This story reports the initial results of the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene Trial (STAR) for estrogen-receptor positive women at high risk of developing breast cancer. This study was partially funded by Eli Lilly, though this is not mentioned, and the results here are presented as a financial boon for the company. There is less emphasis on the accuracy and interpretation of the trial from a women’s health perspective. There is also no attempt at corroboration with breast cancer researchers not affiliated with the trial: A lead investigator of the study (partially supported by Eli Lilly) and the president of science and technology at Eli Lilly are not unbiased sources.
Costs were not mentioned. The story mentioned that 19,747 women were randomized to either raloxifene or tamoxifen and provides quantitative evidence of improved risk of blood clots or uterine cancers, however, both of those results were just shy of statistical significance, which is not mentioned in the article or in NCI press materials. (Source ACS: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Raloxifene_as_Good_as_Tamoxifen_to_Prevent_Breast_Cancer.asp) In addition, raloxifene did not appear to raise the risk of cataracts, which tamoxifen does appear to do. That difference was statistically significant. The story didn’t mention this.
The story mentions equivalent comparison with tamoxifen in preventing invasive breast cancer, however, tamoxifen protected women better from non-invasive breast cancer such as DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) and LCIS (lobular carcinoma in situ). And these conditions are being diagnosed much more frequently these days.
No mention of the cost of treatment for women outside clinical trials.
Some quantitative benefit mentioned of taking hormone therapy for chemoprevention. Incomplete discussion of reduced rate of side effects in raloxifene group.
Mentions harms of hormone therapy, such as an increased risk of blood clots and uterine cancers. Does not mention that raloxifene, like tamoxifen, has bothersome side effects such as hot flashes and vaginal discharge, which are reported as comparable and mild to moderate in the NCI press release of the initial results of this trial.
Mentions that the STAR trial was a 5-year trial, but not that is was unblinded early (around year 4) due to positive side effect profile of raloxifene. Mentions that 19,747 women were randomized to either raloxifene or tamoxifen and provides quantitative evidence of improved risk of blood clots or uterine cancers, however, both of those results were just shy of statistical significance, which is not mentioned in the article or in NCI press materials. (Source ACS: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Raloxifene_as_Good_as_Tamoxifen_to_Prevent_Breast_Cancer.asp) In addition, raloxifene did not appear to raise the risk of cataracts, which tamoxifen does appear to do. That difference was statistically significant.
The story mentions equivalent comparison with tamoxifen in preventing invasive breast cancer, however, tamoxifen protected women better from non-invasive breast cancer such as DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) and LCIS (lobular carcinoma in situ).
”
No evidence of disease mongering. Mentions that this drug is for post-menopausal women at higher than average lifetime risk of developing breast cancer.
This study was partially funded by Eli Lilly. There is a a lot of Eli Lilly promotional information in this story. Of course, Indianapolis is the home of Eli Lilly. No attempt and independent corroboration with other breast cancer researchers. There was not much effort to get opinions on the study from outside sources. A lead investigator of the Eli Lilly-funded study and the president of science and technology at Eli Lilly are not unbiased sources.
The story discusses the STAR trial, which compared current hormone treatment, tamoxifen, with raloxifene. It should be noted that the results here are initial findings after 4 years of raloxifene. The story could have done a better job in explaining that tamoxifen is usually taken for 5 years and there is much more long-term clinical data on safety and efficacy for this drug.
It’s clear form the story that raloxifene is currently available for use in post-menopausal women to prevent osteoporosis. What isn’t clear is that use in chemoprevention would be an off-label use. This type of hormone therapy should be used in estrogen-receptor positive, post-menopausal women.
Notes that use of Raloxifene (Evista) as chemoprevention is still in the clinical trial phase and that there are plans to file for FDA approval for use in preventing and treating breast cancer. Evista is already approved to prevent osteoporosis.
We can’t judge if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. However, there is certainly a lot of Eli Lilly promotional information in this story. And Indianapolis is the home of Eli Lilly.
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