Bloomberg offers up balanced recap of new breast cancer therapy
Rating
Roche's Pricey New Breast-Cancer Combo Barely Beats Old Drug
Our Review Summary
The latest result on Roche’s new combo therapy for breast cancer occurs as a disappointment to investors, though it is one that’s unsurprising to medical researchers. This Bloomberg article receives high marks for reporting the cost, harms and perhaps negligible benefit of the new treatment which combines a newer drug (Perjeta) with an older drug (Herceptin). The story is balanced with its inclusion of the more optimistic side of the news.
Roche plans to track the new therapy for years to come to determine if the currently observed small improvement will accentuate over time. This is a notable endeavor since the long-term effect and safety of a cancer treatment is nearly as important as its immediate potency.
For more of our analysis on how the news media covered the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting where this drug combo and other new research was showcased, see:
High drug costs (and stock values) take center stage at final day of ASCO
Small studies get big headlines at ASCO 2017
6 things to keep in mind if you read cancer-related news in the next few days
Why This Matters
The article suggests that though Herceptin has been a potent treatment for women with aggressive HER2-positive breast cancer for decades, apparently one in four women will eventually relapse. Thus, new therapies that reduce the risk of relapsing are desirable.
Criteria
Satisfactory
We are told the new combo treatment will double the monthly costs of just Herceptin from $6,100 to $12,200.
Satisfactory
Though the benefit of the combo treatment is more pronounced for high-risk patients than low-risk patients, the article correctly points out that the 1 percentage point of improvement in the proportion of women who had no recurrence of their cancer within three years is hardly earth-shattering.
Satisfactory
The article writes that patients treated with the combination therapy suffered from severe diarrhea at a much higher rate than the conventional treatment. It also briefly mentions that Perjeta’s effect on the heart was not thoroughly analyzed in the trial suggesting there may be further side effects beside diarrhea.
Satisfactory
The article describes the randomized controlled trial in a straightforward fashion. The clinical endpoint of interest appears to be relapse-free status at three years. The article reports two sets of results — one for the overall patient population:
94.1 percent of the patients on the new combo hadn’t developed invasive breast cancer, compared with 93.2 percent of the Herceptin-only patients.
and another for more high-risk patients whose cancer had spread to lymph nodes:
92 percent of those who got Perjeta were free of invasive disease at the three-year mark, compared with 90.2 percent of those who received only Herceptin.
Satisfactory
There is no evidence of disease mongering.
Satisfactory
It appears several sources are interviewed and the article includes comments from an NEJM editorial on the research. These experts offer helpful insight into the results of the study.
Satisfactory
As this is a study comparing a new treatment (Herceptin plus Perjeta) versus a current gold-standard treatment (Herceptin alone), the article easily satisfies this criterion.
Not Satisfactory
It’s clear from the story that Herceptin is an old drug, but it’s not clearly stated that the new drug is available. Perjeta was approved by the FDA in 2012 to treat metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.
Satisfactory
The article suggests the novelty of the study is testing a new combination therapy for breast-cancer patients.
Satisfactory
The story does not rely solely on a news release.
Total Score: 9 of 10 Satisfactory
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