The only one of our 10 criteria that was not addressed was the potential harms of Abraxane. Other than that, a very complete job of reporting.
As the story makes clear, pancreatic cancer “is a disease that gave oncology a bad name…a notoriously difficult disease.” Better treatment options are needed. This story reported on new trial results with a calm, clear, contextual delivery.
The story reported that Abraxane “will cost $6,000 to $8,000 a month” for pancreatic cancer patients. And then placed the cost and potential benefit into context: “How much of an extension of life is meaningful to patients is a matter of some debate, especially with cancer drugs costing thousands of dollars a month.”
The story adequately reported the benefits from the study of 861 patients that was released by the manufacturer and scheduled for presentation at a scientific meeting.Rather than falling victim to presenting the drug’s benefits in relative terms (27% increase in median survival, more than doubling of the two year survival) the story provides the readers with absolute numbers.
One shortcoming of the story: no discussion of harms from Abraxane.
Here is the data from the Calgene press release:
“The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events in the study for ABRAXANE plus gemcitabine vs. gemcitabine alone were neutropenia (38% vs. 27%), fatigue (17% vs. 7%), and neuropathy (17% vs. 1%). In the ABRAXANE plus gemcitabine arm, the median time to neuropathy improvement was 29 days. There was no difference in serious life threatening toxicity (4% in each arm).”
It’s rare to see a story state in its first sentence that a drug trial was “not as big a leap as some doctors and investors had hoped” – followed by “It was not the breakthrough we were anticipating,” from an independent expert.
Appropriate context was given about what a “notoriously difficult disease” pancreatic cancer can be – “This is a disease that gave oncology a bad name,” as one expert said.
No disease mongering of pancreatic cancer in the story.
Excellent use of independent sources, including the “not the breakthrough we were anticipating” quote from one of them in the story’s second sentence.
Excellent comparison of alternatives. Excerpts:
“A big impediment to future Abraxane sales in pancreatic cancer could be that its median survival was almost three months less than that of Folfirinox, a combination of four generic cancer drugs.
Results of a clinical trial published in 2011 showed that pancreatic cancer patients getting Folfirinox had a median survival of 11.1 months compared with 6.8 months for those getting gemcitabine.
Experts cautioned that it was difficult to draw conclusions since Abraxane and Folfirinox were not compared directly in the same trial. Nonetheless, doctors are going to make treatment decisions based on the separate results.”
And:
“In 2005 the Food and Drug Administration approved Tarceva, now sold by Roche and Astellas, to treat pancreatic cancer. In a clinical trial, those who got Tarceva plus gemcitabine had a median survival only 12 days longer than those who received a placebo plus gemcitabine.”
It’s clear from the story that Abraxane is already used to treat advanced breast cancer and non-small-cell lung cancer.
The story reported:
“Abraxane is a novel form of the widely used cancer drug paclitaxel, also known by the brand name Taxol. In Abraxane, the paclitaxel is bound to albumin, a human protein in tiny particles. That is said to enhance delivery of the drug to tumors and reduce side effects.
Abraxane was approved to treat advanced breast cancer in 2005 and to treat non-small-cell lung cancer in October.”
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release, although it did report on data released by the manufacturer in advance of presentation at a scientific meeting. But the addition of independent perspectives shows how much original reporting was done.
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