Probably the two most frequent subjects on this blog regarding the proliferation of new medical technologies are proton beam radiation therapy and robotic surgery. Since this blog focuses on media messages about health care interventions, we generally focus on the marketing claims made for these technologies.
The latest edition of the journal Current Urology Reports has published papers on both topics.
A paper, “Proton Beam Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer – Is the Hype (and the Cost) Justified?,” concludes:
“Proton beam therapy has entered the collective consciousness of the American public, and intense hype now surrounds its utilization in prostate cancer, creating a potential low signal-to-noise ratio. Clearly, this is an elegant technology with appealing properties and data supporting its safety and efficacy that spans decades. However, medicine can no longer blindly afford expensive therapies without clearly proven benefits. As such, we need to complement the existing evidence and have the resolve to perform rigorous and randomized comparative assessments of such advanced technologies to further guide clinical decision making and policy, while continuing to promote innovation.”
That’s accompanied by a paper, “Does Robotic Prostatectomy Meet Its Promise in the Management of Prostate Cancer?” While reflecting on some evidence suggesting that robotic prostatectomy results in less blood loss, fewer transfusions, a lower risk of perioperative death, and faster physical recovery and return to work, the authors conclude:
“However, whether these advantages justify the significantly higher costs of robotic technology remains to be seen. Most notably, the robot is a tool, and tools are only as good as the surgeons who wield them.”
Meantime, The Associated Press today published its story on an investigation that was announced earlier, “FDA Investigating Potential Problems with Popular Surgical Robot.”
——————————–
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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