Although the story addressed most of our criteria satisfactorily, it didn’t:
Women already diagnosed with breast cancer are at risk of developing a second breast cancer. Breast cancer survivors would benefit from evidence of the accuracy of screening mammography in detecting second breast cancers. In addition, this evidence is useful in determining clinical practice guidelines.
Because there are nearly two million breast cancer survivors, accuracy of screening affects many women. While over 40,000 women die each year of breast cancer, the majority of those diagnosed survive their disease.
The article does not include information about the psychological and financial costs of biopsies for women with a false positive diagnosis of breast cancer. Among women with a personal history of breast cancer, 1.7 % were referred for biopsies that determined there was no second breast cancer while 1% of the women without breast cancer had false positive determinations.
The article does point out that 18% of women with a personal history of breast cancer were called back for additional imaging or biopsies compared with 8.3% of those without breast cancer but there is no discussion of the psychological or financial costs connected with the additional imaging.
By quantifying the benefits of screening mammography for women with a personal history of breast cancer in absolute numbers, the story presents this information accurately and in a useful, understandable way for women with breast cancer.
The story discusses false positives & interval cancers & provides explanations of both of these problems associated with screening mammography.
The story does not explain that the study was a retrospective study based on mammograms performed from 1996-2007 in five states at facilities affiliated with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
There is no mention in the story of the possible confounding factors such as the biological factors associated with treatment of the first cancers that were noted by the study authors.
The story also fails to include information about the subgroups of women with the highest observed cancer rates for whom the study authors note that alternate screening might be considered.
The headline of this story misleads the reader by stating that “Mammograms May Not Be Fool-Proof at Catching Second Cancers.” No type of screening for breast cancer is fool-proof whether it is for an initial diagnosis or for a second breast cancer. Regarding the accuracy of screening mammography for an initial breast cancer diagnosis, the Komen for the Cure website states that in women age 50 and older “…between six and 27 percent of breast cancers may be missed by mammography alone.” Mammography is most effective in women 50 and older.
Quotes from two independent sources are included in the article. Dr. William Audeh, director of the Wasserman Breast Cancer Risk Reduction Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, presents possible explanations for some of the higher false positives among women with a personal history of breast cancer. Quotes from both Dr. Audeh and Dr. Robert Smith, director of cancer screening for the American Cancer Society, point out that screening mammography may not have been as effective among women with a personal history of breast cancer as it was in those without a breast cancer diagnosis but that most of the cancers detected were stage I or ductal carcinoma in situ, a non-invasive breast cancer.
The article could have noted that study authors declared no conflicts of interest and that the study was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute.
Satisfactory mostly because of the inclusion of the comments by Dr Audeh about MRI, which is really the only acceptable alternative to mammography for followup of breast cancer survivors, and it is still unclear how MRI and mammography should be used in concert.
Not applicable. Mammography is widely available and recommendations for annual mammography screening after a breast cancer diagnosis are standard. So the story didn’t need to specifically discuss the availability.
Satisfactory. The novelty of mammography is not in question, and the whole point of the story was the new study about mammography’s performance in breast cancer survivors vs. controls.
It may have been helpful for readers to know that the study was the first to examine the accuracy of screening mammography for women with a personal history of breast cancer.
The article does not rely solely on a news release. It includes several explanatory quotes from Dr. Diana Miglioretti, one of the co-authors of the study as well as quotes from two doctors not connected with the study.
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