CA-125 is the only existing blood test or tumor marker that is used for ovarian cancer follow-up. It measures a microscopic substance which is produced by the tumor and breaks off, circulating in the bloodstream. It is not elevated in every patient with ovarian cancer, and can be falsely elevated in people who have no diagnosis of cancer. That is why it is not very good for ovarian cancer screening.
This story reports on new results showing that women who got regular CA-125 testing after treatment for ovarian cancer did not have better survival than women who got no testing. These results further call into question the utility of CA-125 for monitoring recurrent ovarian cancer.
This story accurately describes the novelty, availability and harms of CA-125. It does not engage in disease mongering and does a good job of describing the current study and how it relates to current clinical thinking.
The story could have been improved by describing the costs of CA-125 testing.
This study – and this story about it – adds to the "more is not always better" knowledgebase that is growing in health care. Kudos to the NYT and to this reporter for doing a good job with it.
The story does not describe the cost of CA-125.
The story adequately quantifies the survival benefit with CA-125 compared to no testing.
The story adequately describes the major harm of CA-125 testing, which is that it could lead to unnecessary treatment in women who would not benefit from it.
The story does a good job of describing the current study and placing the results in context with current clinical thinking.
The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of Ovarian Cancer.
The story quotes several experts who are not involved in the story, providing valuable perspective on the results.
Clearly no testing is the alternative to CA-125. The story could have also mentioned regular imaging tests as a way to monitor for recurrent cancer.
Clearly CA-125 is available.
Clearly CA-125 testing for recurrent Ovarian Cancer is not a new idea.
Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
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