HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
New prostate cancer test shows greater accuracy
April 26, 2007
Researchers at Johns Hopkins say they have developed a more accurate blood screening test for prostate cancer. It’s very preliminary, but it might spare many men the unnecessary ordeal of a biopsy.
Our Review Summary
This story reported on early, preliminary results with a new test that might be used for prostate cancer. The story missed an opportunity to put the news of yet another new way to detect prostate cancer into perspective. When giving the facts, rather than the number of biopsies, it would have been helpful to simply show the number of men diagnosed and the number of men who actually die to let the sheer epidemiology of the disease help men to understand that this cancer isn't always a killer. At least the story could have included one line that screening is controversial regardless of method chosen, because it isn't yet clear if treatment saves lives.
The emphasis of the story was on how this test might result in fewer false alarm (false positive) test results than the current PSA test.
But one would also want to know how well the test finds cancer, and no information was given about that.
In TV news, graphics and pictures carry as much or more weight as the words scripted or voiced in interviews. At the beginning of the piece there was a graphic that stated: "Prostate cancer in the U.S. – 1.6 million men undergo prostate biopsies each year." That graphic, setting the stage for the story - can be misleading and confusing to viewers. It could easily be inferred that 1.6 million men each year develop prostate cancer. And therefore we rate it as disease-mongering. The American Cancer Society estimates that during 2007 about 218,890 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed in the United States - a number not provided in the story.
The story interviewed the principal investigator and one other leading urologist. However, it did not disclose what was abundantly clear even in a Johns Hopkins news release: the principal investigator receives a share of the royalties received on sales of the test. He is also a paid consultant to the manufacturer of the test.
There were no quotes from anyone expressing skepticism about the development. Even the ABC news website had a story with three different experts quoted saying it is too early to draw any conclusions about if and when the test will gain widespread acceptance. But TV viewers heard none of that.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story makes it clear that this is early, preliminary research on a test not yet approved by the FDA.
There was no mention of costs - not of the current PSA test, not of what the new test may cost, not of biopsies.
In TV news, graphics and pictures carry as much or more weight as the words scripted or voiced in interviews. At the beginning of the piece there was a graphic that stated: "Prostate cancer in the U.S. – 1.6 million men undergo prostate biopsies each year." That graphic, setting the stage for the story - can be misleading and confusing to viewers. It could easily be inferred that 1.6 million men each year develop prostate cancer. And therefore we rate it as disease-mongering. The American Cancer Society estimates that during 2007 about 218,890 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed in the United States - a number not provided in the story.
There was no discussion of the quality of the evidence nor any discussion of how the new test was tested.
The story suggests that false positives are the only drawback to prostate cancer screening as it is currently performed (with PSA test). But that ignores the important fact that prostate cancer screening is not yet proven effective, nor is it proven that treatment of early detected prostate cancer is effective. Since it is not yet known whether the POTENTIAL benefits of prostate cancer screening (regardless of test used) outweigh the KNOWN harms, the issue of prostate cancer screening remains controversial. And that controversy was not mentioned, which is a flaw in the story.
The story established that this is a new and different way of looking for prostate cancer.
The story attempted to explain benefit only in terms of how often false positive test results were avoided, but there was no discussion of how sensitive the test was in correctly identifying prostate cancer when it did exist.
We can't judge if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
The story interviewed the principal investigator and one other leading urologist. However, it did not disclose what was abundantly clear even in a Johns Hopkins news release: the principal investigator receives a share of the royalties received on sales of the test. He is also a paid consultant to the manufacturer of the test.
There were no quotes from anyone expressing skepticism about the development. Even the ABC news website had a story with three different experts quoted saying it is too early to draw any conclusions about if and when the test will gain widespread acceptance. But TV viewers heard none of that.
There was no mention of the many other attempts in the research pipeline to develop a better prostate cancer test. There was also no mention of the fact that any men has another important option: not being tested.
Total Score: 2 of 9 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.