HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Grand Slam Champ: John McEnroe Raising Awareness On Cancer
August 27, 2009
Another low point for CBS. An ex-jock promotes early prostate screening that lacks the support of many medical experts. No disclosure that his appearance was paid for by a drug company. Shameful.
Our Review Summary
This has been a very good week for former tennis star John McEnroe. But not so good for men who may have seen him on TV.
- A prime time appearance on CNN's Larry King Live promoting prostate cancer screening
- A CBS Early Show appearance promoting prostate cancer screening
And he was getting paid all the time by a drug company - something clearly noted on the website that McEnroe promoted - but something CBS never disclosed on the air.
CBS merely turned over the network to this drug company sponsored message - a message that has the support of the American Urological Association but that lacks the support of other respected medical organizations such as the American Cancer Society and the US Preventive Services Task Force.
Another terrible example of the one-sided - potentially harmful - information often disseminated on the network TV morning programs.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The availability of prostate cancer screening is not in question. If anything, questions about overtesting should have been discussed but weren't.
There was no discussion of the cost of prostate cancer screening or treatment.
CBS let the tennis star get away with saying:
(McEnroe:) "When they started this campaign they were looking for 50 year olds. ... But since then they’ve talked about being tested even earlier. The American Urological Association has said 40 is the new time to go out there."
The American Urological Association may have said that but many other medical expert groups do not endorse that recommendation.
So the CBS report didn't practice journalism - but, rather, unchallenged advocacy of a particular belief. And the network TV fear-mongering to everyone 40 and over is unacceptable.
Updated American Urological Association guidelines suggest that men start PSA screening at age 40. But updated American Cancer Society recommendations state something quite different - something not expressed in this CBS segment, namely:
The American Cancer Society (ACS) does not support routine testing for prostate cancer at this time. ACS does believe that health care professionals should discuss the potential benefits and limitations of prostate cancer early detection testing with men before any testing begins. This discussion should include an offer for testing with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test and digital rectal exam (DRE) yearly, beginning at age 50, to men who are at average risk of prostate cancer and have at least a 10-year life expectancy.
And the US Preventive Services Task Force states:
- that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening in men younger than age 75 years. The USPSTF recommends against screening for prostate cancer in men age 75 years or older.
There was no discussion of the harms of prostate cancer screening. The US Preventive Services Task Force reminds men:
Potential harms from PSA screening include additional medical visits, adverse effects of prostate biopsies, anxiety, and overdiagnosis (the identification of prostate cancer that would never have caused symptoms in the patient's lifetime, leading to unnecessary treatment and associated adverse effects). Much uncertainty surrounds which cases of prostate cancer require treatment and whether earlier detection leads to improvements in duration or quality of life.
no claims of novelty were made
Guess what? The tennis star - whose appearance was being paid for by a drug company - didn't discuss any evidence.
In essence, CBS caved in on a huge public relations campaign promoting prostate cancer awareness without using any expert medical source for this segment. The segment refers viewers to a website - http://www.prostatecancerwatch.com - that is funded by a drug company. That was never disclosed on the air.
An overwhelming "UNSATISFACTORY" score on this. The only source was the former tennis star, promoting one medical organization's early promotion of prostate cancer screening - a recommendation not shared by other leading medical expert organizations.
The segment allowed the tennis star to promote a website - http://www.prostatecancerwatch.com/index.html - that clearly states:
GlaxoSmithKline funded and helped develop this campaign, including providing compensation to Mr. McEnroe.
That sponsorship was never disclosed on the air.
The option of not being screened - a very viable option for men - was never even discussed.
Total Score: 0 of 8 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.