Breast Cancer Study Offers New Hope
Reviewed By
Rating
Breast Cancer Study Offers New Hope
Our Review Summary
The story has the same basic content and quotes as this press release put out by the Siteman Cancer Center at Washington University four days before the HealthDay piece. As you might expect from a lightly edited press release, the HealthDay story has very few of the elements we deem critical to quality health journalism. No information about costs, no evaluation of the evidence, poor discussion of benefits and harms, and no independent perspective. A disappointing effort to say the least.
Why This Matters
HealthDay stories get picked up by major news outlets and are read by many. These readers think that they’re getting independent journalism–not a rehash of a press release.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
No discussion of costs in this story. It could have pointed out that two of the estrogen-lowering drugs tested in this study are off patent and relatively cheap, whereas the third drug, exemestane, is a brand name drug that remains quite costly.
Not Satisfactory
Again, the story talks about "successful" surgery and "good" outcomes without ever defining what is meant by these terms. Did these women live longer? Have fewer recurrences? Have better quality of life than if they hadn’t had the treatment? This is hugely important information for anyone who might be considering this treatment.
Not Satisfactory
There is no discussion of any potential harms from aromatase inhibitors. These drugs can cause joint pain and sexual problems which lead many women to discontinue using them. There also is concern that these estrogen-lowering drugs may decrease bone density and increase the risk of osteoporotic fractures. This is an outcome that can have severe health consequences for older women.
Not Satisfactory
The story included no cautionary statements about limitations of this study or how it should be interpreted. We can think of a couple:
- The story states that many women were able to have "successful" lumpectomies instead of mastectomies after presurgical treatment with aromatase inhibitors. But we receive no information about what the definition of "success" is here. While it’s important that these women were able to receive a less invasive surgical procedure, the real "success" will depend on whether there is excess recurrence of cancer at the same site. We won’t know this until patients are followed for several years.
- The study is expected to be — but hasn’t yet been — presented at a conference in a few weeks and so hasn’t been subjected to peer review or even the collegial questioning of conference attendees. This kind of scrutiny often leads researchers to revise downward their estimates of benefit or play up caveats that previously weren’t mentioned or emphasized.
Satisfactory
The story did not resort to disease-mongering.
Not Satisfactory
The only perspective we receive in this story is that of the investigators with the study, who provide a uniformly positive take on the results. No independent views are provided.
Not Satisfactory
Chemotherapy also is sometimes used presurgically to shrink tumors and allow for less invasive surgery instead of mastectomy. The story should at least have pointed this out and could have attempted to provide some comparison of the two approaches.
Not Satisfactory
The story should have done a better job of explaining how the drugs discussed in this story, known as aromatase inhibitors, are currently used in cancer treatment and why this study may represent an advance over current approaches. All of the drugs discussed are currently approved by the FDA for breast cancer, but they are typically administered to women only after surgery or as an adjunct to other drugs in order to prevent a cancer recurrence. The new study is testing these treatments prior to surgery to see if this improves outcomes. The story isn’t explicit about most of this and assumes that readers are already aware of this background. Many probably are, but others are not.
Satisfactory
The story doesn’t provide any history about the use of aromatase inhibitors for presurgical cancer treatment, but neither does it inappropriately attempt to portray the treatment as novel.
Not Satisfactory
The story is based exclusively on a press release.
Total Score: 2 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.
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