This article briefly (353 words) examines a retrospective analysis of 6,655 Swiss breast cancer patients followed between 1980 and 2003 . The study looks at the hypothesis that there might be a link between estrogen and lung cancer. Patients taking tamoxifen had a lower rate of lung cancer deaths, but statistically insignificant reduction in the development of lung cancer. The actual number of study patients with both breast and lung cancer was small, and the article contained little or no discussion of possible confounding factors, side effects, or costs. There were no independent sources quoted.
This article offers more promise than evidence or context . Both small-cell lung cancer and breast cancer are devastating diseases. The article would be improved with more well-presented, high quality evidence and the framework to make sense of it.
Although generic tamoxifen is a relatively inexpensive medication, there was neither discussion of the medication cost in the article nor discussion of the cost of tests involved in evaluating such a treatment.
As this is an observational study, much of the problem with understanding benefits/harms of tamoxifen in this article involves an incomplete description of what is known and not known. In particular, there was not discussion of the significance of the small number of women who developed lung cancer, the statistical comparison used was based on general assumptions and not further addressed in the story, and possible confounding factors were not addressed either.
There is a brief reference to side effects from tamoxifen As some effects are dangerous, clearer information on the potential harms would be critical in the decision-making process between patient and physician.
On the one hand, the writer carefully differentiated between those who develop lung cancer and those who die from lung cancer. On the other hand, there was no caution in the article regarding the preliminary, limited nature of this evidence for breast and lung cancer patients, and the need for a fully developed trial rather than relying on retrospective data alone.
Although the original journal was mentioned, there was no independent expert source quoted. The likelihood of conflict of interest is not addressed.
Current treatment of non-small cell lung cancer was not discussed.
The article adequately establishes that although Tamoxifen is available by prescription, largely for treatment of breast cancer, it is not currently prescribed for lung cancer.
The article makes clear the fact that tamoxifen is not a new medication, but rather, that the association with lung cancer survival is relatively new. .References to newer estrogen blockers were vague.
Not applicable because we’re can’t be sure whether the story relied on a news release. No one was quoted.
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