Note to our followers: Our nearly 13-year run of daily publication of new content on HealthNewsReview.org came to a close at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. But all of the 6,000+ articles we have published contain lessons to help you improve your critical thinking about health care interventions. And those will be still be alive on the site for a couple of years.
Read Original Story

Researchers Say Common Test For Prostate Cancer May Not Work

Rating

3 Star

Categories

Researchers Say Common Test For Prostate Cancer May Not Work

Our Review Summary

The imbalance in the story occurred in that it only discussed the perils of failing to treat prostate cancer aggressively enough because of a treatment course based on clinical staging.  But the flip side is equally important and the story did not mention the pitfalls of treating a prostate cancer that was not destined to be problematic.

 

Why This Matters

Understanding the aggressiveness of a prostate cancer is crucial for making decisions about whether and how to treat the cancer. This story could have done a better job in reminding readers that some prostate cancers are aggressive disease but that most are not.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There was no discussion of costs.  What does clinical staging add to a man’s bill?  Especially if this is a “wakeup call to those who are over-relying on the clinical staging system” – as the story states – what impact could that have on costs?

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

Satisfactory

The story covered a study that raised questions about clinical staging being “worthless.”  The story made clear that there were serious new questions about the absence of benefit.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story mentioned that doctors ‘erred 35% of the time’ with clinical staging and this leads doctors to conclude that a given prostate cancer “is less serious than it really is.”  However – this is only half of the story.  There’s also a significant harm that occurs from overtreatment of lesions that were never destined to be problematic.  To be balanced and complete, the story should have mentioned this as well because it is another important problem.

For example, a MedPageToday story addressed this issue:  “For those men with prostate cancer found to have been staged incorrectly, the assigned clinical stage was too low 55.1% of the time — and too high in 44.9% of cases.”

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

Not Satisfactory

We never learned how the study was done and, thus, were given no basis to judge the quality of the evidence.

By comparison, a MedPageToday story addressed limitations of the study:

“Limitations of the study included the differences among clinicians in their levels of skill in physical examinations and imaging interpretations, and the fact that the current analysis only included patients who underwent radical prostatectomy.”

 

 

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

There was an imbalance in the story in that it only discussed the perils of failing to treat prostate cancer aggressively enough because of a treatment course based on clinical staging.  But the flip side is equally important and the story did not mention the pitfalls of treating a prostate cancer that was not destined to be problematic.

So, in effect, the story only focused on the aggressive prostate cancers but didn’t remind readers that most prostate cancers are not.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

An expert in this field without ties to the study reported on was quoted in this story.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The story included one expert’s perspective that the new study questioning the value of clinical staging “may not make much difference in the real world” because other tests are used like the Gleason score and the percentage of biopsies that are positive for cancer cells.  So some attempt was made to put this into the context of other tests that are used.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story states that clinical staging is “widely used” and that 10 years ago the American College of Surgeons “decreed that doctors should use these types of clinical staging tests to help decide how to treat cancers.”

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story reported that clinical staging has been recommended for use by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer for the past 10 years and gave one doctor’s statement that “this is the first study that quantifies the magnitude of the inadequacy.”

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

Satisfactory

Does not appear to rely solely on a news release.

Total Score: 6 of 10 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.