To its credit, this story does inject some caution into its coverage of a new treatment for advanced melanoma. Nevertheless, we think it is important to emphasize that the research being discussed was a phase 1 study that had only 32 patients in the arm that was reported on. The primary objective of this study was to ascertain the most effective dose that was tolerable to patients–it wasn’t designed to test whether this treatment is clinically effective for melanoma treatment. So while we can understand the excitement about the apparent benefits that were observed, we think it is critical to balance the discussion with extensive caveats about limitations and potential harms. This story didn’t come quite as close as we’d like to meeting that standard.
Advanced melanoma is a disease which often kills patients within a year of diagnosis. We need better options to treat it.
No discussion of costs. This is perhaps understandable considering the early stage of the research.. But we think the story needed to include some comment about the likely price tag, as discussed by USA Today. Expensive new cancer drugs are among the fastest-rising areas of healthcare spending.
The lead sentence of the story states that the new drug shrank tumors "in 81 percent of patients" with advanced melanoma. The story did not immediately specify that the benefit was limited to patients whose tumors had a specific genetic mutation. It isn’t until the 12th paragraph that we learn that this mutation is present in only about 50% of melanoma tumors, and that the other half of melanoma patients aren’t candidates for the therapy. So the number of patients who might benefit from this therapy, while still significantly, is quite a bit smaller than 81% suggested at the outset of this story.
Considering that this was a phase 1 study, the purpose of which is primarily to establish a new drug’s safety, we think there wasn’t enough discussion of the potential harms of this treatment. We thought the brief catalog of side effects provided at the end of the story — "rash, fatigue, joint pain and a high risk of a different type of skin cancer known as cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma" — tends to minimize the impact of these harms. The rashes observed in this study were grade 2 or 3, which are moderate to severe (grade 4 is life-threatening). And even though the story quantified the number of patients who developed squamous-cell carcinomas, its only comment about the impact of these tumors is that they are "easier to treat" than melanoma. The story should have explained that these cancers have to be biopsied and may need to be surgically removed. And we certainly do not know whether or not these new squamous cell carcinomas will remain "easier to treat," as they may be changed in behavior by the treatment itself, and could be more difficult to treat.
The story adequately described what happened in the study and reported on the primary outcomes. It also inserted some caveats about the durability of the benefits reported (these are described as "temporary" and "fleeting"). On the other hand, there wasn’t any discussion about the small size of the study, the lack of a control group, or how these limitations affect our interpretation of the research. As the competing HealthDay coverage noted, the results in this small group of very ill patients studied may not be representative of the drug’s effects in a larger, more heterogeneous population. And we don’t yet know if this drug actually prolongs survival or improves quality of life compared with standard treatment.
Lastly, there is sentence in this story which says "The hope is that the drug can be combined with other treatments to produce a long-lasting effect…" But hope is not evidence.
A close call here, but we feel the failure to discuss these key limitations may give readers an unbalanced view of how far along this research is.
There was no discussion of the fact that the study was funded by the drug’s developer, Roche. Nor was there any discussion of the ties between the study authors and the company.
The story notes that conventional chemotherapy is typically effective only in 10 percent to 20 percent of advanced melanoma cases.
The story notes that the drug is "experimental" and in "early phase" testing, suggesting that it is not widely available.
This story didn’t adequately characterize what’s new about this drug compared with existing treatments. The new drug affects only melanoma cells with a specific genetic mutation; this makes it much more targeted than other approaches such chemotherapy, which destroy all fast-dividing cells including healthy ones.
The story includes an interview with one of the study investigators, so we can be sure it isn’t based on a news release.
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