1. Provide the title of your story or series and the names of the journalists involved.
Proton Beam Radiation Therapy 5-Part Series Daniel M. Keller, PhD Eric T. Rosenthal
2. List date(s) this work was published or aired.
March 25, April 10, April 25, May 10, May 25, 2010
3. Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
The series began with a review of the scientific literature on the efficacy and safety of proton beam radiation therapy (PBRT). This form of radiation therapy is relatively limited and very expensive but is gaining wider spread application to treat a variety of cancers despite the lack of scientific data to support its use. The journalists then interviewed multiple experts at leading medical institutions as well as others involved in the field. The authors found that a number of institutions were using and marketing the technology in lieu of proven and less expensive modalities. Experts were quoted as saying that some institutions were using PBRT for cancers that were more lucrative (easier and faster to treat), e.g., prostate, as opposed to ones with greater scientific support but were more time and labor intensive to treat, e.g., some pediatric, ocular, and brainstem cancers. This situation was further complicated by the institutional need to amortize the large debt created by building, training, and staffing these facilities that typically cost $150 million or more.
4. Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Documents included published, peer reviewed scientific literature, government and National Cancer Institute workshop reports, and marketing materials. No FOI or public records requests were made.
5. Explain types of human sources used.
Interviews included leading clinical scientists, report authors, the executive director of the trade group representing PBRT facilities, and the president of a university without a medical school or hospital that has built the most expensive PBRT facility.
6. Results (if any).
None known at this time.
7. Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
No corrections or clarifications have been necessary. In reply to the series, a leading radiation oncologist who is the dean of a medical school and the editor/author of a leading textbook on the subject, sent a letter to the editor of Oncology Times supporting many of the points raised in the series.
8. Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Keep your eyes open. A published paper appeared that was originally part of a government report at the same time that a major institutional PBRT facility was opening and being promoted to journalists. One of the authors had also visited another such facility in the past and was following developments. Two points are: 1) avail oneself of opportunities to attend events but think of them in a larger context beyond the event itself, and 2) use the medical literature and other documents to explore and support the story. Furthermore, be open to discussing the story in progress with colleagues who may be able to develop additional aspects of the investigation.