Gary Schwitzer is the Founder & Publisher of HealthNewsReview.org. He tweets as @garyschwitzer.
Australian researchers at the University of Queensland reported that “a quick and easy test to detect cancer from blood or biopsy tissue could eventually result in a new approach to patient diagnosis.”
A news release quoted one of the researchers: “We certainly don’t know yet whether it’s the holy grail for all cancer diagnostics.” He also used that hyped-inducing word “breakthrough” to describe his findings.
It was all too tempting for some news outlets.
USA Today used “holy grail” and “breakthrough” in its headline.
The researcher added that “it looks really interesting as an incredibly simple universal marker of cancer.”
I have often said that anytime you hear about a “simple cancer test,” run for the hills because there’s no such thing. This researcher may be referring to the technology, but the application of that technology – the leap from lab to bedside – brings with it many levels of complexity.
That complexity wasn’t acknowledged in some news stories.
The Guardian reported: “The test has a sensitivity of about 90%, meaning it would detect about 90 in 100 cases of cancer. It would serve as an initial check for cancer, with doctors following up positive results with more focused investigations.”
As consumers try to digest this news, I think it’s important to think about those numbers. What if you had cancer and you were one of the 10% whose true cancer was not detected? Then the claim of an incredibly simple universal marker starts to sound a bit hollow.
In my scan of the news today, I haven’t seen any news stories discuss what the specificity of the test is. In other words, when it says it has found cancer, did it really find cancer or something else? If a screening test isn’t very specific, it finds a lot of false alarms that entail more tests — that can include radiation and invasive biopsies — and needless anxiety. On Twitter today, @WorkWithCancer wrote: “Although it is good news we think there’ll be issues with the process and timing of follow up to find out what the cancer is and where. ‘Scanxiety’ is real and we predict it’ll multiply hugely as people wait for further test.”
To its credit, USA Today reported that one UCLA researcher “is more concerned about the false positive rate than the 90 percent accuracy rate. Because cancer is uncommon, it is more important to prevent false diagnoses, he said.” I agree. Knowing sensitivity but not specificity is an incomplete picture. (Read our primer on “Understanding medical tests: sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value.”)
CNN also reminded readers that this isn’t the only such research making waves.
Earlier this year, researchers at John Hopkins University in the US announced they’d developed a blood test, called CancerSEEK, that screens for eight common cancer types. That test identifies the presence of cancer proteins and gene mutations in blood samples. Much more research needs to be done before that test can be widely used, the US researchers added.
So, let’s just chill about breakthroughs and holy grails for now. Applaud the science, the pursuit, the goal. But hold off on making incredibly hyperbolic statements about an incredibly simple universal marker of cancer.
.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
More for milk debates: "Switching to skim #milk may slow biological aging" https://upi.com/6975065t via @upi cc @garyschwitzer @joansalgeblake
"We can't say that this was caused by milk fat." As is often the case with nutrition studies: correlation ≠ causation.
#RelaxDammit
@HealthNewsRevu @mcjaklevic HealthNewsReview once again revealing hype that far outstrips reality. I suspect that one day, AI will meaningfully contribute to good patient care. Whether that's in 10 years or 100, I couldn't say. What is clear is that we ain't there yet.
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