The piece felt top-heavy with words of “progress…more effective…complete remission (in one patient)…hopes,” etc.
Half-way through came this line: “Several independent researchers said the study results were promising. But they also noted that the trial involved only 11 patients and said the therapy was less effective than in other published trials.”
But the only detailed caveat came at the very end – from Dr. Steven Rosenberg of the National Cancer Institute. What is so ironic is that while we were reading the piece, but before we got to Rosenberg’s quote, we actually reflected on the exuberant early news coverage of Rosenberg’s interleukin-2 research back in the 1980s – and how similar this felt. Now, about this new work, Rosenberg is quoted as saying “Cloned cells don’t work. These results are inferior.” It would have been easy to pull out news coverage of the IL-2 work (such as the Newsweek cover story in 1985) and help readers think about similarities.
So, while we applaud the overall work of this story, we wished for a bit more historical perspective. Journalists and the public should remember Santayana’s quote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
We were urged to review this by breast cancer advocate Jody Schoger, who wrote on Facebook, “This seems like announcing a new chemo regimen that extends survival by one or two months…. I do appreciate that hope and optimism – I always prefer that it’s anchored with the reality of time; and how long it takes to go from these new realizations to making significant progress against melanoma.” Schoger’s note elicited this response from Sally Church, PhD (a biochemist interested in cancer biology): “Ugh yet more hype about immunotherapy with a small number of patients… don’t get me started!”
An early experiment of immunotherapy against melanoma may be too early to allow for a cost estimate.
We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt for reporting:
“In six of the 11 patients in the trial, the melanoma stopped progressing for 12 to 19 weeks. Another patient was declared in remission because his cancer ceased to spread and, after several months, disappeared altogether. Three years later, researchers continue to detect the presence of the cloned cells they infused into the patient”
The story stated:
“Currently, the T cells have limited staying power and often die off before their work is done. Doctors give them a boost by administering a growth factor called interleukin-2. But at high doses, it can cause dangerously low blood pressure, breathing problems, kidney failure and heart arrhythmias.
Yee’s group showed that by choosing T cells more selectively, patients can get by with much lower doses of interleukin-2, making the treatment less toxic.”
But we’re not told what side effects were observed in the 11 patients in the study. In reality the study originally involved a high dose (3 subjects) and low dose (8 subjects) IL-2 arm. The high dose arm was closed by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board prematurely due to unacceptable toxicity.
The early, small, preliminary nature of the study was clear from the story. Steven Rosenberg’s comments at the end also gave perspective.
Several independent sources were quoted.
Brief reference was made to one patient having had 6 years of chemotherapy “only to have his melanoma return.” And Rosenberg’s comments at the end note a competing immunotherapy approach. But the story didn’t give readers a clear context of melanoma treatments, or of why and for whom immunotherapy would be tried, etc.
We think it’s clear from the story that this is only an experimental approach right now.
The relative novelty of this approach for melanoma was evident in the story.
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely 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
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