The article doesn't inflate the promise of the new therapy and places it into a well laid out path forward for clinical study. While the article is short on technical detail, it is written so that the average reader can make sense of the technology and understand its potential for improving cancer treatment outcomes.

The article covers the treatment in layman's terms, and describes the efficacy and prospects of the treatment.

Interesting result if repeated and extended. There's a logical hole in the article ... but not necesarily in the work it describes. The author states: "Rosiglitazone was less important, but in combination with trametinib, it also helped the stem cells convert into fat cells." So we are led to believe that trametinib is the more inportant of the two compunds in the chemical "cocktail" employed. Later it is revealed that both compounds are already FDA approved. This leaves several questions hanging: 1) For what use was trametinib approved? 2) In that approval how was trametinib thought to be acting: to induce an EMT? a MET? Something related to the results reported by the article or something else different? 3) Repeat 1) &2) for Rosiglitazone 4) Why did the researchers think the combination would work better, or, at all if neither of the two worked alone?

The article is well written in terms of explaining the physiology behind how these two drugs work in combination within the transplanted breast cancer cells in mice to prevent metastasis of the cancer cells. However, it leads the reader to believe it will be easier to get FDA approval for clinical trials in human subjects, because both of the drugs discussed in the study are already FDA approved. However, one drug, rosiglitzone, is marginally approved for use in the US to treat diabetes. It is outright banned in the European Union because of the increased incidence of stroke and heart attack associated with use of the drug. Further, it is hard to understand how the use of a blood sugar lowering drug in a non diabetic with advanced breast cancer would cause the human subject no harm. And that does not even take into consideration the possible increased risk of stroke or heart attack from use of the drug, rosiglitazone. None of the serious side effects from rosiglitazone are even mentioned in this article.