Test May Cut Unneeded Prostate Biopsies

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

 There was no discussion of costs, which might be explained by the fact that the test is not yet available in the US.  However, since it is commercially available in several European countries, those costs should have been mentioned at the very least.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story did mention that biopsies for prostate cancer can result in infection and that the test might have utility in that it might reduce the number of biopsies done.

In general, the story focused on enhanced ability to diagnosis prostate cancer. But the story failed to question the value of the test in providing any long term benefit to the men involved.  Did it result in fewer prostate cancer deaths?  Did it result in fewer cases of metastatic disease? The story did not examine these important features for determining value and benefit.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There was no discussion of any possible harms such as diagnosing prostate cancers that won’t affect the health of the individuals or missing prostate cancers that should have been treated.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

 The information in this story was reported as coming from a news briefing held in advance of an upcoming cancer meeting. There were no caveats about drawing conclusions from non-peer-reviewed results that have been trumpeted at a news briefing. 

PCA3 is one of many tests that have been evaluated to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies.  Typically, the tests are performed before the biopsy to see whether it could improve the perfomance of PSA.  However, this study used the PCA3 to predict cancers diagnosed 2 years later.  These data are difficult to interpret because we don’t know how many of the original 1072 men actually underwent the biopsy two years later.  We also don’t know whether the PSA tests results changed over the two-year period–which often drives decisions to repeat a biopsy–meaning that the PCA3 might not be providing much useful additional information.

Finally, in reporting on the results presented, the story neglected to mention that this was a sub-analysis of the data collected.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

While the story mentions that men with higher PCA3 scores are more likely to have aggressive cancers, there are no data reported to support the claim. A major problem was that the story failed to provide any information to the effect that not all prostate cancers are likely to cause harm. Without including this counterpoint, the story does, indeed, disease monger about prostate cancer.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

 There was no discussion of the myriad of molecules that are currently being investigated for their potential to provide better information for detecting the bad prostate cancers.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

 This story failed to mention that peer reviewed studies examining the utility of PCA3 have not found it to be significantly associated with progression of prostate cancer.  Reporting on the results of this recent study, based on information from a company spokesperson without examining what others may have found to date is inadequate.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Satisfactory

 The story reported that the information it contained was based on a presentation that occurred prior to the start of the 2010 Genitourinary Cancer Symposium.  It does not appear to include information from independent sources. This is news coverage via news conference – far from best practice.