June 10, 2014

Slow down on making claims for semen test for prostate cancer

Posted By

Tags

prostate cancer, prostate cancer diagnosis, semen

Recently, all sorts of sensational headlines popped up about:

Semen test may improve prostate cancer detection

Semen test for prostate cancer helps diagnose early warning signs

Prostate cancer accurately identified with semen test

Prostate cancer diagnosis may be more accurate with semen test

Semen test is latest diagnostic prostate cancer tool and may be best

Whoa. Look at the phrases I highlighted. Slow down. What, precisely, has been found?

I asked one of our contributors, Dr. Richard Hoffman, who tracks prostate cancer research, to comment. He wrote:

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is not a very good cancer screening test. Most men with an elevated PSA level do not have cancer. Up to 40% of cancers detected by PSA are considered overdiagnosed–they would never cause any problems during a man’s lifetime. Investigators are fervently seeking a better biomarker for prostate cancer–one that would not have so many false positives and one that could predict which cancers are potentially dangerous and need to be treated. Now investigators from the University of Adelaide report “the presence of certain molecules in seminal fluid indicates not only whether a man has prostate cancer, but also the severity of the cancer.” However, the news release from the University and all of the news stories we saw are remarkably devoid of details. Although we’re told that investigators evaluated microRNA in 60 men, readers are left to assess the value of these new biomarkers only through the ambiguous statement that “these microRNA were surprisingly accurate in detecting cancer.” The most telling comment is that investigators are next going to validate their results in a larger patient group–implying that the test is a long way from being clinically useful.

Neither Dr. Hoffman nor I – through our respective university libraries – were able to access the full manuscript – only the abstract in the journal Endocrine-Related Cancer. And given how much of the news coverage seemed to echo and pull quotes from the University of Adelaide news release, we don’t think many journalists tracked down the published work either.

In our view, it’s far too early to speculate what all of those headlines above speculated.

I still haven’t given up hope on someday reviewing not only health care news stories but also health care-related news releases. This may be another prime example of research news disseminated to the public via news release – not by independent journalistic vetting.

———————–

https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer

https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu

and on Facebook.

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.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.