Recent headlines heralding recent findings of four main breast cancer genetic subtypes brought back bittersweet memories for Sharon Batt, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, who was interviewed by Canada’s CBC News.
When she was first diagnosed with breast cancer 24 years ago, she was one of those to hang her hopes on every promising headline.
"I clipped these stories out and hung on to them, reread them, looking for some clues that something sudden and dramatic was going to happen that would change the reality that my physicians were trying to present me with," she recalled in the interview.
No miracle cure has kept Ms. Batt alive, but alive she is, counseling others to read headlines with a realistic sense of what’s available today.
The CBC story went on to quote oncology experts who put the findings into perspective as yes, they were scientifically meaningful – but important only within the context of science’s timetable and not the breakneck bench-to-bedside pace envisioned by patients.
To be sure, findings published online by Nature on Sept. 23 were "electrifying," as the respected New York Times science writer, Gina Kolata, put it, because being able to categorize breast cancer into genetic subtypes holds the potential for tailoring treatment and streamlining research.
But even the Times, with its conservative headline, "Study Divides Breast Cancer into Four Genetic Types," ran a poignant picture of Elizabeth Stark, Ph.D., a breast cancer patient of one of the study researchers, hugging her small daughter, which clearly implied that the discovery plus quick action in the clinic could mean all the difference to Dr. Stark.
In contrast to that message was the ultra-clear comment from Karuna Jaggar, executive director of the advocacy group, Breast Cancer Action: "‘There are a lot of steps that turn basic science into clinically meaningful results, ... It is the ‘stay tuned’ story.’ "
Dr. Stark is a 48-year-old Pfizer biochemist with the basal-type breast cancer that under the new classification system is considered genetically more similar to ovarian cancer than to the other forms of breast cancer, and aggressive. After three rounds of chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation in 4 years, her disease is described as "stable," Ms. Kolata wrote, and she knows "it will take time for the explosion of genetic data to produce new treatments that might help her."
But Dr. Stark has the last word: " ‘In 10 years it will be different,’ she said, adding emphatically, ‘I know I will be here in 10 years.’ "
Other news outlets danced a similar two-step in covering the Nature study, juggling optimistic, but science-based reporting with the "human angle," as editors always demand. (I know of what I speak, having covered science and medicine for general news organizations and independent newspapers for physicians for more than 25 years.)
Here is a sampling of the headlines your patients may have read:
• Breast Cancer Breakthrough to Bring Better Treatments (Fox News)
• Gene Clues Offer New Hope for Treating Breast Cancer (MSNBC)
• Breakthrough in Search for Breast Cancer Cure (New York Post)
• Breaking the Breast Cancer Code (Baltimore Sun)
• Scientists Parse Genes of Breast Cancer’s Four Major Types (NPR)
• Breast Cancer Genetics: Study Dubbed ‘Giant Step’ (CBS News
• Genetics to Determine Cancer Treatments (Los Angeles Times)
The Denver Post, which republished Ms. Kolata’s study, tagged it with a new headline: "Breast cancer research: New genetic study reveals ‘road map’ for a possible cure."
In the clinic, you’re sure to be asked which genetic categories typify your patients’ breast cancer, and how soon that knowledge will lead to cures. Once again, you’ll have to don your scientist’s hat, explain the findings, explain the implications, and explain that science, unlike headline writing, can be a painstakingly complex process that puts a premium on getting it right in the end.
Dr. Freed is a clinical psychologist in Santa Barbara, Calif., and a medical journalist.