Also longer than the competing AP and USA Today stories, coming in at more than 1,000 words – an increasingly rarer but appreciated treat in journalism these days.
The story makes a good point missing from the USA Today article – that many women who are premenopausal at the time of diagnosis may pass through menopause by the time they finish tamoxifen or experience early menopause as a result of chemotherapy. This is an important point in trying to weigh how beneficial the extra treatment really is for premenopausal women.
Scientific evidence should be the basis of decision-making in breast cancer treatment; good practice can only follow good science, and this study adds to the body of treatment evidence.
Description of benefits was adequate. Absolute differences between the treatment groups was provided – although AP’s story broke it down a little bit farther and better for lay readers with this line: “In absolute terms, continuing on tamoxifen kept three additional women out of every 100 from dying of brest cancer within five to 14 years from when their disease was diagnosed.”
The story quantified the risk of endometrial cancer and pulmonary blood clots.
This was the only one of the three stories that we reviewed that picked up on the high dropout rate in the study – an important addition:
“In the Atlas trial, it appears that roughly 40 percent of the patients assigned to take tamoxifen for the additional five years stopped prematurely.”
Clearly, evenly presented and referenced.
One observation: as the story noted, about 40% of patients assigned to take tamoxifen stopped prematurely. This could have an impact on the results of this study and we would like to have seen more discussion about limitations of the results.
Excellent use of sources. A variety of researchers, clinicians, and a patient were represented.
The story clearly stated that AstraZeneca, which makes a form of tamoxifen, helped finance the study.
This comparison was brief but adequate.
The story indicates the drug has been available, studied, and inexpensive.
This criterion was adequately addressed as the new additional information provided by this study was made clear.
It is clear that this story did not rely on a news release.
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 (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Pat Battaglia
December 10, 2012 at 10:47 amThe inherent variables of breast cancer, compounded by individual differences among those diagnosed, ensure that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the disease. This article addresses the subset of breast cancers to which the results of this study apply, as well as the questions it raises for those who fall within other subsets. As one who was put into menopause by chemotherapy for breast cancer, and who chose to end hormonal treatment after five years because of side effects (knowing I had the option to continue), I appreciate the balance presented here. My choice was right for me; others might have chosen differently given the same set of conditions. There are no easy answers. The fact that an article like this has hit the mainstream has me optimistic that the reality of breast cancer’s complexity is becoming more commonly accepted.
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