According to this story from NPR, new study findings apparently challenge the conventional wisdom that surgery to remove lung cancer is too hard to bear for older adults.
The story overstates the findings, however, by saying patients “can benefit.” The study was observational only; it was a “competing risks analysis” to gather and assess data about the outcomes of surgery for early lung cancer.
The researchers’ chief conclusion was “In patients who undergo curative-intent resection of stage I NSCLC [non-small cell lung cancer], noncancer-specific mortality is a significant competing event, with an increasing impact as patient age increases.” In plain language, many older lung cancer patients die of non-cancer problems. Somehow NPR translated that to “Older Patients Can Benefit From Lung Cancer Surgery.” An optimistic and potentially true statement, but certainly not in line with the researchers’ more conservative conclusion as written in the journal where the findings were published. Unfortunately the NPR story relies more on anecdote rather than evidence, and didn’t push back enough on what this study can and can’t tell us.
The story may leave readers with the impression that this is solid evidence that surgery is a good option for older adults. The study gave researchers some insights into what happens to older adults after surgery, but it was not a randomized controlled trial that could show which interventions benefit patients most.
There is no mention of the costs associated with the surgery.
There is only one short paragraph dedicated to quantifying the benefits of surgery, and it’s inaccurate:
“One year after surgery, more people had died from other causes than died from lung cancer. And, after five years, almost 9 out of 10 patients were alive and cancer free.”
“9 out of 10” would mean 90% survived and 10% died within the five years. But as the study revealed, 19.9% of all patients had died within five years:
“The 30-day, 90-day, 1-year, and 5-year mortality rates were 0.7%(n=15), 1.2%(n=27), 4.1%(n=90), and 19.9%(n= 436).”
This means nearly twice as many people died than what the NPR study suggests.
The article admits the conventional wisdom is that older patients don’t tolerate surgery for lung cancer, but from headline to the final sentence the NPR story is about older lung cancer patients thriving, based on a personal story and and experts’ opinions. There is no meaningful discussion of the harms of surgery.
The story did not adequately explain how this study was performed and what it can and can’t reveal about surgery in older patients. For example, there was no control group to compare results. So it’s unclear how these patients would have fared if they hadn’t received surgery and instead been treated only with alternatives like radiation and chemotherapy. Unlike what the headline implies, we don’t actually know if patients “can benefit” from surgery.
The story included an independent source and we didn’t note any potential conflicts of interest.
For early stage lung cancer elderly patients who may be presented with a spectrum of choices from surgery to hospice, the article provides little evidence-based advice.
The surgery is clearly already available.
The article implicitly suggests the novelty of the study is that it overturns conventionally held beliefs about the benefits of surgery in older lunger cancer patients. But that’s not really the case.
The researchers chief conclusion was “In patients who undergo curative-intent resection of stage I NSCLC, noncancer-specific mortality is a significant competing event, with an increasing impact as patient age increases.” In plain language, many older lung cancer patients die of non-cancer problems. This doesn’t prove that lung cancer surgery is beneficial and leads to a longer, better lifespan than other options. Nor does it prove the surgery was the best choice.
The article does not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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