"The article reports that Avastin costs up to $55,000 per year. The reporter does a decent job of describing the results, reporting that 12 percent of Avastin patients in the study developed blood clots, a ""30"" percent higher risk than those who did not take Avastin. This formulation, which appears in the abstract of the study, provides both absolute and relative risks. But ideally the report would have provided a more apples-to-apples comparison of absolute risk, stating that 12 percent of Avastin patients developed blood clots, compared to 8 percent of controls. The story earns an unsatisfactory rating, though, because it reports the findings incorrectly. The study shows the risk linked to Avastin to be 33 percent greater, not 30 percent. Further, the story fails to indicate the differences in risk for different types of cancers, which vary considerably. This is a significant omission. The story exaggerates the risks associated with the use of Avastin. The opening lines note the seriousness of the clots. The study notes a 12% incidence of venous clots in patients treated with Avastin–yet fails to note that only about half required treatment. This leaves the reader with an incorrect belief about the true risk. By overstating the risks of serious blood clot, the story could leave patients who may benefit from treatment with an inaccurate impression of risk vs. benefit. The article is based on an analysis of previous research published in The Journal of the American Medical Association. The study author is quoted saying the results are more powerful than individual studies because it takes into account the results of 15 high-quality papers involving almost 8,000 patients. The story might have added that results of meta-analyses are often criticized, and rarely considered definitive, because they combine data from studies that used different methologies. This failure is significant in that it may add an undue degree of importance to the analysis. The article doesn’t exaggerate the severity or prevalence of the cancers Avastin treats. The story cites the study itself, the lead author, a company spokesperson, and one independent clinician. This is adequate sourcing for a story of this length. The story mentions, at least briefly, that Avastin treats cancer via a different mechanism from traditional chemotherapies. But the story falls short of a satisfactory rating by mentioning, only at the end and very briefly, that most Avastin patients also use conventional chemotherapy–and are therefore exposed to all of those side effects as well. This raises, but doesn’t answer, the fundamental question of the overall benefit and overall risk of adding Avastin to treatment. A reader exits the story with an unsettling piece of information that should have been put in context earlier. The article makes clear that Avastin is widely available to and used by cancer patients. The story explained the relative new-ness of the drug. With several sources used, it’s a safe bet this story didn’t rely largely on a news release."
FDA ‘black box’ warning advised for cancer drug Avastin