HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
An NBC Reporter Investigates His Own Cancer
July 30, 2008
First, we give our best wishes to Mr. Lewis. But the principles of sound journalism are not suspended just because a reporter reports on his own illness. This story violated many of those principles.
Our Review Summary
This was a story about NBC reporter George Lewis' diagnosis and treatment for prostate cancer. First we want to extend our best wishes to Mr. Lewis for successful treatment and for good health.
But the principles of sound journalism are not suspended just because a reporter is reporting on his own illness. This story violated almost all of those principles. The story did not:
- discuss the costs of the proton beam therapy which the reporter chose to pursue. The costs are a major issue - $50,000 or more per patient.
- discuss questions about the evidence of benefit from proton beam therapy.
- include any interviews with cancer experts.
The most serious flaw, though, was that the reporter abandoned journalism ethics and advocated prostate cancer screening. He said: "Every guy over 50, doctors say sometimes every guy over 45, should get tested annually for prostate cancer. There’s a simple blood test called a PSA and a digital rectal exam where the doctor feels for lumps in the prostate. Early detection is the key." That is not an evidence-based recommendation.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force states:
The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routine screening for prostate cancer using prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing or digital rectal examination (DRE). Although the Task Force found evidence that screening can find prostate cancer early and that some cancers benefit from treatment, the Task Force is uncertain whether the potential benefits of prostate cancer screening justify the potential harms.
The potential harms of prostate cancer screening include fairly frequent false-positive results from PSA screening, which may lead to unnecessary anxiety and biopsies. In addition, early detection and treatment may result in complications from treating some cancers that may never have affected a patient's health.
NBC Nightly News has done something similar to this before - when reporter Mike Taibbi advocated lung cancer screening after he was scanned in a story. We have commented on such news stories in the past. They violate the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics which states that journalists should "distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context."
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The reporter discussed his own treatment choice of proton therapy. But he never mentioned how difficult it is to find such devices. The New York Times recently reported that there were only five such devices in the U.S., with about a dozen more planned.
The story included no mention of the cost of proton therapy - which is an important issue. A single patient's treatment may be more than $50,000.
The reporter, reporting on himself, commits disease mongering when he advises viewers: "Every guy over 50, doctors say sometimes every guy over 45, should get tested annually for prostate cancer. There’s a simple blood test called a PSA and a digital rectal exam where the doctor feels for lumps in the prostate. Early detection is the key." That is not an evidence-based recommendation.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force states:
The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routine screening for prostate cancer using prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing or digital rectal examination (DRE). Although the Task Force found evidence that screening can find prostate cancer early and that some cancers benefit from treatment, the Task Force is uncertain whether the potential benefits of prostate cancer screening justify the potential harms.
The potential harms of prostate cancer screening include fairly frequent false-positive results from PSA screening, which may lead to unnecessary anxiety and biopsies. In addition, early detection and treatment may result in complications from treating some cancers that may never have affected a patient's health.
As explained in the "disease-mongering" criterion, the reporter did not discuss the evidence about PSA screening. Nor did he discuss any evidence about proton beam therapy. How could a journalist handle this issue? The New York Times included this quote in its recent story:
“There are no solid clinical data that protons are better,” said Dr. Theodore S. Lawrence, the chairman of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan. “If you are going to spend a lot more money, you want to make sure the patient can detect an improvement, not just a theoretical improvement.”
No harms were discussed for either the proton beam therapy or for the broad PSA testing recommendation that the reporter made. The reporter simply said "protons can be focused right on the tumor with few side effects." That is insufficient detail. What are they? How often do they occur?
The reporter never said anything about the novelty of proton beam therapy, questions about evidence and cost, and about its limited availability.
There was no attempt to quantify the benefits of proton beam therapy.
The story was about the reporter's own treatment - so it's clear it didn't rely on a news release.
Claims were made about proton beam therapy, and advice was given about PSA testing, without any expert source being interviewed.
The story focused on the reporter's own proton beam therapy. The reporter said, "I was confused by all the treatment options: surgery, radiation, various other therapies." This story didn't clear up any confusion that viewers might have.
The story also included the reporter's own recommendation that men should be screened annually for prostate cancer. The option of not being screened was never mentioned.
Total Score: 1 of 10 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.