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.
No mention of costs.
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.
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.
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).
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.
No independent
verification of the study findings was obtained. The only interviewed expert was the lead researcher.
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.
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.
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.
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