The story reports on a study of shorter course of radiation therapy for women with early stage breast cancer . Results of this study were presented at the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting and have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. (The limitations of interpreting such findings could have been emphasized.) The story notes that more long-term data may be needed to determine the safety and effectiveness of the shorter course of radiation treatment.
The story notes that this shorter course treatment is for women who have cancer confined to the breast. The story lists some options for radiation treatment following breast cancer surgery; however, it does not mention partial breast radiation and other alternatives to traditional radiation currently being tested.
The story describes the study and provides recurrence rates at 5 years – from 2-5% in all groups. We are told that doctors "believe the treatments are equivalent", but "cannot say so with certainty", meaning in lay terms the difference was not statistically significant. It is important to note that this is a large study, which is good, but we do not know well it translates (e.g. what size tumors did these women have, what was the margin status, what type of systemic therapy). It would be good to note that results controlled for all these other factors. More data on side effects in the groups would also be useful.
The story does list some of the side effects of radiation, namely skin and breast tissue changes, and notes these were less common in women who had a shorter course of radiation. Fatigue is also a common side effect of radiation, but this is not mentioned. Time, energy and the expense of travelling to more radiation treatments may influence a women’s decision for breast cancer surgery. The story does not list the cost of radiation treatments; however, what is really at stake here is time lost from work or other activities. All of these may play into a woman’s decision to forego radiation or to have a mastectomy vs. lumpectomy with radiation.
The story does not list the cost of radiation treatments; however, what is really at stake here is time lost from work or other activities which may play into a woman’s decision to forego radiation or to have a mastectomy vs. lumpectomy with radiation.
The story lists the current options for radiation treatment following breast cancer surgery and provides the recurrence rates at 5 years – from 2-5% in all groups. We are told that doctors "believe the treatments are equivalent", but "cannot say so with certainty", meaning in lay terms the difference was not statistically significant. More data on side effects in the groups would be useful.
The story does note some of the side effects of radiation, namely skin and breast tissue changes, and notes these were less common in women in this study who had a shorter course of radiation. Fatigue is a common side effect of radiation, but this is not mentioned. The story notes that longer follow up is still needed to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of the shorter course of radiation.
The story describes the study and provides the 5-year recurrence data. The story notes that results of this study were presented at a conference. This means the results have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal – a point not emphasized in the story. The story notes that more long-term data may be needed to determine the safety and effectiveness of the shorter course of radiation treatment and cites a researcher not affiliated with the study who notes that treatments seem to be roughly the same, "but we cannot say so with certainty". It is important to note that this is a large study, which is good but we do not know well it translates (e.g. what size tumors did these women have, what was the margin status, what type of systemic therapy). It would be good to note that results controlled for all these other factors.
The story does not engage in disease mongering, but lists the annual rates of diagnosis of early stage breast cancer in the U.S.
The story provides balance by citing the study author, other clinician researchers not affiliated with the study and a patient who took part in the study and had the shorter course of radiation.
The story notes that this shorter course treatment is for women who have cancer confined to the breast. The story lists some options for radiation treatment following breast cancer surgery, it does not mention partial breast radiation and other alternatives to traditional radiation currently being tested. The story also does not mention that shorter radiation may provide some women with the option of lumpectomy and radiation. Time, energy and possibly expense of more radiation treatments and travel is reduced with a shorter course and more women may consider lumpectomy vs. mastectomy.
The story mentions that the shorter course of radiation is being used in clinical trials (such as the one described). The same machines used for traditional radiation are used for a shorter course of radiation, just different doses.
The story reports on a study looking at a shorter course of radiation therapy for women who have had breast cancer surgery. This option for treatment is newer and still being studied.
The information presented in this story does not appear to be taken from a press release. There is independent reporting and several sources cited.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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