December 8, 2005 Read Original Story

Breast Cancer Drug Looks More Promising

Reviewed By

Rating

Breast Cancer Drug Looks More Promising

Our Review Summary

This story discusses the drug Herceptin as a “promising” drug for both early and late-stage breast cancer. Currently, Herceptin is only approved for late-stage breast cancer, though some women in the early stages of breast cancer have been included in clinical trials. Two of these clinical trials reported in this story are randomized studies that tested different combinations of drugs. The article notes that Herceptin is only useful in about one-quarter of breast cancers, but there is no mention that women must first be screened (via a test on the biopsy or tumor, which may be presented in a pathology report) to determine if they are among this group. There is little long-term data on the survival benefit of Herceptin, and only recurrence rates (after two and three years) are available in this news story. The story is balanced in that it presents Herceptin as an adjunct to existing adjuvant breast cancer treatment regimens, but some of the serious side effects of heart failure seem to be downplayed, and there is no perspective on frequency or severity of heart disease. That data on heart disease would be important information for women with early stage breast cancer who are expected to live longer. To claim that “Herceptin is very safe”, may be an overstatement at this time in the drug’s history.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Satisfactory

Cost mentioned.

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

Satisfactory

The story provided

absolute numbers. One angle the journalist could have developed further: comparing the two studies at three years, the

Finnish groups are doing a lot better than the U.S. groups. What’s going on? Is it the patient population?

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

Not Satisfactory

There is no perspective on

frequency or severity of heart disease. Need to put magnitude of problem in perspective — the BCIRG study showed the cardiac

toxicity was significant and still persisted for more than 18 months at the date of the last follow up. Of the 3,222 patients

in the study, 353 experienced a greater than 10 percent loss of heart function. Of those, 91 patients (9 percent) were

enrolled in the ACT study arm; 82 patients (8 percent) were in the TCH arm; and 180 patients (17.3 percent) were in the ACTH

arm, which paired Adriamycin with Herceptin. Can argue whether this amount of loss of function is significant (only 3 on ACT

and 4 in other arms combined developed severe problems – left ventricular dysfunction) but for women who have high chance of

living many years with things other than breast cancer likely to cause their death it could be. Finally, the story only

discusses one potential harm of treatment, that of heart failure. And there’s no mention that heart failure may remain even

after the drug is discontinued.

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

Not Satisfactory

Both are

randomized trials that tested different combinations of drugs. The story briefly mentions randomization but doesn’t mention

anything else about the study design. It is important to mention the stage of breast cancer of women in the trials and if

they were those with the appropriate tumor profile and positive for HER2/neu overexpression.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

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

Satisfactory

Potential conflicts of interest noted for pharmaceutical-funded studies and for

Dr. Slamon. Physicians not affiliated with drug company research also cited for balance.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

Except for chemotherapyt, no other adjuvant therapies are compared with Herceptin in terms of risk of recurrence.

This drug is still very new and not as much data is available about adverse outcomes for women with early breast cancer.

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

Not Satisfactory

Does not explicitly state that

Herceptin is not currently approved for early stage breast cancer. Only being used in clinical trails for women with early

stage cancer.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

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

Satisfactory

Total Score: 6 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.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.

Story Reviews

Systematic, Criteria-Driven

@HealthNewsRevu

Retweet on Twitter HealthNewsReview.org Retweeted

Alan Cassels @AKECassels·

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

Reply on Twitter 1361431489326407680 Retweet on Twitter 13614314893264076804 Like on Twitter 13614314893264076807 Twitter 1361431489326407680

Retweet on Twitter HealthNewsReview.org Retweeted

RxISK @RxISK·

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

Reply on Twitter 1361420459284131843 Retweet on Twitter 13614204592841318437 Like on Twitter 136142045928413184313 Twitter 1361420459284131843

HealthNewsReview.org @HealthNewsRevu·

.@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/

Reply on Twitter 1360214949704982532 Retweet on Twitter 13602149497049825323 Like on Twitter 13602149497049825328 Twitter 1360214949704982532