This story reports on a study from Japan published in this week's New England Journal of Medicine. The authors report on the use of genetic profiling to distinguish different types of lung cancers. Because there are so many different types, it can be difficult to predict how well an individual may respond to therapy. This type of gene profiling may eventually be able to discriminate which patients are the most likely to benefit from chemotherapy from those who could possibly be spared the toxic regimens. However, until this kind of gene profiling is combined with actual treatment decisions, we won't know if the testing will live up to its promise.
The story does provide survival times for those categorized as "high" or "low" risk. What we really would want to know is how this relates to the use of chemotherapy – if those at high risk could be the ones to most benefit from chemo or if those at low risk could be spared the toxic therapy. But the story points out that this information is not yet available.
However, the story does not comment on harms of the testing. False postive or negative tests could have serious consequences if treatment decisions are made on the basis of the genetic tests. For example, it is possible that a person could be mistakenly labeled "high" risk when they really aren't and undergo grueling chemotherapy that they may not benefit from. Furthermore, although the story does mention conventional staging methods and states that this method is deficient, the story does not adequately describe the advantages and disadvantages of the new method by comparison or explain how the gene testing would fit with existing methods. For example, currently, survival is not predicted just based on stage of disease, but must also factor patient age and comorbidities, and other risk factors (including end-of-life decisions).
Finally, the story states that "widespread use is perhaps a few years away." While this may be true, there is no justification provided for this estimate. That may be an overly optimistic prediction.
The story does not mention costs of genetic testing. While cost estimates may not yet be available, the story could have speculated on potential costs or mentioned the range of costs for genetic testing in breast cancer.
The story does provide survival times for those categorized as "high" or "low" risk. What we really would want to know is how this relates to the use of chemotherapy – if those at high risk could be the ones to most benefit from chemo or if those at low risk could be spared the toxic therapy. But the story points out that this information is not yet available.
The story does not comment on harms of the testing. False postive or negative tests could have serious consequences if treatment decisions are made on the basis of the genetic tests. For example, it is possible that a person could be mistakenly labeled "high" risk when they really aren't and undergo grueling chemotherapy that they may not benefit from.
The story adequately describes the strength of the available evidence.
The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of lung cancer.
The story quotes several experts and points out who is an author on the study.
Although the story does mention conventional staging methods and states that this method is deficient, the story does not adequately describe the advantages and disadvantages of the new method by comparison or explain how the gene testing would fit with existing methods. For example, currently, survival is not predicted just based on stage of disease, but must also factor patient age and comorbidities, and other risk factors (including end-of-life decisions).
The story states that "widespread use is perhaps a few years away." While this may be true, there is no justification provided for this estimate, which may be overly optimistic.
The story clearly states that genetic profiling for cancer is not new (it is currently used for breast cancer), but that this is an emerging idea for lung cancer.
Because the story quoted multiple experts and quotes from the editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, the reader can assume the story did 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