A more sensitive exam?
Reviewed By
Rating
A more sensitive exam?
Our Review Summary
The story discusses self-breast exams with and without a self-breast exam kit. The story presents the pros and cons of this relatively new addition to the arsenal of screening tools. There is little published evidence that this device is any better at detecting lumps than a traditional self-breast exam using your fingers. One physician interviewed suggests that using soap and water when conducting an exam should provide the same friction as using a self-breast exam kit with a Touch Enhancing Pad.
This 5-star story is quite balanced and provides the reader with useful information about self-breast exams. The story notes sources’ affiliations and balances comments from self-breast exam advocates (mainly Olivia Newton John as a breast cancer survivor and those who stand to gain from the sale of self-breast exam kits), with comments from breast cancer researchers. The latter provide excellent perspective on self-breast exam kits and discuss current evidence on the practice of self-breast exams.
The story lists the downsides of screening via a self-breast exam, namely, increased anxiety about benign lumps and overtreatment via biopsies for false positives. The story appropriately notes a woman’s individual risk is a factor when choosing how and when to be screened and notes that results from population-based studies may not apply to an individual woman. For example, a woman at higher-risk may feel that monitoring tissue changes via self-breast exams is useful.
Overall, the story discusses the self-breast exam kit as an option for conducting self-breast exams. The story also mentions "other tests" as options for breast cancer screening. It would helpful to note that these other tests (such as mammography with ultrasound or an MRI) are more accurate than the SBE and might be more useful for younger women or women at higher-risk of breast cancer. Additionally, screening via these other tests might avoid the need for a biopsy or other invasive treatment.
Criteria
Satisfactory
The story lists the cost of the kits: $25.
Satisfactory
The story provides unpublished data on a self-breast exam kit study and puts the results in context by also discussing a 10-year randomized controlled study looking at the efficacy of self-breast exam in detecting early-stage breast cancer. The latter study called into question the practice and noted that more benign lumps (false positives) were found and there is no real survival benefit for regular self breast exam. The story also discusses that self breast exams by themselves are not recommended for detecting breast cancer, especially in higher-risk women. The story notes that self breast exams may help women become more familiar with their breast tissue, and thus be more aware of any changes. This echoes current United States Preventative Services Task Force Guidelines which state: breast self-examinatino has not been shown to lower deaths from breast cancer. Based on current evidence, USPSTF does not recommend for or against BSE (USPSTF 2002).
Satisfactory
The story lists the downsides of screening via a self breast exam, that is, increased anxiety about benign lumps and overtreatment via biopsies for false positives. The story appropriately notes a woman’s individual risk is a factor when choosing how and when to be screened, that is, results from population-based studies may not apply to an individual woman. A woman at higher-risk may feel that monitoring tissue changes via self-breast exam is useful.
Satisfactory
The story does an excellent job presenting the lack of adequate quantitative evidence for the device, as well as the results of a large, randomized trial examining the efficacy of self breast exam for improving survival.
Satisfactory
The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story notes the pros and cons of a self-breast exam and explains that there is little evidence that the Liv Aid exam kit is more accurate (or more useful) than a traditional self-breast exam done by palpating breast tissue with your fingers.
Satisfactory
The story has a great deal of independent reporting and is quite balanced. The story notes sources’ affiliations and has a good mix of self-breast exam advocates (mainly Olivia Newton John as a breast cancer survivor and those who stand to gain from the sale of self-breast exam kits), as well as breast cancer researchers. The latter provide perspective on self-breast exam kits and discuss current evidence on the practice of self-breast exams.
Satisfactory
The story provides the self-breast exam kit as an option for conducting self-breast exams. The story also mentions "other tests" and biopsies as options for breast cancer screening. It would helpful to note that these other tests (such as mammography with ultrasound or an MRI) are more accurate than the SBE and might be more useful for younger women or women at higher-risk of breast cancer. Additionally, screening via these other tests might avoid the need for a biopsy.
Satisfactory
The story mentions self-breast exam kits may be difficult to find in some stores, and notes the lengthy process of approval. The kits with a Touch Enhancing Pad didn’t win FDA approval until 1997, though they were patented in 1987.
Satisfactory
The story presents the pros and cons of this relatively new addition to the arsenal of screening tools. The story discusses self-breast exams with and without a self breast exam kit. There is little published evidence that this device is any better at detecting lumps than a traditional self breast exam using your fingers. One physician interviewed suggests that using soap and water when conducting an exam should provide the same friction as using a self-breast exam kit.
Satisfactory
There is independent reporting from multiple sources and information in this story does not appear to be taken directly from a press release.
Total Score: 10 of 10 Satisfactory
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.