Dr. Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society asks, “Does PSA Testing Really Reduce The Risk of Prostate Cancer Recurrence?” on his blog. Excerpts:
“I don’t normally like to criticize the work of others in this blog, other than pointing out from time to time where I may disagree with a particular viewpoint or conclusion. But an abstract that is going to be presented this coming Monday at a meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology has received some degree of coverage in the press, and those reports are exceptionally uncritical of what I consider a flawed study.
The headlines are suggesting that the study demonstrates that even though PSA tests don’t necessarily save lives, they do lead to a reduction in cancer recurrence, and therefore are valuable. I am of the opinion that no such conclusion can be drawn from this research.
I have no problem with authors doing research and presenting abstracts. That’s what we do in medical science. But when studies are promoted, and the foundation of the conclusion is very suspect, and the press does nothing to address the obvious problems with the study, then I become a bit upset.
…
This is why I emphasize so often that new studies with new thoughts have to go through a process of presentation, review, discussion and criticism. In my personal opinion, promoting this study in the press based on such a basic flaw does a disservice to the men in this country who are faced with a dilemma of trying to decide whether or not PSA screening is right for them.”
In his blog, he also points out how “SOURCE ZERO – The Project to End Prostate Cancer” – an advocacy group – is promoting the study with its own news release. In the paragraph in which he links to this news release, Lichtenfeld writes:
“That’s why I am so concerned about the press coverage this paper is receiving. It looks good, sounds good, may be good, but it is fundamentally flawed. The reporters who covered it should have realized what was going on here and backed off. This is not a paper that should influence anyone about the value of getting or not getting prostate cancer screening.”
I only wish he had named names of the news organizations he felt were misrepresenting the story. We do this every day. We need to shine a light on excellence and to expose those who do more harm than good with their stories.
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Gunther Dohse
November 2, 2010 at 7:23 pmI wished that those who question the validity of PSA testing would tell us who have prostate cancer what to do.
Can’t we use the effort nay-saying into research that gives us reliable tools?
The debate is depressing me.
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