Saturday, February 1, 2020

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH RIGHT NOW! #71: “Promising Blood Test Could Help to Predict Breast Cancer Recurrence”: My Realistic Re-Write of a Hyperbolic Headline


From the first moment my wife discovered she had breast cancer, there was a deafening silence from the men I know. Even ones whose wives, mothers or girlfriends had breast cancer seemed to have received a gag order from some Central Cancer Command and did little more than mumble about the experience. Not one to shut up for any known reason, I started this blog…

Every month, I’ll be highlighting breast cancer research that is going on RIGHT NOW! Harvested from different websites, journals and podcasts, I’ll translate them into understandable English and share them with you. Today: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jo/2020/8132507/

I first came across the TIME Magazine article referenced below, with the startling headline, “Promising Blood Test Could Help to Predict Breast Cancer Recurrence”.

As is usual with journalists, the facts are far less likely to get a page turn or site click. In fact, the headline seems to me to be intentionally misleading.

From a more recent article than the one TIME authors chose to base their headline on, the authors point out: “…in principle, tTDS [tagged, targeted deep sequencing, altered to Targeted Digital Sequencing then creatively dubbed TARDIS] is a promising technique for the detection of MRD [minimal residual disease] in BC [breast cancer]. Further studies should assess its use after target design optimization and by increasing the quantity of plasma to be used for ctDNA [circulating tumor DNA] detection. Ultimately, the goal of applying tTDS in early BC is, however, to demonstrate not only its clinical validity, but rather its medical utility. This latter task may lead to effective strategies aimed at altering the course of relapsed disease when detected earlier than clinical progression, and studies directed to this purpose are strongly needed.”

“With the recent possibility of designing custom tTDS panels, which include the most frequently mutated genes in BC, such as TP53, CDH1, GATA3, and PIK3CA hotspots, the use of this method may lead to an effective way to monitor the presence of MRD in a significant proportion of early BC patients.”

“In conclusion, our work showed that, in principle, tTDS is a promising technique for the detection of MRD in BC. Further studies should assess its use after target design optimization and by increasing the quantity of plasma to be used for ctDNA detection. Ultimately, the goal of applying tTDS in early BC is, however, to demonstrate not only its clinical validity, but rather its medical utility. This latter task may lead to effective strategies aimed at altering the course of relapsed disease when detected earlier than clinical progression, and studies directed to this purpose are strongly needed.”

In case you haven’t gathered as much, I am deeply suspicious of a media that intentionally writes at an sixth grade level (based on the Kincaid-Fleishman Scale “…Time magazine scores about 52, an average grade six student's written assignment (age of 12) has a readability index of 60–70 (and a reading grade level of six to seven), and the Harvard Law Review has a general readability score in the low 30s. The highest (easiest) readability score possible is 121.22, but only if every sentence consists of only one one-syllable word. "The cat sat on the mat." scores 116. The score does not have a theoretical lower bound; therefore, it is possible to make the score as low as wanted by arbitrarily including words with many syllables. The sentence “This sentence, taken as a reading passage unto itself, is being used to prove a point." has a readability of 69. The sentence, “The Australian platypus is seemingly a hybrid of a mammal and reptilian creature." scores 37.5 as it has 24 syllables and 13 words. While Amazon calculates “…the text of Moby Dick [is] 57.9, one particularly long sentence about sharks in chapter 64 has a readability score of −146.77. One sentence in the beginning of Swann's Way, by Marcel Proust, has a score of −515.1. The U.S. Department of Defense uses the reading ease test as the standard test of readability for its documents and forms.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch%E2%80%93Kincaid_readability_tests

I understand the mission of news documents is to create a reading experience for the public that is approachable to the widest possible audience. But something as important as research into breast cancer treatment…in order to be clear, sometimes it seems that some publishers resort not only to hyperbole, but they allow their reporting to edge into “fake news”.

Based on the academic paper (I admit it’s dense, but I also have a bachelor’s degree in biology and I’m pretty sure most of their writers DON’T) linked below, the researchers say, “…in principle, tTDS is a promising technique for the detection of MRD in BC. Further studies should assess its use after target design optimization and by increasing the quantity of plasma to be used for ctDNA detection. Ultimately, the goal of applying tTDS in early BC is, however, to demonstrate not only its clinical validity, but rather its medical utility. This latter task may lead to effective strategies aimed at altering the course of relapsed disease when detected earlier than clinical progression, and studies directed to this purpose are strongly needed.”

What I would have translated that into is this:

 “Right now, all we’re saying is that TARDIS is a promising way to find tiny pieces of breast cancer DNA in a patient’s blood. We still have lots of testing to do to make it as accurate as possible in finding those pieces. We want to create something that not only works in the lab, but be able to use it as a true test of the chance of a breast cancer coming back – before we find tumors growing in the patient’s body.”

The far less dramatic headline would have accurately read, “Scientists Testing a Way to Find Evidence of Breast Cancer Return BEFORE Tumors Appear” or if you insist, “Promising Research Might Warn Doctors of Return of Breast Cancer”.


No comments:

Post a Comment