But our reviewers were troubled by the story’s headline and lead sentence, which they felt overreached with its suggestion that the study results “weaken the case for preventive mastectomy” in women who test negative for certain cancer mutations, because there there was never strong evidence that these women were at increased risk and that mastectomy was something that they would consider.
Overall, though, sound reporting on an important issue.
Inheriting a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 can greatly increase a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer, but there is some uncertainty about whether close relatives of BRCA carriers also have a higher risk even if they test negative. These new data are reassuring because they suggest that women who test negative are not at increased risk and do not need to take special precautions such as more aggressive screening and surveillance. Current guidelines do not recommend increased surveillance or mastectomy for this population and this study confirmed that as a reasonable approach.
The story did not discuss the cost of the BRCA test, which according to the National Cancer Institute can range from several hundred to several thousand dollars.
The story accurately reports the study’s implications in the middle of the piece when it says: “The results support current guidelines that say non-BRCA mutation carriers in families affected by the BRCA genes don’t need special screening beyond mammography as recommended for the general population…” And the study does go into detail and quantify how the test helps refine estimates of breast and ovarian cancer risk.
However, the headline and opening sentence bothered our reviewers. The story suggests that women who are relatives of BRCA carriers, but who tested negative for the mutation themselves, no longer need to consider preventive mastectomies to reduce their risk of developing breast cancer. In fact, preventive mastectomy would be considered an extreme intervention in women who test negative for the BRCA mutation, so these findings may have little bearing on such decisions. The findings also have no bearing on the decision of women who are BRCA-positive to undergo preventive mastectomy. Accordingly, the results are neither “reassuring” nor “weaken the case” for preventive mastectomy in women who might be considering this intervention.
The story was concerned primarily with the implications of a negative BRCA test result, so we won’t fault it for not going into detail on the many potential harms of a positive or ambiguous test result. The story did stipulate that BRCA-negative women may still have an elevated risk of cancer if they have a family history of the condition, which is an important caveat.
The story provides the necessary details about the research and explains one of the reasons why the current population-based study is considered more reliable than previous clinic-based studies which found increased risk in first-degree relatives of non-BRCA carriers.
There was no overt disease-mongering. However, the story could have made it more clear that BRCA-associated tumors account for only a small percentage — 5% to 10% — of all breast cancers.
Two outside sources were consulted, and there didn’t appear to be any unidentified conflicts of interest.
There aren’t really any alternatives to BRCA testing for women with a strong family history of breast cancer, so we’ll rate this not applicable.
However, in just another line or two, the story could have noted that there are other, less common genetic mutations that also confer an increased risk of breast cancer. And it could have mentioned that there are other options available to help estimate a woman’s risk of breast cancer (e.g. the Gail model, Claus model, etc). These are not genetically based but some do account for family history to help refine risk estimates.
It’s clear from the story that BRCA testing is available to women who want it.
The story does not overstate the novelty of the BRCA test or the current research findings.
The study includes interviews with experts who were not involved with the current research, so we can be sure the story wasn’t based on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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