This is a story about the use of cord blood stem cells to combat certain blood cancers like leukemia.
Stem cell research is a well-established field at this point, and there are thousands of scientific articles on various uses of cord blood, a source of stem cells. And yet none of that evidence is brought to bear in this article. We’re even a little confused as to whether the article is squarely about cord blood transplantation or also about transplants from relatives because of a foray into the latter midway through the piece.
That said, we did appreciate how it addresses the risks of the treatment throughout the piece. We also like that the article clearly states that one person’s experience is not going to be the experience for everyone — either in the difficulty of finding a donor or in responding well to cord blood transplantation.
Overall, though, there were too many missing pieces in this story to give readers a full picture of this area of cancer treatment.
The so-called “liquid” tumors (leukemias and lymphomas) have proven to be difficult to treat, especially in adults. The gold-standard treatment, bone marrow transplant, is an arduous, expensive and risky treatment modality that has traditionally required matching donors. The use of umbilical cord stem cells may provide patients with greater access to treatments that do not require matching donors. The results to date are encouraging, but definitive clinical trials need to be done. While the patient stories presented here are both encouraging and heartwarming, they do not represent the whole story. Words to describe cord blood stem cells as a “huge home run,” and an “amazing and beautiful resource” must be balanced out with a discussion of the state of the science.
There is no mention of costs in the piece or whether the treatments are covered by insurance.
There is one quick mention–at the very end of the story–about a small number of patients who were involved in one clinical trial. Out of 13, two of them died and 11 are in remission. How long have they been in remission? The story says an average of 4.7 years. So it could be that some are only in remission for a few months and others many years. In general, we wish there was much more discussion of the researched benefits.
The story nicely raises the risk of cord blood transplantation and the risk of standard cancer therapies throughout the piece. For example, it says, “Because each umbilical cord produces only a tiny number of stem cells, umbilical-cord transplants take longer to work than standard transplants, which makes patients more likely to get fatal infections. And if cells from several umbilical cords are used, the chances of immunity problems increase.”
We do wish that the story made it clear earlier on that the new approach is preceded by intensive chemotherapy and the inherent side effects it entails.
It’s not clear in this piece how much evidence there really is for the technique described, whether the evidence has been peer reviewed, how often these studies have been repeated, etc. What makes it even trickier is that the story seems to be talking about two very different types of treatments. It begins with a long anecdote about a woman receiving a cord blood transplant — meaning she was injected with stem cells from the umbilical cord of someone she did not know and was not related to. But then the story says, “This therapy and another —haploidentical transplantation, which uses bone-marrow cells that are only half-matched to a patient — have revolutionized the treatment of blood cancers in the past few years. Every biological child is a half-match for a parent, and vice versa.” From that point forward, it is very difficult to know whether the purported benefits being discussed and claims about always finding a match for a patient, etc. are about one treatment, the other treatment, or both combined. We also don’t have strong evidence presented for either.
There is no disease mongering in this piece. In fact, its description of the different cancers that are addressed and its details about the patient experiences are a very nice model for how to be descriptive without trying to exploit readers’ emotions.
Every source in the piece is either directly involved in the types of treatments being discussed or is a patient who has undergone treatment.
The story mentions chemotherapy and radiation but no true comparison to standard cancer therapies or even emerging cancer therapies — like immunotherapy — is done in the piece.
The story does not make it clear how frequently these treatments are performed or how widespread they are. Does one have to travel to Seattle to have this treatment? It’s unclear.
There is a very bold statement of novelty in the piece that is not backed up by evidence or independent sources.
“This expanded cord-blood technique has been a ‘huge home run’ for patients,” said Colleen Delaney of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, who helped create it.”
“‘No one had successfully taken stem cells and gotten them to grow and put back in a person,’ she said. The advance should be particularly valuable for minorities and people of mixed-race background, whose chances of finding a matched donor were slim to none.”
The story does not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
“to project certainty where it simply does not exist is communication malpractice at a time like this and with a public health issue like this.” @garyschwitzer on @ContentScience https://review.content-science.com/covering-covid-19-vaccine-news-part-two-from-the-publisher-of-health-news-review/
In case you weren't aware: Prestigious journalism organizations and outlets take money from pharma, @garyschwitzer https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/drug-company-influence-on-journalism/#.XyrYGZeNvXA.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
Addressing conflicts of interest ought to be a standard part of EVERY drug story. Journalism professors ought to be teaching students this, just as they teach them to include name, age and other standard story information. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1290973141758611459
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