The article clearly details the survival benefit of eribulin, but it fails to tell readers that the drug has been approved in the United States. It also fell short because it did not explain how much the drug costs or how often harms occurred in the study.
Metastatic breast cancer becomes progressively more difficult to treat as various therapies become less effective. This study suggests that eribulin is the first single-agent chemotherapy that extended the survival time of women with metastatic breast cancer who had already been treated with two to five other chemotherapies. This study is likely to generate significant interest and may change clinical practice for metastatic patients.
There is no discussion of cost in the article.
The benefit of eribulin over various treatments chosen by the physicians was clearly stated in the article. “The researchers found that among patients whose cancer had spread, those who took the drug (eribulin) lived a median of 2.5 months longer than those who received a physician-chosen treatment — 13.1 months versus 10.6 months.”
Mixed bag.
While the story points out the most common side effects, fatigue and depletion of white blood cells, occurred in both study groups, readers aren’t given any sense of how common these were. In fact, they were quite common: these side effects occurred in 54% of those on eribulin and 40% of patients in the treatment of physician’s choice group. This is why we expect stories to quantify harms.
To its credit, the article does note that the most common adverse event that caused women to drop out of the eribulin arm was neuropathy, or numbness and pain caused by nerve damage – and it notes a 5% study drop out rate.
The article does a good job of noting several times that the women in the trial, known as EMBRACE, all had metastatic breast cancer that had already been heavily treated with various chemotherapies. And it did give the number of women in each arm of the trial and at least mentioned that this was a “global phase 3 study” – although that’s expecting readers to grasp what that really means. We’ll call it barely satisfactory.
It’s always a judgment call for journalists on where to draw the line on details to include or leave out. But some that maybe should have been included:
The article also fails to mention potential weaknesses of the trial design that were highlighted in the study. The authors of the study pointed out that the treatment of physician’s choice group included several different chemotherapies precluding detailed comparisons with eribulin.
The article includes quotes from an independent expert, Dr. Stephanie Bernik, chief of surgical oncology at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and from a related editorial also published in The Lancet.
The story points out that the study was funded by the company that markets eribulin but it should have further noted that several of the authors of the study received grants or consultancy fees from Eisai. In addition, five of the study authors are employees of Eisai.
We’ll rule this one barely satisfactory.
The survival benefit for women who were treated with eribulin is clearly presented. The article also included the definition of the treatment of the physician’s choice that was used by the study authors.
The article does not report that eribulin, the drug studied, received approval in the United States based on the results of the study. Eribulin is approved for patients who have previously been treated for metastatic breast cancer with at least two chemotherapies, including an anthracycline and a taxane.
As a result, the availability of the drug is unclear to readers. Information about drug approval and availability is valuable for patients with metastatic breast cancer.
The article establishes the novelty of eribulin by quoting from the study authors, as well as from a related editorial in The Lancet and from an independent authority, Dr. Stephanie Bernik, chief of surgical oncology at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. Dr. Bernik said “This drug shows much promise, and it should certainly be included in additional trials to fully establish its benefit.”
The article did not rely solely on a news release.
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