This brief article focuses on a treatment that attempts to preserve fertility for young (under 40) breast cancer survivors. It does a good job of describing the potential benefits but leaves gaps in explaining some of the potential limitations and side effects, in particular the failure to mention the potential adverse affects on disease outcome.
Young breast cancer survivors can be devastated by the possibility that treating their cancer may leave them unable to bear children. It is critical that they have full information about the impact of treatment approaches on their fertility and on their cancer. The editorial is especially useful for practicing physicians partnering with their patients around cancer treatment and fertility issues.
Costs of the treatment are not mentioned in the article; rather, the costliness of an alternative, storing eggs prior to treatment, is emphasized.
The primary benefit from the described approach to loss of fertility in women of child-bearing age with early-stage breast cancer was described as a lowered rate of early menopause. The article did an excellent job of putting this in perspective by including the editorial statement cautioning the reader to not equate resumption of menstrual cycles with preserved fertility.
The largest gap in this story is its failure to mention potential harms. In particular, it fails to mention the concern about potential adverse effects on disease outcome, a concern clearly stated in the editorial and in the original article.
If longer, this article could have benefited from added detail: long-term outcome data is not available; perhaps most importantly, there is no mention of potential adverse effects on disease outcome. The article headline could have been improved if it included the quality of caution so clearly stated in the last paragraph. The weight of the editorial statement, with a good deal of detail in a few sentences, will be highly useful to readers.
This story is free of disease-mongering and clearly states the importance of the issue for a specific population, younger breast cancer patients.
The story cited an editorial that accompanied the journal article. However, there was no indication of potential conflicts or lack of conflicts of interest, despite disclosures stated in the journal article.
The article did a satisfactory job of mentioning one major alternative to the reviewed procedure.
There is no statement in the article as to availability of the treatment, although the information is correctly identified as arising from a “phase three study.” But are readers really supposed to know what a Phase Three study means? Want to do a reader poll to test how many do?
The article describes the study as new but fails to indicate whether or not the drug and procedure are new. And as the editorial points out, there are 5 other studies testing this so there is more data out there and it appears to be a bit contradictory.
The article did an adequate job of citing the original study and the associated editorial but omitted some significant detail needed to help the reader reach a clear understanding. .
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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