This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Superlatives frequently used in media to describe cancer drugs
Media coverage of emerging cancer therapies frequently used superlatives to describe the drugs, regardless of FDA approval status, clinical data or OS benefits, according to a research letter published in JAMA Oncology.
Although lay journalists comprised the majority of writers using superlatives, medical professionals — including physicians and industry representatives — engaged in similar verbiage, according to the researchers
Vinay Prasad
“The language used in oncology practice and research may elicit important connotations,” Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, and Matthew V. Abola, BA, medical student at Case Western Reserve University, wrote. “Whereas most new cancer drugs afford modest benefits, approved drugs or those in development may be heralded as ‘game changers’ or ‘breakthroughs’ in the lay press. These news articles may be important sources of information to patients, the public and investors — with a broader reach than medical journal articles.”
Thus, Prasad and Abola sought to observe the use of modest and superlative words and phrases in contemporary news articles covering cancer drugs.
They used Google to search 10 superlative terms — including “breakthrough,” “game changer,” “miracle,” “home run” and “revolutionary” — in connection with “cancer drug.”
Abola reviewed all articles and extracted information regarding the drug described, including its mechanism of action, medication class, FDA approval status, clinical trial status and quoted individual.
Prasad then researched the mechanism of action for all drugs and coded their classes as cytotoxic, targeted, checkpoint inhibitor, therapeutic cancer vaccine, radiotherapy, gene therapy or other.
Abola and Prasad identified 94 articles from 66 distinct news sources that made 97 superlative references to 36 oncology drugs.
Targeted therapies comprised the most common class of drug referenced (47%; n = 17), followed by cytotoxic (25%; n = 9), checkpoint inhibitors (14%; n = 5), therapeutic cancer vaccines (8%; n = 3), gene therapy and radiotherapy (n = 1 for both).
Forty percent (n = 39) referred to targeted therapies, 38% (n = 37) referred to checkpoint inhibitors, 10% (n = 10) referred to cytotoxic drugs, 5% (n = 5) referred to therapeutic cancer vaccines, 2% (n = 2) referred to radiotherapy and 1% (n = 1) referred to gene therapy. Three articles did not name the drugs in question.
Used as a combined therapy, the checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb) and nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) were most frequently described using superlatives (21%; n = 20).
Fifty percent (n = 18) of drugs described with superlatives had not received FDA approval for at least one indication at the time of the analysis. In 14% (n = 5) of drugs, the use of superlatives were based solely on preclinical data, including mouse models and cell cultures.
More than half (55%; n = 53) of the speakers credited with superlative use were journalists. Other quoted speakers included physicians (27%; n = 26), industry experts (9%; n = 9), patients (8%; n = 8) and one member of the U.S. Congress.
In 55% of cases, the use of a superlative occurred without any other attribution.
“Journalists … may not have the expertise to identify the most promising medical therapies, or what magnitude of benefit warrants as superlative,” Prasad and Abola wrote.
Prasad and Abola acknowledged their inability to include data presented at the 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting in their study as a limitation.
“The use of superlatives is common in cancer research news articles," Prasad and Abola concluded. “Some of this use may be questioned.” – by Cameron Kelsall
Disclosure: Prasad and Abola report no relevant financial disclosures.