We asked two Komen Mission Advisors to share how they weed through late-breaking news stories: Komen Scholars Dr. Kathy Miller, of Indiana University; and Cheryl Jernigan, who is also a patient advocate member of our Scientific Advisory Board and Advocate in Science.

1. Beware of glitzy, simple headlines and “too good to be true” claims.

Kathy Miller: It’s important to remember the news media is a business, and an increasingly competitive one. Media outlets pay their bills by selling advertisements, and ad sales are determined by the number of eyes/ears that see/hear them.

One way to be successful at that game is to play up the “hype,” especially in the headlines. A good headline grabs your attention and makes you want to read more or stick around for the full story – they aren’t meant to tell you the full story. Journalists do care about accuracy and take their role in informing the public seriously – but that tension between ratings and reporting can have some unintended consequences. So, be wary of “breakthroughs” that sound too simple and too good to be true.

Remember: Breast cancer is complicated; it doesn’t lend itself to simple one-size-fits-all answers or 30-second sound bites.

Cheryl Jernigan: I completely agree. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true! For instance, when Herceptin was discovered, headlines proclaimed breast cancer had been cured. Herceptin is only effective in breast cancers that express HER2/neu. For those whose breast cancers do not express HER2/neu, Herceptin is not an option.

2. The devil is in the details – figure out how relevant or significant the findings are.

CJ: The first thing to check is whether the study was done with cells, animals or people. If it was in cells or animals, it can take a decade or more before patients can access it. And the reality is that most of these studies—even when they are successful in animals—are not fruitful when tested in a clinical trial (a study in which people voluntarily participate).

If the featured study is about a treatment in a clinical trial, you need to ask:

• Has the trial even finished yet?

• What “phase/type” was the clinical trial? There are four types of clinical trials a treatment must go through prior to becoming the standard of care.

• How large was the trial? Basically, the fewer the number of people who participate, the greater the chance it may not be ready for every patient just yet.

• Did the trial find improvements in survival or evidence that cancer could not be found (i.e., “pathological complete response” or no evidence of disease [NED])? While the latter is generally a good thing, remember that not finding cancer doesn’t mean it’s gone or it won’t come back.

• Which breast cancer type and percent of the breast cancer population will the study apply to?

KM: Yes, ask lots of questions. In addition to the ones outlined by Cheryl, I would add:

• Where was the study done, and who has funded it?

• Has this question been asked in other trials? Where the results similar to this study?

• Have the results been presented at a conference or published in a scientific journal? Most articles in scientific journals are peer-reviewed—scientists reviewing the work of other scientists—prior to publication.

The article you’re reading may have a link back to the journal or original publication, which should have most of this information. If you’re not seeing it, don’t hesitate to search the web!

3. Look for balanced reporting.

KM: A good report will discuss pros AND cons, benefits AND risks. All drugs, treatments or procedures have some side effects. If the potential harmful effects aren’t described or are minimized by simply saying the “treatment was well tolerated,” I’d be cautious.

CJ: Oh yes, beware of tolerating the use of “tolerated.” Research has shown that clinicians often misperceive what patients are “tolerating,” and when asked, patients often report greater symptoms and/or intensity of symptoms than their physicians would.

What are the side effects? Are the benefits worth having the patient “tolerate” the side effects? How does it compare to what’s available now? What difference did or will it make in how people feel, function or survive?

Another “side effect” that is rarely covered in articles is financial toxicity. Even with just the deductibles and co-payments, costs can be devastating to breast cancer patients. So asking what this new drug or procedure is going to cost is very important.

4. Consider what’s missing from the story. What isn’t the author telling you?

CJ: Most stories fail to tell us the real risks, and prefer reporting relative over absolute risks. And relatively speaking, you absolutely need to understand the difference! (Check out the graphic to the side for an explanation.)

KM: Even my most savvy patients struggle to know if a new treatment or new research development might apply to them. News reports are short and often leave out crucial information.

I remember when aromatase inhibitors were first approved – the nightly news just had a short blurb about a “new, more effective treatment for breast cancer.” Everything they said was true… but they never said this new treatment would only be effective for postmenopausal women with hormone sensitive tumors. I fielded many phone calls in the ensuing days from young women with ER-negative tumors who had no way to know that the new drug wouldn’t work for them.

5. Consider the source of the information. Be wary of potential bias or conflicts of interest.

KM: Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between an advertisement and a news story or scientific report. Ask yourself, who sponsored the study? Who stands to benefit if this is true? I don’t mean to suggest study sponsors aren’t reliable or should be ignored; but there can be biases in which studies are reported as well as how studies are reported.

CJ: Yes, for example, the reporter may base his or her article on a press release. It is very important to always try to go back to the original scientific article or source. Also, look for whether there are any recommendations or validating quotes or comments from independent or unbiased sources.

KM: I agree: I’d pay little attention to quotes from the lead researcher or company executive. Of course they think their results are important and will have a significant impact (duh!). Instead, look for comments by someone who wasn’t involved in the study or the sponsoring organization – if the results really are a breakthrough, other researchers will recognize it.

CJ: And remember that research is call “RE-search” for a reason. All results must be verified by different people in different places. Some trusted evidence-based news sources that I rely on are komen.org and the government websites for the NCI, CDC and the FDA.

Learn more about different types of research studies on komen.org