This was a story about a treatment option for which there is little evidence available about harms and benefits. The story made it seem like a good alternative for men to improve quality of life after prostate cancer treatment. The top of the story was brimming with enthusiasm, with the quotes of caveats from clinicians indicating that this treatment is not generally considered favorably mopping up at the end. It mentioned the results of studies which weren’t really applicable to the target population and so they were likely misleading to readers without access to the medical studies themselves.
This story failed to communicate key information for individuals making treatment decisions such as the magnitude for potential benefit and harm from the treatment, its cost, and possible alternatives.
The story may have done a better job selling the physician’s new book than it did in informing readers with balanced information.
The story provided no information about the costs associated with testosterone treatment.
The benefit of this treatment, as described by the one patient interviewed, was that it made him ‘feel like a man again’. This provides the reader with no means of determining how many men could be expected to feel better or the magnitude of improvement that might be expected.
The story failed to provide quantitative information about the harms of testosterone treatment following prostate cancer treatment.
The story stated that "Understanding the pros and cons of testosterone replacement is not easy" but then spent most of its space describing the pros without elaborating on the potential risks associated with testosterone replacement. In addition to the prostate related risk potential, testosterone can affect the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, as well as breasts, testes, and skin.
The story puts forth Dr. Morgentaler’s "theory" and his new book "Testosterone for Life" as if they were pieces of scientific evidence, which they’re not.
The story included evidence that was not germane to the topic. The story was about the use of testosterone supplementation AFTER prostate cancer treatment. In support of this approach, it mentioned a 2006 study by Dr. Morgentaler which found that testosterone levels were lower in men with prostate cancer. This has little relevance about the safety or efficacy of testosterone treatment after prostate cancer treatment.
The story also stated that testosterone added to prostate cells accelerates their growth in culture. However – it did not provide any qualifier that growth in a lab is very different than in a person and so this information is of limited relevance to a man with prostate cancer.
The recent paper by Dr. Morgentaler provides what it describes as "anecdotal evidence" about the utility of testosterone supplementation after prostate cancer treatment. The quality of such evidence should have been discussed to provide some context for critically evaluating this treatment.
The story is misleading, suggesting that this one man’s worst-case scenario is representative of all men treated for prostate cancer.
Having only one patient interviewed for this piece and printing his assessment of life after prostate cancer treatment (‘Life was miserable’) is disease mongering and does not provide a balanced view. If the intent was to inform the public that life after prostate cancer is not always pleasant, it should have included some information to indicate how often this is the case.
The story included quotes from several clinicians with relevant areas of expertise. It would have been nice to see this information at the beginning of the story rather than at the end.
There was absolutely no discussion about other treatment options for men who have gone through treatment of prostate cancer for improving quality of life.
It was clear from the article that not all doctors would prescribe testosterone for use by men with prostate cancer.
The story portrayed the use of testosterone to treat men after they had received prostate cancer treatment as something other than traditional and therefore somewhat novel. The story neglected to mention that the data on this treatment approach rests on what Dr. Morgentaler describes in his most recent paper as "anecdotal evidence." Readers should have been provided with sufficient information to know that the treatment is so novel that it hasn’t been critically evaluated.
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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