Reporting on studies presented at the big American Society of Clinical Oncology requires journalists to offer context – not just what was presented in a short scientific presentation.
The story allows analysts to predict “crizotinib will build to peak sales of about $2.5 billion in about a decade” or “bring in $600 million a year by 2015.”
As stated above, the story, while noting that the study had no comparison group, allowed a researcher to compare her findings with “similar patients getting standard cancer drugs in other research.”
There should have been at least a line about the inherent weaknesses in making such a comparison.
The story stated about one arm of the study: “Most patients had mild side effects, but two of the nine patient deaths during that study were considered treatment-related.”
But it didn’t define “most” or “mild.”
And it didn’t say anything about harms reported in the primary analysis being reported.
Several inadequacies in this category.
The story allowed the researchers to make a stretch of a comparison when it stated: “The early-phase study did not include a direct comparison group. But among similar patients getting standard cancer drugs in other research, 44 percent survived for a year and just 12 percent were alive after two years, said lead researcher Dr. Alice Shaw.” The story didn’t challenge this leap.
It also described a subset of patients whose “tumors shrink at least somewhat over nearly a year follow-up.” What does that mean? How significant is that?
Besides the lead researcher, only stock analysts and a company spokesman were quoted; no independent expert was quoted.
The story stated: “There are no treatments specifically for patients with this type of lung cancer, although some others are in much earlier stages of testing.” But there ARE treatment alternatives, especially for stage IIIa and b. So we must rule this unsatisfactory.
The story polishes its crystal ball when it allows a Pfizer spokesman to predict “the FDA is expected to conditionally approve crizotinib based on results of the earlier studies rather than wait until the latest ones are completed.”
That may turn out to be so, but, wow, haven’t we learned anything about the path to approval being more treacherous than what company spokesmen spin?
The story explained, “Crizotinib, part of the new wave of personalized medicine in which drugs are being matched to patients according to genetics, would be the first drug in a new class called ALK inhibitors.”
We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story relied on a news release.
The story supposedly came out of the American Society of Clinical Oncology conference in Chicago.
But it was datelined Trenton, NJ – a Pfizer location.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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