In December, an FDA advisory panel will decide if it should revoke the approval of the drug Avastin for treating metastatic breast cancer based on the results of two major trials suggesting that the serious side effects outweigh the time that patients live without the disease getting worse. This story met many of our criteria, but failed to provide important details about the trials, including the patient population and how many women developed serious side effects in each treatment group. While the story included various viewpoints on whether this drug should continue to be used as a first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer, it focused largely on the drug’s success in just one patient. This personal story is misleading to readers.
Two major trials found that Avastin is not particularly effective for treating metastatic breast cancer and it causes serious side effects. The story missed this main issue by devoting an extraordinary amount of space to just one woman’s success story. Metastatic disease is very difficult and one treatment is not likely to work for everyone; however, it is not compelling to argue that the FDA should approve every drug because not all patients will respond to the same treatment regimen. It would have been more insightful if the story suggested that the median is not the message and that if this or other drugs work for a subset of women, then researchers should find markers to help predict which patients will benefit from which therapy.
This is another example in which an honest application of our criteria may render a score out of whack with our general impression. We urge journalists and consumers not to fixate on "the star score" but to read our full reviews.
The story mentions that Avastin is associated with serious side effects, such as high blood pressure and internal bleeding; however, it did not provide data on how many women in each treatment arm experienced these side effects.
The story briefly mentioned the two trials, RIBBON-1 and AVADO, on which the FDA will base their decision whether to revoke approval of the Avastin. The story could have mentioned that both were double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials and enrolled women with HER-2 neu negative tumors. It also would have been helpful if the reader knew that the women in the trials received another chemotherapy agent in combination with Avastin or a placebo.
But a bigger issue is that the first trial, which won this drug preliminary FDA approval, had a huge impact on survival compared to much more modest results in these subsequent trials. This begs the question of why there is such a discrepancy. We think the story should have pointed this out.
The story includes interviews with individuals who are for and against revoking Avastin’s approval, providing some counterbalance; however, the focus on the personal success story of one patient tips this balance. Because of the strong comments by people like Fran Visco and some of the physicians quoted, we’ll give this story a satisfactory score on this criterion.
However, if you’re going to play the personal anecdote game, we think you have an obligation to balance the glowing positive story with the more representative story of people who didn’t benefit. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Also, from a balance perspective, why wasn’t the statement of Senator David Vitter – who has politicized breast cancer a number of times without showing a concern for evidence – balanced by a statement from a politician who is more evidence-based? Again, if you’re going to play the politics game, how about leveling the playing field a bit?
The story briefly discusses radiation and other chemotherapy treatments for metastatic breast cancer; however, there are many other treatments that could have been mentioned. It would take just a few more words.
It’s clear from the story that Avastin received preliminary approval for treating metastatic breast cancer in 2008 and formal FDA approval is currently pending.
The story makes it clear that the FDA gave this drug preliminary approval in 2008 for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.
This piece does not rely on a press release.
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