The bottom line is that the value of the new test remains quite uncertain. The study’s sample size was small, the follow-up period appeared relatively short, and the accuracy statistics were difficult to interpret. The story reports on a study in 71 men, but allows another source to throw in unsourced information about a Chicago-area study in 2,000 men.
It seems quite unlikely that – as the story states – "it will take another year or two to get enough cases to nail down the predictive value" with sufficient precision or validity to change practice. . And to tell readers that it’s already approved in Europe without providing any information on the European experience with it is not helpful.
There is no discussion of costs for this product.
While it is currently not approved for clinical use in the US, the story could have extrapolated from princing in Europe. Would it be expected to double screening costs or inflate them by a factor of 10?
The story didn’t provide quantitative data on potential benefit. The story indicated the test might help identify men who could delay or defer treatment of their prostate cancer, but it did not provide any estimate of the proportion of men that might be expected to reap this benefit.
The story also mentioned in passing an additional benefit which was that the test might reduce the frequency of prostate biopsies from every year to every other year. However it should be noted that current guidelines for the frequency of follow-up biopsies are variable and some recommend intervals of up to at least 18 to 24 months – which would mean this test would result in no change.
The story did not provide insight about the individuals who were incorrectly diagnosed in the study reported on. What percentage of men had aggressive tumors that the test failed to detect? And what percentage of men received treatment because the test identified them as having aggressive tumors but actually did not need to be treated?
The story reported that the test was 70% accurate in "singling out aggressive tumors" and that the data reported on were from a small study and finally that the results reported on had been described at a recent meeting. However the story never linked these three pieces of information together to provide a clear statement indicating that this information is preliminary.
What does it mean that the test is 70% accurate? Does it correctly identify aggressive tumors 70% of the time and that 30% of the time aggressive tumors go undetected? Or does it mean that of the tumors suggested to be aggressive, really only 70% are and the remaining 30% of men receive treatment for something that didn’t need to be treated? The story did not include enough information to know. More useful statistics in describing diagnostic tests are sensitivity–in this case the proportion of men with progressive cancer who tested positive–or specificity–the proportion of men whose cancer did not progress and who tested negative.
If this test is used in Europe, surely that use is not based on the results of the current study. Therefore the story should have included some insight about other work indicating the value of this test.
Lastly – reporting about results presented at a meeting means that these results have not been vetted by experts. The story should have indicated this.
The story did not engage in disease mongering.
Instead of suggesting in the first sentence that this test might help identify those prostate cancers that did not require immediate treatment, the story could have stated that it might identify those prostate cancers that might never require treatment.
The experts quoted in the story appear to have an association with Beckman Coulter, Inc, the company planning to market the test reported on. This was not made clear in the story.
The existing alternative is to use the PSA test, digital exam, and biopsy results to determine whether a man should consider aggressive treatment. The story does not indicate how much more accurate the new test was compared to PSA. The glib comment about a coin flip does not necessarily accurately characterize the study results.
Perhaps the story also should have told readers that there are other companies with similar sorts of tests in development.
The story mentioned that this test is currently "awaiting" FDA approval for use in the US but has already been approved for use in Europe.
This type of wording is misleading because it may imply that FDA approval is a done deal. It would be better reporting to state that the product is being considered by the FDA for approval.
It is not clear from the story what the actual components of the Prostate Health Index and the DNA content measures were. The story did not detail whether the individuals tests are being combined in a new way or whether some were new.
It does not appear that the story relied solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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