Chemotherapy has been a standard treatment for breast cancer for many years. The story does an excellent job discussing reasons why chemotherapy may offer limited benefit to many women, especially since the incidence of serious side effects is greater than previously estimated.
That there is a higher incidence of serious complications in routine care than when treatments are administered in trials is not new, but this study provides a good estimate for the likelihood of complications in routine care using claims data from many patients.
The story mentions that under-reporting of chemotherapy-related side effects in large clinical trials is due, in part, to the characteristics of women enrolled in these trials. Results from large studies serve only as a guide and may not provide an accurate estimation of individual risk, especially for many younger women or women with co-existing health conditions.
The story discusses the study design and provides evidence of a greater number and seriousness of side effects in younger (<63 years), insured women treated with chemotherapy vs. no chemotherapy. However, the story does not mention that because uninsured women were not represented in this study, these women may have different, and potentially greater incidence of chemotherapy-related side effects. The story provides the estimated annual cost of hospital visits for chemotherapy-related side effects. The story mentions surgery, radiation, hormone therapy and chemotherapy as treatment options for breast cancer, and that a woman might choose different combinations of these therapies. This is a five-star story, and it used only 541 words.
The story provides the estimated annual cost of hospital visits for chemotherapy-related side effects.
The story explains that chemotherapy may be of limited benefit to many women, especially since the incidence of serious side effects is greater than previously estimated. The story provides balance on the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. There is discussion of informed decision making and the importance of weighing the absolute benefit of more treatment with the risks of experiencing serious side effects.
The story mentions underreporting of chemotherapy side effects in large clinical trials is due, in part, to the characteristics of participants in clinical trials. Results from clinical trials serve only as a guide and may not provide an accurate estimation of individual risk, especially for younger women or women with co-existing health conditions.
The story discusses the study design and the importance of the results for women making decisions about chemotherapy as part of their breast cancer treatment. The story provides evidence of greater incidence of side effects in younger (<63 years), insured women treated with chemotherapy vs. women who did not undergo chemotherapy.
The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story appropriately does not advocate chemotherapy for all breast cancer patients. The story discusses targeted treatment for those who would benefit most from this therapy.
The story discusses the outcomes of the study with study authors and the federal agency that funded this study. A researcher who wrote an editorial in the publishing journal is cited to provide perspective on the results.
The story mentions surgery, radiation, hormone therapy and chemotherapy and the option that a woman might choose different combinations of these treatments.
Chemotherapy has been a standard treatment for breast cancer for many years. The story mentions that for some women the attempt to prevent a breast cancer recurrence may not include chemotherapy, depending on her risk of recurrence.
The idea of individualizing treatment via molecular profiling is new. The idea that some women at low risk of cancer recurrence and higher risk of serious side effects might decide to skip chemotherapy is also a newer approach to treatment. That there is a higher incidence of serious complications in routine care than when treatments are administered in trials is not new, but this study provides a good estimate for the likelihood of complications in routine care using claims data from large population of patients.
The article does not appear to rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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