This story reads like a promotional vehicle for a new, potentially cost-prohibitive machine manufactured by TomoTherapy. Information in this story does not go beyont that found in a press release by TomoTherapy, Inc. (maker of the device) and there is little, if any, new enterprise reporting in the piece.
The story cites Dr. DeVere White and Dr. Matthews of UC Davis Cancer. Researchers at the Center helped finance and develop the proton therapy machines with TomoTherapy, Inc., so they have an interest in positively promoting their work. The story also cites a senior project manager at TomoTherapy, Inc., who also cannot provide unbiased information about this new device. The story needs balance, possibly from interviews with cancer researchers (radiologists) and clinicians who could provide perspective on this emerging technology as cancer treatment.
The story presents proton therapy as a newer, alternative option for shrinking tumors; however, this technology as cancer therapy is still in early development, though it has received FDA approval. The story gives us no data to support this newer option as better than existing methods of X-ray radiation treatment for cancer. The story does not mention that current forms of X-ray radiation can be targetted to a tumor via computer imaging and the use of devices (i.e. balloon, seeds, etc.) This sometimes reduces harm to healthy tissue. Despite company reassurances, we do not know if this form of therapy is as efficacious as current radiation or if it is safe. We are also not told if this therapy is only for a particular type of cancer or if it could be used on tumors anywhere in the body.
Lastly, the story lists the cost of the machine but does not mention how this would influence treatment costs for the patient. We are not told if this method of cancer treatment would be covered by health insurance, or how the cost would compare to current radiation treatments.
In short, the story needed more on costs, context, and evidence in comparison with existing alternatives. Independent perspectives were sorely needed.
The story provides the cost of the machine but does not mention how this would influence the treatment costs for the patient. We are not told if this method of cancer treatment would be covered by health insurance, or how the cost would compare to current radiation treatments.
The story does not provide any quantification of benefit. The story is a promotional vehicle for a new, potentially cost-prohibitive machine manufactured by TomoTherapy. We are told that proton therapy will work better for patients than radiation, but no data are given to show that this is the case.
The story notes potential harms of radiation, but mentions no harms of proton therapy.
Proton therapy is not without side effects; this story inappropriately minimizes potential harm of proton beam. Clearly, future clinical studies will help define better the harms, but the story should have noted potential for harms. Common harms include hair loss, skin rash, fatigue – story says "patient won’t have undue side effects" whatever ‘undue side effects’ may mean – the harms are not inconsequential for sure. Here’s what another proton center lists:
What are some of the side effects from proton therapy?
Side effects will depend on the patient’s age, medical history, diagnosis, disease size and location. Some patients may receive chemotherapy in conjunction with proton therapy; some will receive much lower radiation doses than others and therefore symptoms will vary significantly. Common symptoms include temporary hair loss and skin reactions in the direct path of the radiation. Fatigue is also associated treatment to large areas.
The story provides no quantitative evidence that the proton therapy is better than current radiation. Despite company reassurances, we do not know if this form of therapy is as efficacious as current radiation or if it is safe. We are also not told if this therapy is only for a particular type of cancer or if it could be used on tumors anywhere in the body.
The story does not engage in disease mongering, but promotes a new technology and potential future option for cancer treatment.
The story cites Dr. DeVere White and Dr. Matthew of UC Davis Cancer. Researchers at this center helped finance research and development of the proton therapy machines with TomoTherapy, Inc., so they have an interest in positively promoting their work. The story also cites a senior project manager at TomoTherapy, Inc., who also cannot provide unbiased information about this new device. The story needs balance from cancer researchers (esp. radiation oncologists) and clinicians to provide perspective on this emerging technology as cancer treatment.
The story presents proton therapy as a newer, alternative option for shrinking tumors; however, this technology as cancer therapy is still in early development, thought it has received FDA approval for cancer treatment. The story gives us no data to support this newer option as better than existing methods of X-ray radiation treatment for cancer. There have been advances in standard radiation therapy with the goal of minimizing harm to healthy tissue, and the story does not mention that current forms of X-ray radiation can be targeted to a tumor via computer imaging and the use of devices (i.e. balloon, seeds, etc.)
Mary, unsure here if we need to mention the latter, but thought it was important as they position this as proton therapy v. harmful radiation. Radiation, at least as much as I know for breast cancer, is now safer.
The story mentions that the proton therapy machines are only in five cancer centers in the U.S.. Space and cost are provided as the reason this therapy is not widely available, but cancer centers may be waiting for evidence that this therapy is safe and works as well (or better) than current forms of targeted radiation delivery.
The story presents a new technology–proton therapy–as an option for shrinking tumors; however, the story gives us no data to support this newer option as better than existing methods of X-ray radiation treatment for cancer.
We can’t be sure if the story relied soley or largely on a press release, but there is very little new information in the story that is NOT in a news release posted by TomoTherapy, Inc., makers of the proton therapy machine promoted in the news story.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Questions to ask about new Alzheimer’s drug research by @KatKStone incl:
-does study focus on patient outcomes or surrogate markers?
-does study rely on selective subgroups? (yield more favourable outcomes)
-who were the patients? https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/08/6-questions-to-ask-when-writing-and-reading-about-new-alzheimers-research/#.YRw5xNVXths.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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