This news release summarizes a study published in Lancet Oncology which looked at the appropriate frequency of screening using low-dose computed tomography (CT) for lung cancer in former smokers. The 7-year study included more than 19,000 individuals with an initial negative CT scan. These patients were much less likely to have lung cancer on future scans compared to those whose initial scans had detected an abnormality. The news release provides good descriptions of the benefits and evidence from the study.
A re-analysis of the world’s largest lung cancer screening trial could have major consequences for patients and health systems. This study found that if initial low-dose CT screening is negative then less frequent subsequent screening seems reasonable. The study also pointed out an important side effect of reduced screening: reduced exposure of patients to radiation and over-diagnosis. In addition, reducing the frequency of screening CT from once a year to even once every two years in a sub group will reduce the costs of screening dramatically.
The release appropriately mentioned that a changed frequency of screening could save millions of dollars in subsequent screenings and “reduced downstream” effects of false positive tests.
A thorough discussion of the absolute numbers affected gives a good sense of the magnitude of the benefits. The release noted, “In the first year after a negative screen and before the scheduled first annual screen, 17 patients (0.9 percent of all initial negative LDCT participants) were diagnosed with lung cancer.”
Another benefit described is the potential to dramatically reduce the number of false positive tests. According to the release, almost 40 percent of the entire group of patient volunteers (26,231 people) in the 7-year National Lung Screening Trial were given a false positive study result.
Excessive radiation exposure and risk of false positives were both mentioned.
The news release does a good job describing how the researchers achieved their findings, the demographics of the patients involved, and the absolute numbers for outcomes (the small number of patients who encountered cancer following a clear initial CT scan). The release says that the researchers examined data taken from a large prospective study. It would have been good to spell out for readers that this study was retrospective — a re-analysis of components of a larger randomized controlled trial. The news release does allude to some of the limitations of the research stated in the discussion section of the published results. For example, the release makes note of the high incidence of false positives inherent in screening tests. The published report also states that the study could not clearly discern whether the low incidence of tumors in the group studied was due to early, slow growing tumors (“a direct effect of indolent biological behaviour”) or to volunteers being resistant to tobacco-induced lung injury. The lead study author is quoted in the release saying “improving the accuracy of LDCT screening for lung cancer would also significantly reduce the number of annual screens.”
Taken on the whole, we give the release a Satisfactory for this criteria.
No disease mongering here. This was a balanced news release.
No funding or conflicts of interest were mentioned in the news release. While changes in lung cancer screening schedules could have benefits for a wide range of people, we’d still like the release to address the issue of sponsorship. We’re not implying there was a conflict (we don’t know if there were outside funders), but if a manufacturer did sponsor such a study it could pose a potential for conflict of interest that readers should be made aware of.
The release mentions alternatives in two different contexts. Chest radiography was an alternative test to CT scans. The study set out to analyze the most beneficial frequency of screenings and concluded that less frequency is a better alternative for smokers with an initial negative screen.
The release doesn’t specify where low-dose CT is used and if most readers can access it. We do know that the screen has been approved for use in the United States and is being adopted by some health centers.
There were no misleading statements of novelty of the CT screening, just novelty of interval which were appropriate.
The release has suitable, measured language throughout.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
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