This week the National Institutes of Health convened an “NIH State-of-the-Science Conference on Enhancing Use and Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening.“
The only story I could find on it was in the Columbus Dispatch.
But I’ve seen no news coverage about what a friend who attended the conference reported to me.
I’ve now verified with various attendees that there were clear new signs of the turf war between gastroenterologists – keepers of the traditional colonoscopy approach – and radiologists – who are more inclined to favor the new kid “virtual colonoscopy.”
More than just “inside baseball” about “inside your colon,” this is another war over evidence in health care.
The NIH panel was not charged with judging the relative value of different colon cancer screening methods.
But it sounds like some of the parties who attended had a different expectation and so the conference they got was not the conference they wanted.
I’m told that radiologists were upset – demanding at least more recognition of the benefits of virtual colonoscopy (or CT colonography) if not a downright endorsement. Some stated their disapproval of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force statement that “the evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of computed tomographic colonography (ed. note: and fecal DNA testing, for that matter).” And they’re upset about the subsequent decision by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services not to cover the newer test.
Radiologists wanted more recognition of the large American College of Radiology Imaging Network trial.
I’m told that there were several radiologists who got up and basically screamed at the panel members for being in the “dark ages”. They cited the American Cancer Society recommendations that conflict with the USPSTF on the virtual colonoscopy and also evoked what they called the “mammography disaster,” referring to the USPSTF mammography recommendations released last November – another time the USPSTF and Cancer Society disagreed.
One of the speakers at the NIH conference said that the Cancer Society does not use a formal process for evaluating the evidence, does not provide details about how they come to their conclusions and includes only sub-specialists on their panel – raising questions about conflict of interest in their recommendations.
So even though that’s not what the meeting was about, there was scuffling over screening method vs. screening method, turf wars, and conflict of interest in the setting of guidelines or recommendations.
So this one isn’t over.
And it’s difficult to understand why this didn’t get news coverage. It sure sounded newsworthy to me.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Roshan
February 5, 2010 at 2:08 pmI agree the information is newsworthy. However, I have some concerns about your unnamed NIH speaker who raised questions about ACS screening guidelines and the process for evaluation the evidence.
You give credence to a baseless statement made by the unnamed NIH speaker re: the evaluation of evidence by the ACS panel. The point about including only sub-specialists also misses the mark.
I encourage you to link to the following URL for more information on the CRC screening guidelines.
http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/58/3/130
Gary Schwitzer
February 5, 2010 at 2:36 pmRoshan,
Thanks for your comments.
This post, as written, gives no more credence to what one speaker said than it does to what others said about the NIH panel being “in the dark ages” or referring to “the mammography disaster.” Some would say those were baseless, off the mark comments as well.
My point, at the beginning, at the end, and throughout, is to give a sense of the temperature of the room – as told to me my several who were there – and to question why journalists weren’t there to capture it and explore further.
So I’m pleased to see that you agree with me that this was, indeed, newsworthy.
TRL
February 8, 2010 at 6:08 pmI think you got it right. I was there, and the radiologists were on the warpath. Their agenda was not what the meeting was about, though. The criticisms of ACS were fair. It is surprising that there was not more press coverage. Discussing why people may not choose to be screened is less sexy than discussing the latest technology.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like