“Advance” in PSA test challenged by Hutch research

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

No mention of costs.

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.