The story reports on an experimental treatment for advanced prostate cancer that early research has shown may prolong life by an average of 4 months. While the story does a good job of describing the availability and novelty of the new treatment and does provide benefits in absolute terms (even though this could have been improved by a discussion of the relatively small gain in life duration), it also misses some important criteria. Viewers don’t know the strength of the study findings. For instance, it’s not clear whether the results are from randomized trials, or some other less strong study design. Alternative treatment options are also not discussed. Yet the story posed Provenge as a last and only option – saying about one man: "All his hopes were pinned on this cuttin-edge, experimental treatment." And, the story did not interview independent experts to comment on the study findings. Unfortunately, the only comments included are those from actual patients, who sound like they are about to die, and who provide very biasing and one-sided testimonials.
Costs are not mentioned. Some projection of costs is possible, and it is likely to be expensive given the individualized, targeted nature of the approach.
The story does provide benefits in absolute terms–on average men lived 4 months longer and that some lived 2-3 years longer. The story could have been improved by a discussion that an average life gain of 4 months, is relatively small, but that only a patient could decide if or how meaningful this life gain would be based on his quality of life.
The only harms noted are "mild, flu-like symptoms." While, it’s hard to believe any cancer treatment would have only "mild" side effects, there may not be published data to confirm or refute this. Nonetheless, the story takes this claim at face value without emphasizing the early stage of the research, and without seeking independent perspectives.
The story does not describe the nature of the studies on which the findings are based. Viewers don’t know if the trials are randomized trials–the gold standard–or some other less strong trial design.
The story doesn’t really give an unbiased picture of advanced prostate cancer, because only men who currrently have the disease and appear to not have long to live are interviewed. The story doesn’t provide good, balanced information about the nature of the condition, how many men die from this each year, or that many more men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer than will actually die of prostate cancer.
Several sources are obtained, although these are only patients providing biasing anecdotes. There is a comment that some doctors question the research, providing some balance, but it’s not clear if any of these doctors were actually contacted to comment on the results. No names are provided.
The story does not provide any alternative treatment options for advanced prostate cancer, the mainstay being androgen deprivation, or hormone treatment, which does eventually stop working in many men. Yet the story posed Provenge as a last and only option – saying about one man: "All his hopes were pinned on this cuttin-edge, experimental treatment." And the dramatic ending: "But the FDA needs prooof and for men running out of time and hope the wait is agonizing."
The story states this latest experimental treatment for advanced prostate cancer is not approved by the FDA.
The story states the treatment is new and experimental.
The story does not appear to have relied solely or largely on a news release.
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