Cancer Antigen 125 (CA-125) is a protein found on the surface of certain types of ovarian cancer cells. The CA-125 test is used to monitor and guide treatment for ovarian cancer but has not been shown to be an effective screening test for average-risk women. This is because the test can come back elevated for many reasons and the false positive rate is high. However, according to new, unpublished results to be presented at next month’s American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting, monitoring change in CA-125 over time and incorporating other factors to identify higher-risk women for additional testing may identify ovarian cancers at a stage when they are treatable.
The full results have not yet been presented or published and a larger, ongoing study in the UK should provide more clarification as to whether this method should be used for widespread screening. Until then, caution should be used in interpreting these results.
This story meets all of the criteria in relatively few words. It provides an adequate description of the current study, quantifies the benefits and harms of the test and compares it to existing alternatives (of which there are none). It does not engage in disease mongering and quotes an independent expert who provides valuable insight.
The story does mention how much the blood test and ultrasound cost, but could have raised the question of whether this might be too expensive given that thousands of women must be tested in order to find one case of ovarian cancer.
Key perspective in the story from Dr. Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society: “More research and refining needs to be done before it should be implemented. I can remember when doctors all rushed to adopt the Prostate Specific Antigen test, and we still don’t know how to use it.”
The story does mention how much the blood test and ultrasound cost. The story could have raised the question of whether this might be too expensive given that thousands of women must be tested in order to find one case of ovarian cancer.
The story provides the number of cancers identified and false positives.
The story mentions false positive results and unnecessary exploratory surgery as potential harms of the test.
The story adequately describes the current study and provides some much-need caveats in interpreting the results.
The story does not hype the seriousness or prevalence of ovarian cancer. It is a devastating diagnosis.
The story quotes an independent expert from the American Cancer Society who provides much-needed perspective.
The story is clear to say that there is no good existing screening method and that using CA-125 alone has been proven inneffective.
The CA-125 test is clearly available. What is not clear is whether the clinical algorithm used in this study to identify high risk women is available widely or only in a research setting.
CA-125 is not new, as it is used to monitor and guide treatment for existing ovarian tumors. Its use as a screening tool for ovarian cancer is highly controversial. What is new is the idea of using a model and CA-125 testing over time to predict risk for ovarian cancer.
Because the story quotes an independent expert and a patient, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.