Some reactions to the announcement that Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Chairman Warren Buffett was diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer diagnosis were a little out of control.
CNBC, for example, posted a piece entitled, “Buffett’s Cancer Scare Has Doug Kass Rethinking Berkshire.” Kass is a strategic investor. A stage one prostate cancer in a man Buffett’s age should hardly be called a “scare” nor something that should lead investors to rethink their financial strategy.
Cooler heads prevailed, for the most part. On the Wall Street Journal Health Blog, Ron Winslow wrote:
“…at his age, “a substantial number of men may not need treatment,” says Peter Carroll, chief of urology at University of California, San Francisco. Rather than risk potential side effects, including incontinence and impotence for some treatments, they opt for “active surveillance” to monitor their tumor for evidence that a more aggressive approach is necessary.
…
For those choosing treatment, says Jonathan Wright, urologist at University of Washington and the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, surgery to remove the prostate and the type of radiation Buffett will get are equally effective in curing early stage disease, though men of Buffett’s age typically lean against surgery. “The prognosis for Mr. Buffett is excellent,” he says.
But people who swear by Buffett’s investment strategy may want to think carefully before following his course on prostate care. Indeed, his case raises anew the controversy over the value of PSA testing, UCSF’s Carroll tells the Blog. While not questioning Buffett’s decision, he says “some men when they (reach age 65) and their PSAs are low, they may not benefit from testing.” Some question the value in younger men.
Early diagnosis can lead to over-detection and over-treatment of disease that will never cause any problems. “The message from [Buffett’s diagnosis] shouldn’t be that all men in their 80s get screened for PSA,” Carroll says.
Addendum later on April 18:
On the NPR Shots blog, Scott Hensley interviews a urologist who says he’d fire any resident who biopsied the prostate of an 81-year old man.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.
Comments are closed.
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