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

Drugs Show Promise Slowing Advanced Melanoma

Rating

5 Star

Categories

Tags

Drugs Show Promise Slowing Advanced Melanoma

Our Review Summary

The story made strong, clear attempts to report in a restrained manner, using terms/phrases such as:

  • “notable progress”
  • “do not cure”
  • “might add two to several moths to expected lifespans”
  • “To be sure, more than half of patients with metastatic melanoma would not be helped all that much by either drug.”

 

Why This Matters

Stories about cancer – perhaps especially melanoma because of its treatment challenges – should balance promise with realistic context.  This story did a better job of that than the competitors’ efforts we reviewed.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The significant costs of both drugs were mentioned.  Nice job.

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

Satisfactory

Good job describing the benefits reported in the two drug studies. The two papers present a bewildering array of statistics. This story did a nice job distilling the information into a couple of very understandable sentences.

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

Satisfactory

Good job explaining signifcant potential harms of both drugs – something competitors didn’t do at all.

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

Satisfactory

Nice job, including linking (in the online version) to the papers in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease-mongering of melanoma.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The story adequately explained the comparisons between both new drugs and the older dacarbazine chemo drug.

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

Satisfactory

Vemurafenib was described as experimental and as “expected to be approved by the FDA within a few months.”  Ipilimumab was explained to be approved in March and already on the market.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The relative novelty of both drugs was well explained.

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: 10 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.