The Hippocratic Post: Palbociclib targets advanced breast cancer
Rating: 2.5 Stars
- The headline is accurate but the lede is misleading. It states that palbociclib substantially extends overall survival, while the study indicates that this result was not statistically significant.
- The media article does not provide context for this study within the field.
- Quotes from one external source and an author of the study are included.
BBC.com: Treatment may extend advanced breast cancer survival
Rating: 1 Star
- This short media article is misleading. It focuses on the numerical difference in overall survival and fails to inform readers that this difference is not statistically significant. The conclusion is that there is not an improvement in overall survival.
- The headline is misleading. While there is a numerical difference in OS, no statistical difference in overall survival was observed. So, treatment does not extend OS, making this headline inaccurate.
- This media article states that participants were people "...whose tumours did not have the HER2 gene." This is inaccurate. HER2-negative tumors lack the HER2 protein on their cell surface. This is a normal state for the HER2 gene in this cell type. (In HER2-positive cancers the HER2 protein is abnormally expressed at high levels.)
Med Page Today: Survival Bump with Palbociclib in HR+ Breast Cancer—But benefit limited to subgroups; study may have been underpowered
Rating: 0.5 Stars
- Headline and lede are misleading. While there is a numerical difference in OS, there was no statistical difference in overall survival observed even within subgroups. Throughout the article contradictory statements are made about the data not being significant and being significant.
- The article includes an inaccurate statement: "On the other hand, the subgroup of patients who responded to prior hormonal therapy did show a statistically significant 10-month improvement in median survival with the palbociclib regimen, increasing to 11 months in patients without visceral metastases." This is incorrect. The 10-month difference in OS, while intriguing, was not statistically significant. This may reflect a real but small difference that is underpowered in this study or it may be chance; the result is unclear. Subgroup analysis was also not statistically significant.