Urine test improves prostate diagnosis: study
Reviewed By
Rating
Urine test improves prostate diagnosis: study
Our Review Summary
This story reported on a diagnostic test for prostate cancer, indicating how its use improved the ability to distinguish prostate cancer from other prostate issues. Although it mentioned that the test has been approved for use in Europe since 2006 but not in the US, it didn’t tell us why. Has the company not submitted it for approval here yet? What, if any, concerns have been raised?
Why This Matters
Men may be concerned about overly enthusiastic diagnosis of prostate cancer and resulting treatment of disease that does not necessarily require active treatment in the lifetime of the man with the lesion. In this story we heard a researcher’s enthusiasm about his own study results, but we really didn’t learn whether the test has been shown to have any impact on men’s decisions or their outcomes.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
Although this product is used elsewhere in the world, there was no estimate of its cost.
Satisfactory
The story reported on the specificity of this test as compared with test most commonly in use in the US.
Satisfactory
The story did include sufficient information to conclude that with this test, there were still both false positive and false negative results. There was, however, no discussion about whether this test had any role in helping men who really didn’t require treatment to avoid such treatment.
Not Satisfactory
The information in the story comes from a study presented at the recent meeting of the American Urological Association. The story described the sensitivity and specificity of this assay. It indicated the number of men with elevated PSA levels that were studied as well as the percentage that were found to have cancer, though it did not indicate anything about the stage of the cancer.
But two key points were missing:
- The story should have at least mentioned that these results, presented at a scientific meeting, have not yet been peer reviewed.
- Because this test is already approved for use in Europe, there already exists a literature about it which was not mentioned in this piece.
Satisfactory
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
Not Satisfactory
Only a single conflicted source was quoted: one of the principal investigators of the study reported on. Considering this study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association, it seems that there were many around who could have offered expert opinion and insight about this test.
Not Satisfactory
The outcomes from this test were compared to that of the PSA test. There could have been at least a line, however, about the many other tests currently being tested for their ability to diagnose and predict the future course of prostate cancer. For example, on the same day this study was presented at the American Urological Association meeting, at least one other study about another prostate test looking for increased levels of genetic material was presented at the same meeting.
Satisfactory
The story stated that this test is approved for use in Europe but not the US.
Satisfactory
The story accurately reported that this test is used in Europe but is not approved for use in the US. It would have been interesting for readers to hear some of the reasons why.
Not Applicable
Not applicable. We can’t be sure of the extent to which a news release may have influenced this story.
Total Score: 5 of 9 Satisfactory
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