The standard treatment for endometrial cancer is hysterectomy, or surgical removal of the uterus. However, some women, including younger women who wish to preserve their fertility, may prefer non-surgical alternatives. A study published in the Annals of Oncology suggests that younger women (under age 40) with pre-cancerous lesions (known as hyperplasia) or early-stage cancer, may be able to safely treat their condition with the progestin IUD (brand name Mirena).
This story does a good job reporting on the new study and its implications. It gives the reader enough relevant information to evaluate the strength of the new study and the information that it may add to clinical practice. It provides important caveats for interpreting the results, such as the small size of the study and preliminary results. It quotes independent experts who provide context for the information.
The story could have been improved by mentioning the cost of the IUD and mentioning some potential harms of the treatment.
Endometrial cancer is rare in women under 40. However, for these women, who may wish to preserve their childbearing ability, there have been few alternatives to hysterectomy.
The story does not mention the costs of the IUD or implantation.
The story adequately quantifies the benefits of treatment.
Although the progestin IUD is well tolerated and there were no adverse events in the study, the story makes no mention of any potential harms. The adverse effect outcome measure reported in the study was effects or complications severe enough to suspend treatment. The concurrent GnRH analog treatment does have side effects (temporary menopausal symptoms) that may be important to some women, while not warranting suspension of treatment.
The story does a good job of describing the current study so that the reader can evaluate for themselves how persuasive the results are.
The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story mentions that only 5% of cases of endometrial cancer occur in women under 40, and is careful to emphasize that this study was performed in a ‘select group of patients’.
The story quotes one independent expert who provides valuable perspective. We are curious, though, why/how this story quotes the same U.S. expert who comments in the competing HealthDay story.
The story mentions hysterectomy as the primary alternative.
Progestin IUD is clearly available.
Although the progestin IUD is not new, using it to treat endometrial cancer is a relatively new idea.
Because the story quotes one expert who is not affiliated with the study, the reader can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
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