This week’s Journal of the American Medical Association published a paper, “Cancer Screening Among Patients With Advanced Cancer,” that concludes:
“A sizeable proportion of patients with advanced cancer continue to undergo cancer screening tests that do not have a meaningful likelihood of providing benefit.”
The authors write that this “adds to the mounting concern about overdiagnosis.”
A “Clinician’s Corner” column in the same journal, “Managing Medications in Clinically Complex Elders,” is another noteworthy read. Excerpt:
“Multiple medication use is common in older adults and may ameliorate symptoms, improve and extend quality of life, and occasionally cure disease. Unfortunately, multiple medication use is also a major risk factor for prescribing and adherence problems, adverse drug events, and other adverse health outcomes. Using the case of an older patient taking multiple medications, this article summarizes the evidence-based literature about improving medication use and withdrawing specific drugs and drug classes. It also describes a systematic approach for how health professionals can assess and improve medication regimens to benefit patients and their caregivers and families.”
Last week in Amsterdam, I met Johanna Trimble of Vancouver, BVC, who has told “the story of how her mother-in-law’s health deteriorated when she was put on many medications but improved when her health professionals agreed with the family to try a drug holiday.” In fact, her poster about this story at the “Selling Sickness” conference won an award.
Johanna gave me a book, “A Bitter Pill: How the Medical System is Failing the Elderly,” by Dr. John Sloan. I haven’t read it yet. But she said she was delighted that it captured many of the issues she had confronted – some of the same issues touched on in this week’s JAMA.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.
Michael Kirsch, M.D.
October 13, 2010 at 7:57 amNot only are advanced cancer patients subjected to screening tests -medical sillyness – but many are also subjected to medical treatments for their disease that have risks and great expense,but marginal clinical benefit, if any.
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