.4% vs. 2.5% in the first study; 7.5% vs. 4.6% in the second study); the risk of developing polyps was presented as 60% vs. less than 50% in the first study; 49% vs. 34% in the second study). Early in the article, the reduction in polyps is presented as a 33% to 45% reduction. Only the 33% reduction (second study) can be calculated from the information provided. The 45% reduction is found in the press release on the study from the meeting at which it was presented.

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

Satisfactory

The heart-related side effects, listed as heart attacks, stroke, and other serious heart-related problems, are mentioned. No mention was made of the gastrointestinal, renal and hemorrhagic events associated with treatment.

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

Satisfactory

This article reported on results from two randomized, double-blind trials examining the potential for prevention of colorectal adenoma in patients with a history of colorectal neoplasia.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

This story is an example of disease mongering because it fails to make the distinction between colonic polyps and cancerous polyps. The majority of polyps found and removed during the course of colonoscopy are neither malignant nor invasive.

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

Not Satisfactory

No attempt appears to have been made to contact individuals not associated directly with the two studies mentioned, other than a spokesperson from the National Cancer Institute, the agency that funded one of the studies presented.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

No other approaches for colorectal adenocarcinoma prevention were presented.

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

Satisfactory

Article states that Celebrex is the only cox-2 inhibitor still on the market. While Celebrex is the only FDA approved cox-2 inhibitor sold, there are a number of approved NSAID medications available which, while not specific for cox-2, inhibit both cox-1 and cox-2.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The proposed use of cycloxygenase inhibition as a preventative treatment for people with mutation in the APC gene and thus at increased risk for colorectal adenoma is not new.

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

Not Applicable

We can’t be sure that the story relied solely or largely on a news releae, but the article did appear to use the press release supplied by the American Association for Cancer Research as a source of information for this story.

Total Score: 4 of 9 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.