Grady, Denise. "Lifesaving Cancer Drugs May in Rare Cases Threaten the Heart." New York Times. N.p., 2 Nov. 2016. Web. 5 Nov. 2016.
The article I choose to review was about how powerful drugs that activate the immune system to fight cancer can, in rare cases, cause heart damage. These drugs, Yervoy, Opdivo, Keytruda and Tecentriq, also known as checkpoint inhibitors, have been found to be the cause of the death of some cancer patients. So far, fewer than 1 percent of patients taking these medicines have developed heart trouble. But in those who do, the damage is often severe, as they provoke the immune system to attack the heart. The risk appears highest when patients take two different checkpoint inhibitors at once. The first checkpoint inhibitor was approved in 2011. The drugs work by unleashing T-cells, a type of white blood cell that kill cancer. Sometimes, the T-cells attack healthy tissue. It is a known fact and doctors have known for years that the drugs can have dangerous side effects. However, the cardiac problems have taken longer to emerge, thus it is a new problem that has just been discovered. The irony is that the drugs, a form of immunotherapy, are considered a huge breakthrough in cancer treatment. Although they do not work for everyone, they have resulted in lasting remissions for many, including people who were expected to die from advanced cancer. In these cardiac problems, through autopsies, it has been found that the patients’ immune systems had attacked their hearts, rejecting them as if they were transplants. Dr. Michael B. Atkins, the deputy director of the Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington, said that the rapid onset of heart problems was “alarming.” On the other hand, Dr. Atkins thinks that it could be possible to save patients who develop this heart problem by intervening early with powerful drugs to shut down the inflammation. However, these drugs that stop inflammation work by turning off the immune response, which could cancel out any benefit from the checkpoint inhibitors. That would leave patients where they started, with the cancer.
This information about how dangerous these checkpoint drugs can be is very important to not only the medical world but to patients and people all over the world. For the medical world, this new discovery is extremely important as they need to research and find solutions for this alarming problem. In fact, as stated in the article, studies have already started, trying to find the best way to stop this problem. This information is also very important to patients as it is always good to inform yourselves about the drugs that you are taking and what doctors are telling you to do. It is important to realize that nothing and nobody is perfect, just because a person is a doctor doesn’t mean that he is right and just because a drug is said to be revolutionary, doesn’t mean it will work for you. This article shows how most of the time we don’t know much about the drugs we create. Their emergent properties can be disastrous, even fatal in the case of the checkpoint drugs.
Overall this article was well written and interesting. The author had a great flow to the article and a thorough explanation of the consequences of the checkpoint drugs. In addition, a great asset to her article were the numerous quotes and reference to various doctors she put in. These gave the readers many different opinions and details about this problem, so that they could formulate their own opinion about the topic. However, one weakness of the article is that it failed to state what exactly the checkpoint drugs are made out of and how they are created. Although it did state that the first one was approved in 2011, it did not elaborate on the subject. To make this article better I would add a paragraph that elaborates on the checkpoint drugs. On the whole, this article taught me about something I had no idea about and helped me gain a new perspective on the consequences of using drugs.
Grady, Denise. "Lifesaving Cancer Drugs May in Rare Cases Threaten the Heart."
ReplyDeleteNew York Times. N.p., 2 Nov. 2016. Web. 5 Nov. 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/health/cancer-drugs-heart-risks.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront
I read Chloe’s review of the article, “Lifesaving Cancer Drugs May in Rare Cases Threaten the Heart”. She did a very good job. I thought that her summary was very thorough and gave a good overview of the article to the reader. I liked how Chloe explained some of the words that she used in her summary. She explained what the drugs Yervoy, Opdivo, Keytruda and Tecentri were which was very helpful of her. This is a key aspect of her review and it was helpful of her to say that they were “checkpoint inhibitors” so the reader would not be confused. Another aspect of Chloes review that I liked was her second paragraph. It is visible from reading it that Chloe really understood the article that she reviewed. Sometimes, people review articles and do not fully understand it’s meaning and some of the terms used but it was clear that Chloe did. I completely agree with her vision for the future after reading her review. And lastly, I liked how Chloe included the name of the professionals working on this research. This shows that she thoroughly read the article and it makes her review more credible making more sense to the reader who is working on this research.
