An article published in the Annals of Internal Medicine adds new fuel to the debate over the utility of lung cancer screening. The ongoing results of the National Lung Screening Trial from the National Cancer Institute are highly anticipated and many hope it will bring some clarity to this controversial topic. The full results won’t be available for another year or two, however this week’s publication provides a look at an important drawback of screening: false positive results. Preliminary results show that up to a third of all suspicious nodules found on CT scan were not actually cancer. For the patient, this means unnecessary anxiety, additional follow-up testing, and potentially risky and invasive procedures. Fundamentally, whether or not screening the benefits of screening justify these risks remains to be seen.
This story, in relatively few words, is notably strong in describing these risks, not only in quantitative terms, but in terms that are meaningful to someone considering screening.
Both CT scans and x-rays generate significant numbers of false positive results when used to screen for lung cancer. Patients should carefully consider the consequences of these tests before initiating screening.
The story clearly states the cost of a CT scan. The story could have commented on the fact that insurance may not cover it as a screening test.
Because the story focuses on the false positivity rate of CT scanning, it would not be necessary for it to also quantify the potential benefits.
The story is particularly strong in its description and quantification of potential harms from CT screening. Not only does the story quantify the percentage of false positive results, but it clearly and vividly describes what they mean to the patient.
The story does a good job of describing the current study, a large randomized trial from the National Cancer Institute.
The story could have been improved by quoting independent experts who could have provided more perspective on the importance of these findings.
The story compares CT scanning to conventional X-rays as a screening method.
CT scanning to detect and/or diagnose lung cancer is clearly widely available.
CT scanning to detect and/or diagnose lung cancer is not a new idea. Whether to use this technology to screen widely for lung cancer is a relatively new and highly controversial idea.
There is no way to know if the story relied 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