what they said (Hover the mouse cursor over underlined words for more info)

Some women with one of the deadliest forms of ovarian cancer are likely to live longer if they receive chemotherapy in an unconventional way, investigators have found.

Fewer than half of the 2,400 women in Canada diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year survive five years. About 80 per cent are diagnosed after ovarian cancer has spread because the early symptoms are mild.

One chemotherapy regimen boosted survival by an average of 16 months, Dr. Deborah Armstrong of the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore and her colleagues found after studying 415 women....

The original article can be found at: http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/01/04/ovarian-cancer060104.html

The original article can found in the Media Doctor archives.

how did it rate? (more information)

what we said (Hover the mouse cursor over underlined words for more info)

This story is framed as a hopeful medical advance and provides information on several of the review criteria. It provides the differences in survival time and time to relapse for women in the study. However, given that a significant proportion of women ultimately die from the disease, a more thorough examination of the poor quality of life for the intraperitoneal group midway through the six cycles, and several weeks after treatment is relevant to the discussion. Instead, the article ends in a single anecdotal story of a woman saying that the added side-effects are worth it to live to see her child two years older.

This emotional appeal is definitely compelling and perhaps caused the journalist to avoid this issue of cost because it seems vulgar to place a price on a mother living two more years. However, the SOGOC president hinted at the additional capacity that is still needed to make this procedure available to most Canadians.

Moreover, the story does not discuss other treatment options and survival rates in patients with ovarian cancer and the study design is not reported. As well, quantification of harms in terms of absolute risk increase is missing.

Overall, the story could have provided a more nuanced account of the pros and cons of this therapy instead of relying on brief statements from a couple of experts. Finally, it is clear that Dr. Rosen is not an author of the study, but his relation to the researchers or other possible conflicts of interest are not discussed. in the article.

public forum

voice your opinion in the forum

• All comments and feedback submitted to Media Doctor are subject to editorial approval before being made viewable by the public. It may take up to a week for your comments to be approved. Additionally, no response will be given to questions posed in public comments. Media Doctor does not provide medical advice, or answers to medical questions posed by the public.
• If you provide your email address it will not be displayed to the general public.
• Comments may be edited by Media Doctor to remove defamatory or sensitive statements, and brand names.
• Required fields are marked with an asterisk (*).