This story on a new report out of the Women’s Health Initiative left out a crucial piece of information: the women in this arm of the trial, the estrogen-only arm, had all had hysterectomies.
Most women who enter menopause still have their uterus. These findings don’t apply to them, because estrogen alone is not recommended for them. This story does not make that clear. These new findings from the estrogen-only arm of the trial do not change the breast cancer risk situation for women who are considering combination hormone therapy to relieve their hot flashes and night sweats.
This story includes an interview with a woman who (presumably) took part in the estrogen-alone arm of the Women’s Health Initiative (although that is not explicitly stated). The reporter states that this woman has a family history of breast cancer. That places her at somewhat increased risk of breast cancer (her overall risk depends on a number of other factors, too). The story then goes on to say that estrogen therapy is not recommended for women at high risk of breast cancer–but it is not clear just how ‘high’ is high? Would estrogen even be an option for this woman and others in her situation?
Overall, this story missed an opportunity to explain exactly who can be reassured by these findings and who is not affected by them at all.
Costs of estrogen therapy are not mentioned.
Actual rates of breast cancer among women taking estrogen and those not taking estrogen are not provided. Also did not provide any information on benefits of estrogen for relief of symptoms – which is the reason many take it in the first place.
Story fails to mention several important harms of estrogen-only therapy, including an increased risk of stroke and blood clots. Also not mentioned is the significant increase in abnormal mammograms and breast biopsies among women taking estrogen.
Mis-states the aim of the ‘large government study’ that originally found increased breast cancer risk in women taking estrogen with progesterone. The aim was to assess the impact of hormone therapy on the risk of certain chronic diseases in postmenopausal women. Women in the study were not taking hormones ‘to relieve the symptoms of menopause,’ as the story states.
Story fails to clearly state that the reported findings apply only to women for whom estrogen-only therapy is an option–those who have had a hysterectomy.
No mention of the placebo-controlled nature of the study, nor the fact that this new report includes longer followup data.
The story greatly overstates the number of women who ‘will be going through’ menopause this year. In addition, the story seems to promote a therapy just because it doesn’t cause a side effect – as opposed to promoting it because it really relieves a symptom!
Institutional affiliations of interviewed experts are provided, though no information given about whether they were involved in the study or receive funding from any hormone manufacturer.
No mention of other options for managing the “unpleasant and powerful” symptoms of menopause.
It’s fairly clear from the story that this is not a new therapy.
It’s clear from the story this is not a novel treatment.
Does not appear to have relied solely on a press release. Interviews with experts are cited.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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