This was an inadequate story about a combination of experimental drugs to treat melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer. It relied inappropriately on a press release, downplayed the treatment’s harms, and didn’t explain how the study’s primary outcome, progression-free survival, differs from overall survival.
If your story relies on quotes and text from a press release, how can readers be sure if it’s a thoughtful evaluation of the subject or a reposting of someone else’s ideas? Additionally, stories reporting on new drugs or combinations of drugs, particularly for serious diseases, need to be clear about the outcomes and distinguish those that matter, including risks.
Costs were not discussed. Neither of these drugs is approved for sale, so it may be hard to offer a concrete figure. But new drugs targeting melanoma via similar pathways are very expensive — in the neighborhood of $9,000/month, or $56,000 for a course of treatment. The story should have mentioned this, even if the drug combo is only available under a research protocol.
The story does not overhype the findings and uses statistics appropriately, reporting that after one year, “41 percent of patients receiving the full-dose combination treatment had no progression of their melanoma, compared with 9 percent of those receiving dabrafenib alone.”
Of course, this does not tell us whether the drug combination actually prolonged life, and the story does not explore or explain this important nuance. This is something we’ll address under the Quality of Evidence criterion below.
The story’s discussion of harms tends to downplay their importance. It quotes an expert who says there were no “untoward side effects” with the combination treatment, and it reports that skin rashes and rates of squamous cell carcinoma were “similar to that typically seen in patients taking only one of the drugs.”
That’s one take, we suppose, but the study itself reported much higher rates of drug induced fevers and chills in the combination groups, which was serious enough to require hospitalization in 19% of low-dose and 26% of high-dose combination group patients (compared with 2% of monotherapy patients). Other side effects reported more frequently in the combination groups were fatigue (in 53% of patients), nausea (44%), vomiting (40%), and diarrhea (36%). Those certainly sound like “untoward” side effects to us.
The story dutifully reports on the primary outcome of the study, progression-free survival, but doesn’t explain that this may not translate to an overall increase in survival time for patients taking the drug combination. Indeed, the percentage of patients who were alive after 1 year was not much different between the high-dose combination group and the monotherapy group (79% vs 70%). This is not to say that progression-free survival isn’t potentially a useful measure of a drug’s efficacy — it may well be — but it’s important to explain what it means and how it differs from overall survival. Here’s a useful primer on the differences from the National Cancer Institute.
The story notes that the treatment applies only to patients with a specific mutation that can be targeted by the drug.
The story informs readers that both drugs studied are being developed by GSK, which sponsored the studies. And we hear from an independent dermatologist who was not involved with the study.
Other new drugs have recently been approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma. The story did not mention these or compare results.
The story says that the drug combination is being tested in a larger phase 3 study, which is required for FDA approval. While this is true, it could also have noted that the drugs individually have already been submitted for approval as monotherapies. If they are approved, oncologists could presumably use the drugs in an off-label combination treatment similar to the one studied here.
This does appear to be a novel approach to reducing the treatment resistance seen in melanoma drugs.
Although the story features an independent take on the results, it uses a quote from a hospital press release and makes liberal use of the copy/paste functions. Example:
Press release: “In recent years, drugs that inhibit BRAF activity have rapidly halted and reversed tumor growth in about 90 percent of treated patients, but most patients’ response is temporary, with tumor growth resuming in six or seven months. Investigations into how this resistance emerges have suggested that the MAPK pathway gets turned back on through activation of MEK, another protein further down the pathway.”
Story: “Drugs that inhibit BRAF activity can rapidly stop and reverse tumor growth in about 90 percent of patients. But the response is temporary in most cases, and tumor growth resumes in six or seven months, the researchers explained. Previous research suggested that this drug resistance develops because the MAPK pathway gets turned back on through activation of MEK, another protein that is part off the MAPK pathway.”
We’re concerned that the story is regurgitating content without sufficient evaluation and analysis.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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