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

Study shows differences in pancreatic cancer treatments

Rating

1 Star

Categories

Study shows differences in pancreatic cancer treatments

Our Review Summary

The story felt like a recitation of the journal article, with no evidence of any independent reporting or analysis. To make things worse, it had a glaring error on the quality of life data.

 

Why This Matters

Bringing information about this new study to the public is important because it represents a substantial advance in treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Unfortunately this story misinterpreted the findings about quality of life – and so misled readers.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

No discussion of costs.

One of the online commenters on the CNN website wrote:

“What is the cost for these treatments? How long would the person live with no chemotherapy, just drugs for pain management? If a person wants to pay for these treatments on their own dime that’s one thing. But as a society that shares limited resources for health care can we really afford to spend inordinate amounts to prolong a person’s life a couple months? Not heartless, just pragmatic.”

Another wrote, in response:

“I was one who was fortunate enough to be on Gemcitabine (at $2,000 per prescription for 6 weeks) after a whipple and radiation. That was almost 7 years ago. I have been able to further my education, re-marry, and watch my young son grow into a young adult.”

Yet the story itself was silent on costs.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story barely explained the benefits seen in the study, and failed to put them into the context of what pancreatic cancer patients face as well as the competing USA Today story did.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story was badly incomplete and confusiong in reporting on harms.

First, it inaccurately reported that “the quality of life for patients on FOLFIRINOX was not as good….After six months, only 31% of patients on FOLFIRINOX reported a decent quality of life, compared with 66% of those on gemcitabine.”  That’s wrong.  The researchers reported: “At 6 months, 31% of the patients in the FOLFIRINOX group had a definitive decrease in the scores on the Global Health Status and Quality
of Life scale versus 66% in the gemcitabine group. Significant increases in the time until definitive deterioration in the quality of life were also
noted in the FOLFIRINOX group for all functional and symptom scales.”  So quality of life was BETTER, not worse in the Folfirinox group.

And the reporting of harms was oddly incomplete.  The story stated: “At least 5% of patients on the drug combination suffered from low white blood cell counts, fatigue, serious diarrhea, a loss of feeling in their feet and hands, as well as hair loss.”

Why did the story report that statistic instead some of these easily explained in the journal article:

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?

Not Satisfactory

There was no evaluation of the quality of the evidence – only a recitation of data reported.  No independent expert perspective provided.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease-mongering of pancreatic cancer in the story.

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

Not Satisfactory

No independent source is cited.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

We thought USA Today did a much better job, ending their story 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 ”

There was no independent perspective in this story and no such comparison with other approaches being researched for pancreatic cancer.

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

Not Satisfactory

The availability of the drugs was not discussed.  This was a story about a French study.  Are the drugs widely available in the US?  The story never explained.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The relative novelty of Folfirinox was never established or explained.

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

Not Applicable

Not applicable. We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story relied on any news release, as no one is interviewed.

Total Score: 1 of 9 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.