The story discusses new genetic tests that may help some women with early-stage breast cancer determine their risk of recurrence, and thus help with decisions about chemotherapy. More tailored (often less) chemotherapy is a newer idea for women who may not benefit as much from more aggressive treatment.
A favorable score on a genetic test does not mean a woman at lower risk will not benefit at all from chemotherapy; she may, in fact, benefit some over the long term, but not as much as a woman with a higher chance of cancer recurring. Also, a woman's values and ability to live with a certain amount of risk, though small, is still part of the decision to have chemotherapy or forgo this treatment.
The story presented no quantitative evidence for the Oncotype Dx test, which was the main focus of the story. It only said the test had been independently validated via a peer-reviewed process, and that it had been used on over 17,000 women. This test is validated only for women with node-negative breast cancer whose tumors are estrogen receptor-positive. The story does not mention that the test is time-sensitive and must be used within six months of diagnosis. The story emphasizes the cost of Oncotype Dx and notes that this may make it prohibitive for some women whose health insurance does not cover the test.
The story is balanced and does not appear to be taken from a press release. A breast cancer specialist, a public health researcher, breast cancer patients and the CEO of Genomic Health, makers of Oncotype Dx, provide perspective on genetic testing as an aid in decision-making for breast cancer treatment .
The story mentions the cost of this genetic test, as well as the issue of insurance coverage.
The story didn't quantify any benefit from the use of the test.
The story does not mention potential harms of genetic testing. A favorable score does not mean an individual woman at lower risk will not benefit at all from chemotherapy; she may benefit some over the long term, but not as much as a woman with a higher chance of cancer recurring. Also, a woman's values and ability to live with a certain amount of risk, though small, is still part of the decision to have chemotherapy or no chemotherapy. Decisions for chemotherapy are not based solely on the results of Oncotype Dx.
Most of the story is devoted to the Oncotype DX test. The story only mentions that the test has been independently validated via a peer-reviewed process and it has been used on over 17,000 women. But it doesn't quantify any of the evidence for the test or from the use of the test.
The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story provides accurate American Cancer Society statistics on breast cancer incidence and mortality.
The story is balanced. A breast cancer specialist, a public health researcher, breast cancer patients and the CEO of Genomic Health, makers of Oncotype Dx, provide perspective on genetic testing as an aid in decision making for breast cancer treatment.
The story explains that the Oncotype DX test "is among the tools making their way into doctors' hands and patients' lives as new technology emerges from genetics research. The tools, which include screening tests and targeted drugs, help doctors tailor treatments for breast and other cancers." It also mentions the BRCA blood test and another test under development, OncoVue.
The story explains that "The test's manufacturer says Oncotype DX has been performed on about 17,000 women. It is among the tools making their way into doctors' hands and patients' lives." The story mentions that the cost of Oncotype Dx may make it prohibitive for women whose health insurance does not cover the test. This test is validated for women with node-negative breast cancers that are estrogen receptor-positive, and when Oncotype DX is used within six months of diagnosis. The story does not mention that it is time-limited.
The story mentions a new genetic test that can help some women with early-stage breast cancer determine their risk of recurrence and thus help with decisions about chemotherapy. More tailored (often less or forgoing) chemotherapy is a newer idea for women who may not benefit as much from more aggressive treatment.
There are several sources cited who provide prospective on genetic tests such as Oncotype Dx. Information does not appear to be taken directly from a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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