Read Original Story

Managing the stress of cancer


2 Star


Managing the stress of cancer

Our Review Summary

The story discusses a recent paper in the journal Cancer, which states that patients who participated in a 10-week stress management group after treatment for breast cancer reported a higher quality of life eight to 15 years later. The story emphasizes the positive impact that stress management training can have on the long-term physical and emotional well-being of breast cancer survivors. However, the story could have done more to highlight the limitations of the study and to consider the cost and feasibility of the group program.


Why This Matters

According to the CDC, breast cancer is the most common form of cancer among women in the United States, with more than 220,000 women diagnosed in 2011 alone. More women are survivors of breast cancer than of any other cancer.  And studies show that breast cancer survivors have higher rates of depression than the general public — with a 2005 U.K. study reporting that 15 percent of survivors have depression five years after treatment. The fact that breast cancer is so common, and that depression can have a significant impact on the quality of life of breast cancer survivors, means that a better understanding of how to mitigate depression in breast cancer survivors is an important issue.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story does not address costs at all. It is not clear whether the type of group-based cognitive-behavioral stress management program discussed in the study is free for most patients, whether it is likely to be covered by insurance, or whether it would require a significant out-of-pocket expense for breast cancer patients.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story says that patients who participated in the group therapy sessions after treatment reported “feeling better and having fewer depressive symptoms such as anxiety.” However, it doesn’t quantify these results. The story doesn’t tell us how much better the study participants felt and whether that improvement represents a meaningful difference.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Applicable

The story doesn’t discuss possible harms associated with participating in this stress management program, although the harms are likely to be minimal. In theory, the program could have heightened anxiety about the breast cancer diagnosis by focusing on it frequently over the 10 weeks of the group. We’ll rate this Not Applicable.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The study could have done more to explain the strengths and limitations of this study. The original study that was conducted 11 years ago was a randomized controlled trial, the most reliable form of scientific evidence.  But this follow-up study included only 42 percent of the original participants, and as the study authors point out in the paper, “the fact that women who participated in the follow-up were older and reported fewer depressive symptoms and greater well-being at the time of diagnosis than women who did not participate should be considered when these findings are generalized to all breast cancer survivors.” In other words, unlike the original randomized study, which theoretically had a balanced mix of confounding factors in both the treatment and control groups, this follow-up study was susceptible to a self-reporting bias, where patients experiencing depressive symptoms or lower quality of life may have chosen not to participate. That’s an important limitation, and the story would have been better if it had mentioned it.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


Breast cancer is all too common, and has a profound impact on patients and their loved ones. The story does not overstate how traumatic the experience can be. However, the story would have been better if it had avoided the hyperbole in the lead that “there’s almost nothing more stressful.” Comparing the difficulties associated with a breast cancer diagnosis to any number of other, awful life events adds little to the story.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?


The story includes quotes from at least one independent source and clearly identifies quotes from researchers associated with the recent study.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story discusses stress management in broad terms, referring to it as teaching patients “relaxation techniques and coping strategies.” It does not discuss other possible treatment options for dealing with stress or depression following serious illness, such as professional counseling or medications.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

Many breast cancer treatment providers can offer patients information about programs to help patients deal with stress, anxiety, and other depressive symptoms associated with a cancer diagnosis. However, the story does not make clear how widely available such programs are, and how much existing programs resemble the study intervention.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The story notes that the recent study is a follow-up to a previous study on depressive symptoms among breast cancer survivors. But it doesn’t put the research into any larger context. Long-term studies of women’s quality of life — not just survival — 10 or more years after a breast cancer diagnosis are relatively few.  The story could have emphasized more the value of the study in contributing to what is known.  

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?


The reporter went beyond the material in the news release.

Total Score: 3 of 9 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.