NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

New drug advances the fight against pancreatic cancer

Rating

4 Star

Categories

New drug advances the fight against pancreatic cancer

Our Review Summary

This story succinctly captures the important take-aways of the new study in terms of survival advantage and quality of life, while employing two key experts for perspective.

 

Why This Matters

Pancreatic cancer is typically such a poor-prognosis tumor that research like this is newsworthy.

Criteria

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story did an adequate job of summarizing the benefits reported in the study and putting them into context.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story stated that Folfirinox “caused more serious side effects than standard chemo” but never named them nor quantified them. The journal article reports, for example, that:

75 of those in the Folfirinox group (46%) had neutropenia compared with 35 in the Gemcitabine group (21%)
21 of those in the Folfirinox group (13%) had diarrhea compared with 3 in the Gemcitabine group (2%)
15 of those in the Folfirinox group (9%) had sensory neuropathy compared with 0 in the Gemcitabine group

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

Adequate evaluation of the evidence, including a cautionary note from one independent expert.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There was no disease-mongering of pancreatic cancer in this story.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

Two independent sources were quoted. Good sourcing.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The focus of the story is comparing the new drug combo with the existing alternative – gemcitabine.

The story appropriately ended with this independent expert perspective:

“…doctors are testing other drug combinations to treat pancreatic cancer. She’s hopeful that these combinations will work as well or better than Folfirinox, with fewer serious side effects. Folfirinox “is going to be one of a host of options” for patients, Azad says “

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story never explained the availability of the drug in the US or even if it’s FDA approved.  The story referred to it as “new…novel combination…I see it becoming the standard of care…going to be one of a host of options” but none of those descriptions explains whether it’s approved and available now.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story refers to Folfirinox as a new drug and a novel combination, but also offers an independent expert’s perspective that “doctors are testing other drug combinations to treat pancreatic cancer. She’s hopeful that these combinations will work as well or better than Folfirinox, with fewer serious side effects…and that Folfirinox “is going to be one of a host of options” for patients.”

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news 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.