A recent study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute injects more controversy to the question of the utility of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. The study estimates that between 23 and 42 percent of cancers found with PSA testing would never go on to cause a problem or be detected by other means (i.e., by symptoms or digital rectal exam). These cancers are considered overdiagnosis because identifying them does nothing to improve the health of the man. In fact, in these cases, finding these cancers does more harm than good because the man is subjected to treatments that cause very difficult side effects, such as impotence and incontinence.
This story does a good job of describing the current study and its implications. It adequately describes the availability and novelty of PSA testing and does not engage in disease mongering. It mentions several potential harms of PSA testing and adequately quantifies the risk of overdiagnosis.
The story discusses the benefits and risks related to undergoing a PSA test–implying that no testing is an option and that this would decrease over-diagnosis. The story could have described more of the tradeoffs involved in this choice.
The story could have been improved by describing the costs of PSA testing.
The story does not mention the cost of PSA testing or the costs of prostate cancer treatment. Overtesting that leads to overtreatment has significant cost implications and should be part of the story.
The story provides percentages of the cases that are thought to be overdiagnosis, that is cancers that were found by PSA testing that would never have gone on to be detected or cause a problem if they had not been found by screening.
The story mentions several harms of PSA testing, including false positive results and overdiagnosis, both of which could lead to unnecessary treatments associated with significant side effects.
The story adequately describes the current study and the uncertainty about the use of PSA testing.
The story accurately describes the seriousness and prevalence of prostate cancer, highlighting that not all prostate cancers need to be treated, and is careful to explain what a high PSA test means.
The story quotes more than one expert who is not associated with the current study.
The story discusses the benefits and risks related to undergoing a PSA test–implying that no testing is an option and that this would decrease over-diagnosis. The story could have described more of the tradeoffs involved in this choice.
Clearly PSA testing is available.
Clearly PSA testing is not a new idea.
Because the story quotes several sources, it’s safe to assume it did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
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