New Breast Cancer Drug Found Deep In the Sea
Reviewed By
Rating
New Breast Cancer Drug Found Deep In the Sea
Our Review Summary
This story uses the recent FDA approval of Halaven, a drug derived from a sea sponge and used for treating late-state breast cancer, as an opportunity to discuss the industry of natural anticancer agents at large. We applaud the journalism involved in exploring this area of research. But there is very little information on Halaven itself. And when a story is headlined, “New Breast Cancer Drug Found Deep in the Sea,” we think readers will want more details on that new drug. In particular, the story should have mentioned the cost of the drug, its potential side effects, and the quality of the research on which the FDA approval is based. A comment or two from independent experts discussing the efficacy and implications of Halaven would have also been valuable.
Why This Matters
Halaven is approved to treat late-stage breast cancer that has not responded to other chemotherapy agents. While refractory breast cancer is very difficult to treat, this drug appears to have only a modest benefit. Furthermore, without a discussion of its potential harms, it’s difficult to determine if the benefits for living an additional 2.5 months would outweigh the side effects a woman may experience.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
While the drug manufacturer speculates that sales will top $1 billion, the story gives no indication of what the cost is for the individual.
Satisfactory
The story indicates that the efficacy of Halaven is modest, with patients only surviving 2.5 months longer than those receiving another chemotherapy agent.
Not Satisfactory
The story alludes to the fact that the side effects associated with natural anticancer agents can be “nasty,” but there was no mention of the specific harms associated with Halaven. According to the FDA, common side effects include decreased white blood cells, anemia, hair loss, fatigue, nausea, weakness, nerve damage, and constipation.
Not Satisfactory
This story was lacking on details of the study on which the FDA approval is based. For example, it would have been helpful to know that 762 women with metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive either Halaven or another agent selected by their doctor. In addition, all women were treated prior to the study with at least two chemotherapy regimens.
Satisfactory
The story does not exaggerative the prevalence or seriousness of late-stage breast cancer.
Satisfactory
The story provides quotes from a number of experts in the field discussing natural anticancer agents in general, but it would have been helpful to include independent experts who could comment on Halaven directly.
Satisfactory
The story didn’t provide a comprehensive look at FDA-approved approaches to treat late-stage breast cancer. However, it did offer some discussion of Gleevec as a targeted therapy and did discuss rapamycin as another “natural” anticancer agent, while mentioning other agents in development.
Satisfactory
The story clearly points out that the FDA recently approved the drug for treating late-stage breast cancer.
Satisfactory
It’s clear from the story that natural products used as anticancer agents, particularly those found in the ocean, are not novel and researchers have studied them for decades.
Satisfactory
This piece does not rely on a press release.
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.
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