This story did a few things better than its AP competition:
But AP did a better job quantifying harms.
Neither story discussed the costs of PSA tests or provided estimates of the costs for following up an increase in PSA with a biopsy. These are significant cost issues, which warranted at least a line in the stories.
PSA velocity was initially recommended to help men with abnormal PSA values (> 4) make decisions about whether to undergo biopsy because most of these men don’t have cancer. Because most elevated PSA values are false positives, PSA velocity could help men avoid unnecessary biopsies. However, recommendations began emerging to use PSA velocity to guide biopsy decisions for men with normal PSA values. No evidence ever supported these recommendations and now a well-designed analysis clearly indicates that using PSA velocity in men with normal PSA values will lead to even more unnecessary biopsies.
It was also important that this story dropped back and discussed the option of not being screened at all – thanks to the contribution Dr. Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Society made to the story.
The story did not discuss the costs of PSA tests or provide estimates of the costs for following up an increase in PSA with a biopsy. These are significant cost issues, which warranted at least a line in the story.
The story didn’t quantify the potential reduction in biopsies.
The competing AP story was much better on this point, reporting that using rising PSA levels, 1 in 7 men would have a prostate biopsy as compared with 1 in 20 men based solely on high PSA level. This suggests that change in PSA level results in 13/20 unnecessary prostate biopsies.
The story could have provided more detail on some of the possible complications resulting from prostate biopsies.
It did mention anxiety from tracking PSA levels over time.
The story included the number of men that were studied and that the men studied had taken part in a prostate cancer prevention study.
Better than its AP competition, the story mentioned that the study of PSA velocity only included those individuals who were in the placebo arm of a drug trial.
But neither story explained that this was a highly selected population – men with abnormal digital rectal exams and PSA values greater than 3 were excluded. This information is important for understanding how generalizable the result of the study might be.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
Two independent sources were quoted.
The story contrasted using change in PSA level versus simply the PSA level for their impact on prostate biopsy recommendations and subsequent diagnosis of prostate cancer.
More importantly, much more explicity than the competing AP story, this story (through the words of Dr. Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Society) addressed the option of not being screened at all. Excerpts:
It’s clear from the story that PSA tests are readily available.
The story made clear that the study was examining the relative merit of relying on a change in PSA level as indicated in some current guidelines.
Does not appear to rely solely on a news release.
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