Erbitux may help fight breast cancer, claims study
Reviewed By
Rating
Erbitux may help fight breast cancer, claims study
Our Review Summary
Results from a Phase II clinical trial presented at a medical meeting suggest that the drug Erbitux may be useful for treating a type of breast cancer that does not respond to hormone therapy or other targeted treatments. The fact that these data were presented at a medical meeting suggests that the results have not been published in a journal and therefore, have not undergone a rigourous review process. Additionally, a Phase II trial only enrolls a small number of participants to evaluate the efficacy and safey of a treatment before initiating a more robust Phase III trial. Unfortunately, the story did not report any of the safety data.
Why This Matters
Although triple negative breast cancer is very difficult to treat, this drug does not seem all that impressive. Erbitux does not seem to be effective in lung or bowel cancer. Is this a drug searching for another cancer market?
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
According to the story, sales for this drug were $1.7 billion last year; however, we don’t know how much an individual person can expect to pay – information it would have been easy for Reuters to find and to include in the story.
Satisfactory
The story presents the tumor response rate of people who received chemotherapy alone (10%) versus those who received chemotherapy and Erbitux (20%). The story also points out that the study “did not meet its primary objective of proving a greater than 20 percent response rate.” In addition, the story tells us that Erbitux increased the time before a patient’s disease progressed from 1.5 months to 3.7 months. It would have been good if the story emphasized that this does not mean there will be any impact on survival.
Not Satisfactory
This story failed to discuss whether there were harms associated with this drug. Without a discussion of potential harms associated with Erbitux, it is difficult to determine if the benefits of living an additional two months without the disease getting worse would outweigh the potential side effects.
Not Satisfactory
While the story rightly points out that additional research is needed to verify the findings, it still falls short in presenting important details. While it’s clear from the story that this is a Phase II clinical trial, more information on the purpose of a Phase II trial and why its findings are preliminary would have been helpful. It may have also been useful to note that study participants could switch treatment if their disease progressed. In addition, it would be helpful to know the age range of the women in the trial.
A major shortcoming of this piece is that it did not indicate that this research has yet to be published in a journal and therefore, has not undergone a formal peer review process. In fact, it’s misleading to readers to say that the results were “published” at the conference. To most people, we’re quite sure, that would imply journal publication, which did not occur.
Satisfactory
The story does not exaggerative the prevalence or seriousness of triple negative breast cancer.
Satisfactory
In addition to providing a quote from a Merck representative, the story interviewed an independent source not affiliated with the study or a pharmaceutical company.
Not Applicable
Not applicable. Since the women in the this study were heavily pre-treated and this drug is used in combination with other chemotherapy, it’s difficult to compare it to other drugs used to treat metastatic breast cancer.
Satisfactory
The story makes it clear that Erbitux is not yet approved for treating patients with breast cancer.
Satisfactory
It’s clear from the story that Erbitux is not a new therapy for the treatment of cancer and other studies are also evaluating its efficacy in breast cancer patients.
Satisfactory
It’s clear that the story does not rely on a press release.
Total Score: 6 of 9 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.
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