Personal Story: A “flu shot” against breast cancer? Not so fast

Prevention.com: "How a Trial Vaccine Helped Wipe Out a Woman’s Breast Cancer in 7 Months” 
3.0 Stars

• This is a well-researched article. However, the title, lede, and some comments are inaccurate and misleading.
• The headline is deceiving.  While the vaccine may have helped the woman’s own immune system attack cancer cells, what ‘wiped out’ her cancer was a mastectomy.
• The lede is also not true.  The woman is not “recovering well thanks to a shot”.  While she received the shots of the vaccine her outcome is due to her surgery.
• The article includes the sentence, “Miraculously, the vaccine was effective.”  This is a misleading statement.  It was not ‘miraculous’ that the vaccine was effective. The vaccine was designed and developed for years to hopefully, to be effective. 

AOL: “Woman cancer-free in 7 months after receiving trial vaccine”
Rating: 3.0 Stars

• The title claims the women is ‘cancer-free’ (implied cured) because of the trial vaccine.  The title also implies it only took the vaccine 7 months for her to be ‘cancer-free’. However, mastectomy was used to treat her cancer and is why she is ‘cancer-free’.
• The lede also implies that the woman is ‘cancer-free’ (implied cured) due to the trial vaccine. The woman is healthy again because her DCIS was treated by mastectomy.
• The only sources are the woman herself and one of the researched conducting the clinical trial. No outside sources were included.
• Unlike some of the other media coverage, this article does portray the novelty of this type of vaccine as well as a realistic time until this vaccine may be available in the clinic.

New York Post: “New cancer vaccine helped kill cancer cells in breast cancer patient”
Rating: 3.0 Stars

• The headline and lede are accurate and match the article.
• The article states the following:  “She was left with three options: Have a lumpectomy, where the cancer cells are removed; undergo a mastectomy, where the breasts are removed; or join a clinical trial for a potentially life-saving vaccine to kill the cells and prevent them from coming back.”  The third option is exaggerated.  The vaccine has not been demonstrated to be ‘life-saving’.  The trial is an early-phase trial which determines safety and effectiveness of a new treatment.
• The only sources are the woman herself and one of the researched conducting the clinical trial. No outside sources were included.

The Washington Times: Cancer vaccine showing promise in early trials
Rating: 2.5 Stars

• The title and lead are accurate.
• The only sources are the woman herself and one of the researched conducting the clinical trial. No outside sources were included.

People Magazine: “Florida woman recovers from breast cancer with trial vaccine: ‘I feel like I walked on the moon”
Rating: 2.0 Stars

• The title claims the women recovered from breast cancer (implied cured) because of the trial vaccine.  However, mastectomy was used to treat her cancer.
• The lede states that the vaccine is showing positive results in patients with all stages of breast cancer but there is no discussion of this in the article/news report.
• The only sources are the woman herself and two of the researchers conducting the clinical trial. No outside sources were included.
• The article does not portray the novelty of this (or any) early-phase clinical trial which is to test safety and effectiveness of the vaccine (drug/treatment).

Yahoo! Entertainment:  “Florida Woman Recovers from Breast Cancer with Trial Vaccine: ‘I Feel Like I Walked on the Moon’”
Rating: 2.0 Stars

• The title claims the women recovered from breast cancer (implied cured) because of the trial vaccine.  However, mastectomy was used to treat her cancer.
• The lede states that the woman is healthy again (implied cured) “…thanks to a new trial vaccine…”. The woman is healthy again because her DCIS was treated by mastectomy.
• The only sources are the woman herself and one of the researched conducting the clinical trial. No outside sources were included.
• The article does not portray the novelty of this (or any) early-phase clinical trial which is to test safety and effectiveness of the vaccine (drug/treatment).

First Coast ABC News:  New cancer vaccine trial helped kill cancer cells in Mayo patient
Rating: 2.0 Stars

• The headline matches the article
• The lead is misleading. The lede states, “Mayo Clinic has finished its first clinical trial, and researchers say the vaccine effectively helped kill cancer cells.”  This is an article about the outcome of the first patient on this trial. This trial is ongoing and recruiting.
• The article incorrectly states that Ms. Mercker could, “…go the traditional route of having a lumpectomy where the cancer cells are removed, a mastectomy where the breasts are removed, or she could join a clinical trial for a potentially life-saving vaccine that could prevent the cancer cells from coming back.” In fact, Ms. Mercker still had to undergo surgery, even though she also received the vaccine. The trial was not designed to determine if the vaccine were ‘life-saving’ nor whether it could ‘prevent the cancer cells from coming back.’  The trail was designed to test the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine.

Relevance: Medium-Low

• This is most relevant for women diagnoses with DCIS.
• This is a report of the first women to enroll in this early-phase clinical trial which is evaluating the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine. It has no impact on standard of care for women with DCIS.
• While this report of the first women to be given this vaccine, while promising, it will be many years before we will know if this particular vaccine could be used to prevent breast cancer generally.

Research Timeline: Early Human Research

• This is an early phase I/II clinical trial.