“I spoke to several cancer specialists in New York City last night who said ‘caution, this is not ready for primetime.'” — ABC News chief medical correspondent Dr. Jennifer Ashton.
But that caution comes more than halfway through the segment, after GMA already floated an idea that will certainly alarm many cancer patients–and could even be harmful, several cancer experts said.
Researchers theorize that, based on what they studied in mice, post-surgery wound inflammation may trigger cancer growth in cancer patients whose tumors are surgically removed. They also theorized that anti-inflammatory drugs like aspirin might be useful in lowering the tumor growth, based on how the mice responded.
Despite her sources making it clear that this mouse study isn’t applicable to people, Ashton proceeded to put together a segment for a national morning audience about the research. Several other news outlets also reported on the study, including STAT, USA Today, and UPI.
We can only guess why Ashton chose to ignore her sources’ advice and run with the story, but it may be because breast cancer studies make for good viewer- and click-bait, especially among predominantly female audiences like GMA’s.
Yet, when experts warn you that a study isn’t ready for primetime, isn’t that a really good sign to pass it over and wait for something more conclusive?
Fortunately, the news coverage we looked at had both strong points and weak points. For example, ABC News’s print version of GMA’s segment opens with a useful “if” phrase: “If a new study in mice ends up holding true for humans, there may be a new explanation for why breast cancer can spread after surgery.”
And STAT’s story deserves praise. The phrase “in mice” was included in their headline, and the article explored the many limitations–especially how the researchers implanted and then removed sponges out of the mice to replicate an inflammatory response similar to what people might experience after a lumpectomy. This detail alone will give many people pause.
That nuanced reporting differs from the story that ran in USA Today. Not until the sixth paragraph do we learn that the study subject were rodents, for example. And while the story said twice that the study wasn’t “definitive,” readers will be left with a different impression when they read quotes like this:
Although the data are not definitive in people, Dillekås said that if she got cancer surgery, she’d ask for an anti-inflammatory drug.
“I would definitely go for it,” she said.
UPI’s story also buried the whole “mouse” aspect of the study, and misinterpreted a different study:
A small, separate study showed breast cancer patients who were treated with the anti-inflammatory drug ketorolac in the days following surgery were five times less likely to have the cancer spread than those who didn’t receive the medication.
Based on the description, readers might be forgiven for thinking that this was a randomized, controlled trial in which a treatment was tested against a placebo–but it wasn’t. Instead this finding was determined by reviewing old medical records from one surgeon’s practice to find notable patterns that may or may not explain why someone had a cancer recurrence. While the study is useful for helping trigger further research, it’s far from conclusive.
What alarmed breast cancer survivor and epidemiologist Mandy Stahre, PhD was how the results of the mouse study were presented as proven facts.
“There are other factors about a person’s health that influence inflammation and a person’s health going into surgery should be considered,” said Stahre, who is a HealthNewsReview.org contributor. “The media coverage is confusing and gives women a false sense of control related to preventing metastases. More research is needed and human studies need to be conducted before jumping to any conclusions.”
If this isn’t primetime research, why did so many news outlets cover it? They were likely compelled by this MIT news release with a headline that sounds like a human study:
“Perioperative NSAIDs may prevent early metastatic relapse in post-surgical breast cancer patients.” [emphasis added]
The news release, to its credit, does disclose it was a mouse study in the sub-title and opening sentence. However, the release uses language that makes the reader conjure images of people, not mice. For example, by referring to genetically modified mice as “breast cancer patients” and then leaping to unknown and speculative human benefits based on the experiment:
According to new research conducted in mice by Whitehead Institute scientists, surgery in breast cancer patients, which while often curative, may trigger a systemic immunosuppressive response, allowing the outgrowth of dormant cancer cells at distant sites whose ability to generate tumors had previously been kept in check by the immune system. Taking a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) around the time of surgery may thwart such early metastatic relapse without impeding post-surgical wound healing.
“There is nothing in this study that should lead to any changes in the way we treat breast cancer. I don’t want anyone to read the media coverage of this study and think that they shouldn’t have surgery. That would be a disaster,” said oncologist Larry Norton, MD in a blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center web site.
But it appears that people may be thinking that, at least on social media. Check out these comments left on a Facebook post from KSDK-TV in St. Louis, which republished the GMA story:
That’s a lot of anxiety–for a study that wasn’t even ready for primetime.