The story describes using an existing chemotherapy drug after surgery to try to delay pancreatic cancer from returning. The story does a nice job of meeting the criteria, including desribing the type of evidence for the latest findings, reporting absolute benefits (including a discussion of the modest cancer-free survival gains), availability and novelty of the drug, cost information, and use of an independent source (and disclosure of study funding sources).
And all of this was done in just 688 words.
The story provides monthly costs of the drug (at least when used to treat inoperable cancer, which may or may not be used the same as for treating cancer after surgery).
The story provides absolute data, including proportion of participants in the treatment group and control group who had their cancer come back and the timing of when that occured.
Some harms of treatment are described, such as fatigue and hair thinning. These are also described as relatively mild, which may be true in comparison to other chemotherapy agents.
The story describes that some participants were randomized after surgery to receive the study drug, which is a description of a randomized clinical trial. The story also provides some indicators of the strength of the latest study, such as the number of participants followed, and also mentions this study in connection with a larger study published last year that supports the latest findings.
No obvious disease mongering. The story describes disease burden and natural history of the cancer.
An independent source of information was quoted, but the story could have been improved had the expert actually commented on the study findings vs. the disease burden of pancreatic cancer.
The story describes other treatment options, including surgery, with or without chemotherapy. Radiation is also mentioned as an option, combined with chemotherapy.
The story reports that the study drug is currently used to treat inoperable pancreatic cancer and is also a common chemotherapy drug, often used to treat other cancers.
The story describes that the drug studied has been used to treat inoperable pancreatic cancer as well as some other types of cancer, letting readers know this is not a new drug, but rather, a new application of an existing drug.
The story provides a quote from a researcher not involved in the study, so it's clear that resources other than a press release were used.
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