Although I thought that Chloe’s review of the article was very thorough and well written, on the other hand, there are a few things that I think that she could have worked on. First of all, I think that her summary of the article could have incorporated some quotes. I think that it would have made her summary even more concise and more related to the article. Her summary without the quotes was very good but adding some in for example those said from the professionals and doctors working on this research, would have made her summary much more in depth. Something else that I think she could have worked on, which is only a small minor mistake, is that sometimes she made some punctuation mistakes. Although they were really minor, like a few misplaced or missing commas, it could have made her review flow a little bit better.
Overall I think that Chloe did a great job on this review. Before reading this article I ever knew that there were life saving cancer drugs but mostly that they could threaten the heart. After reading this, I realized how important it is to fix this problem and to get drugs that will save people from cancer without risking another part of their health as well.
Grady, Denise. "Lifesaving Cancer Drugs May in Rare Cases Threaten the Heart." New York Times. N.p., 2 Nov. 2016. Web. 5 Nov. 2016.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/health/cancer-drugs-heart-risks.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront
I read Chloe’s review of the article, “Lifesaving Cancer Drugs May in Rare Cases Threaten the Heart.” Overall I think she did a very good job, her summary was thorough and gave a good overview of the article. One thing I really enjoyed about her review was how she explained some of the words and the drugs that were used. The article in general can be very confusing with all the different names and types of medication but she made it easier to understand. It was also clear that she understood what the article was saying and was able to describe it very well.
Although Chloe did a very good job, I think she could have improved a few things. I think that she could have included some quotes into the article. Quotes from the professionals and the doctors would have made the review stronger and more in depth. One more thing is just reading over her work, and fixing a few grammatical errors. Other than those the article was very well written.
Overall I think that Chloe did a really good job on her review. Before I read the article I did not know that there were life saving cancer drugs but mostly could threaten the heart. After reading this I know how important it is to find a solution to this problem and find drugs that will treat people with cancer but will not risk their safety and health in another area.
Grady, Denise. "Lifesaving Cancer Drugs May in Rare Cases Threaten the Heart." New York T
ReplyDeleteTimes. N.p., 2 Nov. 2016. Web. 5 Nov. 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/health/cancer-drugs-heart-risks.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront
Chloe wrote a well-written and thorough review of the article “Lifesaving Drugs May in Rare Cases Threaten the Heart” by Denise Grady. She did an excellent job of explaining that the drugs release T-cells, which are a type of red blood cell intended to kill the cancer, and that those cells can attack healthy tissue instead. By including an explanation of how the drugs are targeting the hearts of cancer patients, the reader is better able to understand the subject of the review. She did a good job of connecting the danger of the checkpoint drugs to both people involved in the medical profession and potential patients around the world in order to emphasize the dramatic and widespread effect that this new information can have. I also agree with Chloe that the author of the article should have included more information on the chemical background of the drugs because that information is central to the issue presented in the article.
She did a great job of reviewing the New York Times article, but there are two areas where she could improve her response. Chloe writes that the author included many quotes and references in her original article that helped readers to formulate their own opinions, but Chloe didn’t include any of them in her current event report. If she had included some of those quotes that represent different sides of this issue, the readers of her review could be better informed on the topic. She also wrote that these drugs are called checkpoint inhibitors, but didn’t explain specifically why they are called that. Her review could have been more clear overall if she had included those details.
