NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Pancreatic Chemo Comparison Finds No Survival Boost

Rating

4 Star

Pancreatic Chemo Comparison Finds No Survival Boost

Our Review Summary

This story gave balanced coverage and the right tone to an ongoing area of research: chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. A few more sentences would have plugged the holes and added important context about why the study compared these two regimens in the first place.

 

Why This Matters

New strategies are needed in the war against pancreatic cancer. The JAMA editorial accompanying the study called such cancers “arguably the most challenging of human malignancies.” An effective new treatment option could offer hope and extended life for many people. It is equally important to cover studies that didn’t stop the presses, those that tried to find a new option but failed. Scientific studies are important because of what they tell us, not what we want them to tell us, and the value of studies like this one lie in their quality and the way they advance the science. 

This review points out some areas that we think could have benefited from a little more clarity. For example, why was the study done in the first place? Is adjuvant therapy not regularly done? Is gemcitabine an experimental agent not currently being used widely? And why, as the independent expert says, are these results important, even if they won’t change treatment? The published trial and editorial provide answers to these questions, and none would make a snappy headline, as they deal with the study’s incremental additions to knowledge from prior research. But even a few more words of context would have sufficed.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Costs of these chemotherapy agents are not discussed. The study compared a drug available only as a brand name to a regimen consisting of two drugs available generically.

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

Satisfactory

Average survival times and survival rates at one and two years of follow-up were provided for both treatment groups.

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

Satisfactory

Harms and tolerability are discussed, and the rates of serious side effects for each group are provided. Specific examples of those serious effects would’ve been ideal, such as were provided in the JAMA editorial: “more stomatitis and diarrhea [were] observed in the fluorouracil and leucovorin group and more myelosuppression in the gemcitabine group.”

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

Satisfactory

Many details are given to put the quality in context: number of subjects, number of sites and their international locales, years the study was conducted, treatment regimens, duration of therapy, and follow-up period. We did see what seems to be an error in the story, highlighted by a confusing point. It names the treatment groups as “six-month chemotherapy groups” and then states that results were available “[a]fter nearly three years of treatment.” It seems from the published trial that the patients did indeed undergo chemotherapy for six months but then were followed, without treatment, for three years.

It also would have been helpful to note that this was a randomized trial and why that matters. Also, the investigators note that this study is the largest trial of adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer they are aware of, making the findings that much more significant.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The story does not engage in disease-mongering. Instead, it nicely draws boundaries on the target population for this treatment by saying that only a minority of patients with pancreatic cancer are candidates for surgery.

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

Satisfactory

One independent source provides important big picture points about pancreatic cancer. More sources might have provided more context and filled in some of the holes.

The associations of the lead author and independent source were provided. The study authors themselves did not disclose any financial relationships.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The story details the comparison between two approaches. It wasn’t exactly clear about whether either was “new” vs “existing,” but, in fact, they are both existing approaches, with the one positioned as the “newer” approach, gemcitabine, currently the preferred agent according to the JAMA editorial. While we would have loved more clarity about the reason why the study compared these two approaches, overall, the comparative nature and tone of the story are clear and seem appropriate.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story does not clearly establish whether gemcitabine or the other drugs mentioned are currently on the market. (They are.)

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

We would have liked to see more context about why did they select these two regimens. Was gemcitabine a new or uNPRoven agent, as it is somewhat positioned in the story? (Gemcitabine is currently available and is accepted as the standard of care.) What was known about it before? It sounds like we’re asking a lot for a brief article, but we really want to know, perhaps in one sentence, why the study was done, in part to help us understand what the study adds to our understanding of how to treat pancreatic cancer.

Also, the story does not make it clear which of the two regimens performed better? The way the authors of the editorial interpreted the results is at odds with the tone of the story, underscoring why more outside voices could have helped make this story stronger.

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

Satisfactory

A JAMA press release seems to be the primary source, but an independent expert gets enough air time that we give the author the benefit of the doubt. 

Total Score: 7 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.