Task: Sentence Composition
Input (English): The article does an exemplary job of reporting details of access, insurance coverage, and direct costs. It cites a December 2015 journal article that concludes that PBT for a deadly form of childhood brain cancer is “cost-effective.” The article could have used more data and research results about clinical outcomes to support that statement, but that’s a minor issue on this front. The only discussion of evidence was this passage, which includes no numbers: “Yock co-authored a study published in December 2015 in the journal Cancer, which compared the cost-effectiveness of proton radiation therapy versus traditional radiation among kids with medulloblastoma. The study, which used models to measure long-term side effects and related costs in treatment, work-force participation and quality of life, found that proton therapy was cost-effective.” In pediatric brain cancer, while the numbers are relatively small, there are data to support the claims. Readers would have had a better picture of the controversy by some mention of the relatively sparse research results available about the value of PBT in prostate cancer in adults, for example, a source of heavy marketing by PBT treatment centers. Overall, the article needed more prevalence and outcome data for all forms of pediatric cancer and its therapies. The article notes in some detail the various side effects of PBT and especially of standard forms of radiation and chemotherapy treatments for childhood brain and other cancers. The story focuses on the potential long-term harms, but it would also have been helpful to know more about the short-term risks of these two forms of radiation, as well. We are indirectly told that there’s not really much evidence on this therapy and that it is largely anecdotal: “Proton beam therapy is considered a big advance in cancer therapy by some experts. Others, however, hesitate to get caught up in the early hype without more long-term evidence.” This isn’t a sufficient effort to assess the quality of evidence, so we are rating this Not Satisfactory. The story appropriately comments upon the seriousness of these tumors and the first goal of cure and then the longer-term issue of treatment side effects. The article uses quotes and opinions from a handful of well-placed pediatric oncologists. It could have found one or two sources to comment explicitly on the controversial marketing aspects of proton treatment centers, and perhaps put a bit more balance into the cheerleading aspects of the quotes, but overall, the article offers a calm and reasoned picture of PBT’s value. The article does an excellent job of describing how PBT works compared to conventional radiation, and how newer forms of PBT are reducing “scatter” even more. Very well reported here. The story highlights that there are a limited number of centers in the U.S. that offer this and that they are not evenly distributed around the country. Many patients need to make special travel/housing arrangements to complete a six-week course of therapy. The report puts PBT’s benefits in good perspective and to its great credit, notes from the outset that the treatment is no “magic wand,” but has real potential to avoid one of the big challenges of childhood cancer therapy. No evidence of that.
Output (English): The Promise (and Limits) of Pediatric Proton Radiation