After reading Chloe’s current event report, I learned that there are drugs in circulation meant to fight cancer that can actually cause severe heart damage. I also learned that only one percent of patients taking these drugs have developed heart trouble and that scientists are working to find a solution to this problem. As a result of reading this article, I will be more cautious when taking drugs prescribed by my doctor because of their possible fatal consequences. I will make sure to learn about the side effects of the drugs and get a second opinion before taking ones that have more serious side effects.
I choose to comment on Chloe’s review of the article “Lifesaving Cancer Drugs May in Rare Cases Threaten the Heart” by Denise Grady. Overall, she did a great job reviewing this article. I liked how she started off her article by informing the reader of the subject of the article. She said that powerful drugs that activate the immune system to fight cancer can cause heart damage. I also liked how Chloe introduced the other side of the argument too by saying, “fewer than 1 percent of patients taking these medicines have developed heart trouble.” This makes her seem unbiased and creates credibility. Finally, I liked how Chloe talked about who is specifically at risk for these heart problems. She writes that risk is highest when patients take two different checkpoint inhibitors at once.
ReplyDeleteEven though the article was well-written overall, there were some areas that could have been improved. For example, she constantly said “checkpoint inhibitors” but failed to explain what these are. For many readers the meaning of the message is lost when they do not understand what Chloe is talking about. Also, I would have liked if Chloe has gone into more specifics about what heart problems were caused. She writes that the immune systems had attacked their hearts, as if they were transplants. This is a very vague reference and most readers would be unaware of what exactly this means.
Overall, the review and the article were very well written. I found it interesting to learn that a drug supposed to help cure cancer is causing more problems for some patients. It is very sad and scary that those who are already facing cancer may have to have heart problems as well due to this drug. I found this article interesting, but it has little relevance to my life, as I do not feel there is much for me to do to fix this problem.
Sophia Dibbini November 7, 2016
ReplyDeleteGrady, Denise. "Lifesaving Cancer Drugs May in Rare Cases Threaten the Heart." New York Times. N.p., 2 Nov. 2016. Web. 5 Nov. 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/health/cancer-drugs-heart-risks.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront
I read the article and the review of “Lifesaving Cancer Drugs May in Rare Cases Threaten the Heart,” by New York Times and I really enjoyed reading it. I liked how the author disputed a seemingly harmless drug that is supposed to help cancer patients and save them, but showed statistics and reports as to how these drugs are actually extremely harmful. Also, I liked how the author of the review brought in an outside source, Dr. Michael B. Atkins, who said that the rapid onset of heart problems was “alarming,” and thinks that it could be possible to save patients who develop this heart problem by intervening early with powerful drugs to shut down the inflammation. Lastly, I liked how the author used evidence and information to close the article by bringing it back to the beginning, stating that these drugs that stop inflammation work by turning off the immune response, which could cancel out any benefit from the checkpoint inhibitors. That would leave patients where they started, with the cancer.
Even though there are many positives about this article, it also had its negatives. First, I did not like how the author did not say what scientists and researchers are doing to stop the production and selling of this product. The author only stated that this was a problem, not how people are trying to address the problem. Also, I did not like how the authors of the article and review did not talk about all of the good things this drug is doing for people. These negatives effects of this drug is extremely rare, but this drug is doing so much good to so many people. Addressing the good aspects would confront all sides to this issue. Even though there are some negative aspects to this article and review, I really enjoyed it.
I learned a lot from reading this article and review. First, I learned about a drug I have never heard of, expecting it to be doing good because it is being prescribed to cancer patients, but learned about the extremely negative side effects and results that can come from taking this drug. Also, I learned that not all drugs can do only good, some can be very dangerous and harmful and everyone has to be aware and cautious. This article is very important to society because everyone is taking so many different pills and medications without thinking about the potential side effects or dangers, and just taking them for the benefits. Overall, I really enjoyed reading this article and learned a lot and I look forward to learning more about the effects of this drug in the future.
