The risk of developing breast cancer for a woman with BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation increases dramatically. Recent advances in genetic testing can identify these women, but leaves them with very difficult decisions to make. Should they remove both breasts and/or the ovaries to drastically reduce the risk of breast cancer? This story gives a very human face to this quandry and presents some useful information. However, it has several flaws.
Although the story mentions double mastectomy and oophorectomy as treatment options, it does not mention other important alternatives, such as chemoprevention or active surveillance (watchful waiting). The story also does not address the important issue of timing of treatment. The increased risk is not for one year, but spread over a long period of time, so often women do not need to act immediately. Furthermore, the story does not adequately describe the nature of the available evidence for using the genetic test in combination with preventative surgery. Have there been controlled trials evaluating the benefit of this approach?
The story provides quantification of benefits in relative terms only. The story states that removing both breasts reduces the risk of breast cancer by 90% and that removing the ovaries also reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by 90%. From what % to what %? Readers need the absolute risk reduction figures. The story also states that women who test positive for BRCA1 or BRCA2 have up to an 87% change of developing breast cancer. However, according to the National Cancer Institute, this risk varies between 36% and 85%, a wide range not explictly stated in the story.
The story does mention some important potential harms of the testing, inlcuding the threat of lost insurance, the emotional impact, and the ethical questions it raises. The story quotes multiple independent sources.
The story does not mention costs of the test.
The story provides quantification of benefits in relative terms only. The story states that removing both breasts reduces the risk of breast cancer by 90% and that removing the ovaries also reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by 90%. But 90% of what? Readers need the absolute risk reduction figures. The story also states that for women who test positive for BRCA1 or BRCA2 have up to an 87% change of developing breast cancer. However, according to the National Cancer Institute, this risk varies between 36% and 85%, a wide range not explicitly addressed in the story. The story should have provided this baseline risk for ovarian cancer as well.
The story does mention some important potential harms of the testing, inlcuding the threat of lost insurance, the emotional impact, and the ethical questions it raises.
The story does not adequately describe the nature of the available evidence for using the genetic test in combination with preventative surgery. Have there been controlled trials evaluating the benefit of this approach?
By accurately describing the incidence and seriousness of breast cancer, the story avoids disease mongering. However, the story quotes the upper range of the risk of developing breast cancer in women who test positive for the gene mutations. The story states that women who test positive for BRCA1 or BRCA2 have up to an 87% change of developing breast cancer. However, according to the National Cancer Institute, this risk varies between 36% and 85%, a wide range not specifically addressed in the story.
The story quotes several sources.
Although the story mentions double mastectomy and oophorectomy as treatment options, it does not mention other important alternatives, such as tamoxifen or active surveillance (watchful waiting). And none of the patient interviews was with a woman who chose active surveillance. This throws the story out of balance. The story also does not address the important issue of timing of treatment. The increased risk is not for one year, but spread over a long period of time, so often women do not need to act immediately.
The article clearly states that the genetic test for BRCA1 and BRCA2 have been on the market for 10 years. It does not elaborate on how widely available the tests are.
The story clearly states that genetic testing is a new, but growing industry.
Because the story quotes multiple independent sources, the reader can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
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