Our Review Summary
There are no independent experts quoted.
This is not sound journalistic practice, turning the platform over to conflicted sources with no evidence of any critical analysis or independent vetting of claims.
Why This Matters
The treatment of childhood leukemias has improved considerably in the past several decades. Despite the improvements however, some childhood forms remain difficult. A story about a potential new treatment option is important but it must be presented in a way that does not provide inflated claims and false hope to parents.
Criteria
Not Applicable
Given the extremely early stage of research, we can understand why cost was not discussed.
Not Satisfactory
Inadequate explanation. See “evidence” criterion above. While the story does provide several qualifications, it fails to place this very early research into perspective. Given the tortuous road to a drug’s demonstration of effectiveness and eventual approval any suggestion of patient benefit (such as “early potential…could treat…could halt the disease”) is excessive.
Not Satisfactory
If a news story can speculate about “early potential” benefits in a headline from such early laboratory results, it can also speculate about potential harms from the pathway this proposed intervention takes.
What could go wrong with this approach?
What will scientists be concerned about as they move into clinical trials?
The story talks only about potential benefits. There are always potential harms on the horizon.
Not Satisfactory
There was no critical journalistic analysis of the evidence. In fact, we’re never told exactly how well the experimntal approach worked in the mice and cancer cells tested in the lab – only that “the chemical could halt the disease.” That simply doesn’t tell readers – investors or patients – anything useful about how it performed.
Did it work in each experiment attempted?
Half the time?
Ten percent of the time?
Equally well in the mice and in the human cancer cells?
What differences in response?
Not Satisfactory
The story suggests (as did the news release upon which it was based) that up to 80% of leukemia cases in patients under the age of 2 years involve the MLL fusion protein. Important as this is, it is a bit misleading to the average reader.
According to the National Cancer Institute the variant is present in up to 5% of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia cases
The decision to focus on the 80% number can be viewed as disease mongering because it has the clear potential to inflate the importance of the findings.
Not Satisfactory
There are no independent sources quoted in the story.
Not Satisfactory
There is no meaningful comparison between this experimental approach and other research or treatment approaches – only a statement that “most patients don’t respond well to standard leukemia treatments and often the cancer comes back.”
Satisfactory
The story had several reminders for readers of the early stage of this research. The reminder that “it will probably be many years before the drug could potentially reach the market” is almost premature in itself given that this is something that hasn’t even been tested outside the lab yet – with not one human experiment having been conducted.
Not Satisfactory
The story doesn’t put this research into the context of what else is being investigated in this field.
Not Satisfactory
The following entire phrases/sentences of the Reuters story are lifted verbatim from a Cancer Research UK news release:
“MLL leukaemia is thought to account for up to 80 per cent of children below two years of age diagnosed with acute leukaemia, and up to one in 10 cases in adults. Most patients don’t respond well to standard leukaemia treatments and often the cancer comes back.
The disease is caused when a gene called MLL gets fused to another gene. This disrupts the normal function of MLL by creating a new ‘fusion protein’ that behaves inappropriately, switching on genes that drive the development of leukaemia.
…
MLL-fusion proteins are targeted to leukaemia-causing genes by proteins from the BET family, which recognise certain chemical ‘tags’ on chromatin, the scaffold on which DNA is organised.”
And this quote from Dr Lesley Walker, Cancer Research UK’s director of cancer information, was also used verbatim in the Reuters story:
“we urgently need better ways to treat children with more aggressive forms of leukaemia, such as MLL. Although this research is only in the lab at the moment, we hope it will move quickly towards clinical trials in patients.”
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.
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