I read Chloe's review of the article, "Lifesaving Cancer Drugs May in Rare Cases Threaten the Heart," by Denise Grady. There were many aspects of her review that were well done. First, she had a very good summary. This was a new topic, so the background science can be difficult to understand. However, Chloe did a great job putting the information in a way that was easy to read. Another aspect of her review that was well done was her suggestions on how the author can make the article better. Chloe stated that some information on the checkpoint drugs could have been made more clear. The final aspect of her article that was well done was her clarification of key terms. She explained the different kinds of drugs and how they help/hurt the patients.
ReplyDeleteThere were some areas of Chloe's review that could have improved. One area is although her summary was clear, she could have incorporated more examples or quotes. Adding this would not only make her review more sophisticated, but it would make it even more clear. A second improvement would be to add information on what scientists are planning to do in the future. How will they help the patients, and can they fix this problem?
Overall, Chloe's review of this article was very well done. This was a new topic and I learned so much from it. It is scary to think that a drug created to stop cancer can add additional problems for the patient. It is important to realize that although scientists are coming up with new advancements, there can be risks that go along with it.
AP Biology George Daskalakis
ReplyDeleteCurrent Event 7 11/7/16
Grady, Denise. "Lifesaving Cancer Drugs May in Rare Cases Threaten the Heart." New York
Times. N.p., 2 Nov. 2016. Web. 5 Nov. 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/health/cancer-drugs-heart-risks.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront
After reading Chloe’s review of the article “Lifesaving Drugs May in Rare Cases Threaten the Heart” by Denise Grady, it was easy to see she did a great job. For example, Chloe did a nice job of connecting the danger of the checkpoint drugs to people involved in the medical profession and patients around the world. She did this to emphasize effect that this new information can have. Additionally, I also agree with Chloe that the author could have included more information on the chemical background of the drugs because that information is critical to the issue presented in the article. Lastly, she did an excellent job of explaining that the drugs release T-cells, which are a type of red blood cell intended to kill the cancer. By including an explanation the reader is better able to understand the subject of the review.
Chloe did a great job of reviewing this article, but there are a few things in which she can improve upon. For instance, she wrote that these drugs are called checkpoint inhibitors, but didn’t explain specifically why they are called that. If these details were included, her review would have been better. Chloe also adds that the author includes quotes and from her original article that helped readers to form their own opinions, but Chloe didn’t include any of these quotes in her review. If she had included some of those quotes, the readers of her review like myself could be better informed on the topic.
After reading Chloe’s current event report, I learned that there are drugs today being sold and used that are meant to fight cancer that can actually cause severe health problems. As a result of reading this article, I will be more cautious when taking drugs prescribed by my doctor because of their possible fatal consequences. I can ask my doctor specific questions about the medicine, do my own research, and make sure to read the side affect label.
Grady, Denise. "Lifesaving Cancer Drugs May in Rare Cases Threaten the Heart." New York T
ReplyDeleteTimes. N.p., 2 Nov. 2016. Web. 5 Nov. 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/health/cancer-drugs-heart-risks.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront
Chloe did an exceptional job reviewing the article, "Lifesaving Cancer Drugs May in Rare Cases Threaten the Heart," by Denise Grady. He summary was very thourough and well-written, so as the reader I acquired a good understanding the subject of the article. I also thought Chloe did a respectable job interpreting a more complicated topic and delivering it in a way that is clear and connected. She explained the background of these drugs and what their intended effect is, but still explains both sides of the argument. Finally, I notice Chloe presented a very deep, thoughtful analysis of the articles mean in the world and more specific societies.
Although overall Chloe did a great job, there are some aspects she could have improved upon. For example, she could have used directed quotes from the article in order to increase her credibility. Chloe also could have gone into a bit more detail regarding certain complex phrases. By provided a definition for unknown, sophisticated terms the strength of her argument would be increased as more people can understand it.
I was particularly interesting by this review as found the topic Chloe chose to be very interesting. I had no idea that certain medications were having such fatal results, despite being advertised as effective.