NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine -
Read Original Story

“Advance” in PSA test challenged by Hutch research


0 Star

“Advance” in PSA test challenged by Hutch research

Our Review Summary

This is an important story about an important topic – the effort to improve PSA screening for prostate cancer by using PSA velocity, or a measure of the rate of change in PSA readings over time. While the article does mention some of the limitations of PSA screening, the article does not discuss the broader controversies of whether prostate cancer screening by any method reduces the chance of death or improves quality of life, or in fact, whether early identification and treatment of prostate cancer does more good than harm. The question is whether the article, which is reporting on what factors may influence PSA velocity, should have discussed these more global issues. Because of the controversy and lack of proven benefit of PSA screening, the failure to address these larger issues is a critical omission. Finally, the story presents an example of disease-mongering when it describes prostate cancer as “lethal,” providing numbers of new cases and numbers of deaths, but failing to mention that these numbers taken together suggest that most men diagnosed with prostate cancer are not destined to die of it.


Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

There is no discussion of the lack of proven benefit of PSA screening (using any

approach) to extend or improve quality of life, which is key whenever PSA screening is discussed. The question is whether

the article should have mentioned the lack of proven benefit of PSA screening, which we believe it should have.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story does mention

some harms of screening, namely the chance that a man can still have cancer despite a normal screening result (a false

negative) and anxiety associated with screening. However, these are only a few of the harms associated with screening and

there was no discussion of the broader issues of whether screening and ultimately early treatment of prostate cancer does

more good than harm. Because the bigger issues are not discussed, the discussion of harms are not balanced.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

There is no mention of the strength of the evidence. The latest study is an

observational study, but this may not be obvious to the reader and there is no comment about whether the study was performed

prospectively or retrospectively or the possibility of confounding (for instance, if the associations noted were based on

recall or more objective measures).

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

While the story very clearly states there are problems with PSA testing (and provides a very specific example showing that a

“normal” screening result may not mean a man does not have cancer), there is no discussion that screening may do more harm

than good. The key to the screening debate is that there is no proof yet that screening leads to longer or better quality of

life, yet can have definite drawbacks (such as further invasive testing, anxiety, and side effects from cancer treatment).

The story uses scare tactics to promote prostate cancer being “lethal” providing numbers of new cases and numbers of deaths,

but what the story doesn’t mention is that those numbers taken together suggest that most men diagnosed with prostate cancer

are not destined to die of prostate cancer.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

No independent

verification of the study findings was obtained. The only interviewed expert was the lead researcher.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story describes using serial PSA

testing to determine velocity and describes an alternative, using a single PSA reading to make decisions for biopsy.

Disadvantages of using PSA velocity are discussed–mainly that PSA velocity may provide no better measure than a single

reading since velocity can fluctuate as a result of non-cancerous processes. While it appears the criteria is satisfied,

there is no mention about not screening at all–a very reasonable alternative, given the lack of evidence that screening does

more good than harm. Because this is a key point in the screening controversy and was not mentioned, this is unsatisfactory.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

Using PSA

velocity requires calculations based on a series of PSA tests taken over a minimum of a year. It seems fair to assume that

not all physicians endorse this or are familiar with calculating PSA velocity. If a patient is interested in using velocity,

it’s not clear whether he can go to his local doctor or not. Using PSA velocity for screening is also currently not part of

any known recommendations from guideline-issuing organizations, like the American Urological Association or United States

Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). This fact is also not discussed.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The article is not clear

whether measurements of PSA velocity are new.. The story does imply that physicians began to be interested in using PSA

velocity for screening after a 2004 study was published. However, PSA velocity has been around for years and used in other

applications, for instance, to follow disease progression (as opposed to screening) after surgery or radiation.

Total Score: 0 of 9 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.