The story overflowed with overstatement.
This is important research that requires no hyperbole. Let the facts and the science speak. No sensationalism is necessary.
It is possible to report on single case studies better than this – by providing caveats and context, not projections beyond what the scope of the work in question.
Imagine the impact on the lives of people with melanoma who see a network TV story or this online version that this single case study could result in “saving or prolonging thousands of lives.”
No mention of costs. Ipilimumab has been estimated to cost $120,000 for a course of therapy. It takes 3 second to include that on the air – a dozen more words in an online story.
It’s not so much the fact that limited network TV news time was devoted to a single case study (do we need to roll out the past single case studies reported on network TV that didn’t pan out?), but the suggestion in the opening line – that this finding “could indicate a significant change of the course of cancer treatment — perhaps saving or prolonging thousands of lives” – is unwarranted projection at this point.
Why would a news story employ this kind of cheerleading framing – from a single case study in one person to a projection of saving/prolonging thousands of lives?
It’s not necessary and it’s misleading.
No mention of harms. There are actually two treatments at play both of which can cause significant side effects. Even a link to the manufacturer’s website would have addressed the issue for Ipilimumab. Radiation has its own set of side effects as well.
The elevation of a single case study to prime time network news and online news attention – without any discussion of the limitations of such a finding – is not sound practice.
The language of the story also conveys a cheerleading tone not supported by this one case study:
The centerpiece of the story is the ipilimumab cae study. So, although an expert is quoted it was not in relation to the main story line. No independent expert was quoted on the ipilimumab case study, and it was badly needed.
We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt because it accurately stated “there are few treatments for advanced melanoma.”
The story stated that ipilimumab was approved in 2011 for advanced melanoma treatment.
The relative novelty of this finding was the whole focus of the story, although perhaps overstating its significance at this early stage.
It does not appear that the story relied on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Jim Breitfeller
March 11, 2012 at 6:06 pmIf you and they had done your homework you would have found out that Irradiation has been used in cancer before to help shed tumor-specific antiges/proteins. It has also been found that the dying tumor cells secrete a protien called HGMB-1 and binds to a Toll Like Receptor 4 (TLR4) on dendritic cells (DCs) and activates the innate part of our immune system. With the right tumor antigen that is presented on the antigen presenting cells (APCs) and the activation of the T-cell, one can erradicate the melanoma tumors.
Dr. Steven A Rosenberg at the NCI uses whole body irradaition prior to Adopitive Cell Therapy (ACT).
I thought you might like to know
Jim Breitfeller Stage IV Melanoma Survivor
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