The story attempts to provide information about a recently published survey of hospitals noting that 17% now offer CT colonoscopy, up from 14% 3 years prior. Why is that important? Is that number high or low? The headline suggests that the method is gaining, but up 3% is hardly an overwhelming response.
We also think the story missed an opportunity since it could have provided readers with more information about who is potentially best served by the virtual test. Elderly, frail patients who cannot undergo both the bowel prep and sedation are prime candidates. If you are going to ask readers a question – “Is It Right For You?” – you should give them enough information to come up with an educated answer.
Colonoscopy is not the only colon cancer screening option. And the somewhat growing popularity of the virtual colonoscopy approach should not push it to the top of the list of considerations.
When this story ends with “it’s a matter of personal preference – it’s less important how you get screened, just that you do get screened” – it wraps up without giving readers the complete list of choices they should consider.
No discussion of cost except a vague line about “the relatively low cost of investing in the software and other equipment.” But nothing on the patient charges. For a story headlined, “Is It Right For You?” this would seem to be important.
And the discussion of Medicare coverage is wrong when it says that the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded the evidence “wasn’t strong enough to justify Medicare coverage.” The USPSTF concluded that the evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of computed tomographic colonography and fecal DNA testing as screening modalities for colorectal cancer.” What Medicare chooses to do is its decision – not that of the USPSTF.
No quantification of benefit. And no adequate comparison with other colon cancer screening techniques.
The story states that virtual colonoscopy “involves exposure to a small amount of radiation. But according to Dr. Marc Gollub, director of CT and gastrointestinal radiology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, “the radiation is much lower than a regular CT scan and has not been proven to be of any risk. It’s similar to [the exposure from cosmic radiation] you might get on a long airplane flight.”
The USPSTF states: “Radiation exposure resulting from CT colonography is reported to be 10 mSv per examination. The harms of radiation at this dose are not certain, but the linear no-threshold model predicts that 1 additional individual per 1000 would develop cancer in his or her lifetime at this level of exposure. The lifetime cumulative radiation risk from the use of CT colonography to screen for colorectal cancer should be considered in the context of the growing cumulative radiation exposure from the use of other diagnostic and screening tests that involve radiation exposure. On the other hand, improvements in CT colonography technology and practice are lowering this radiation dose.”
We think that broader context should have been provided to readers.
Insufficient. We only get a line about “growing body of data” suggesting that virtual colonoscopy is as sensitive as colonoscopy. But no details are given. There are reasons why some experts say the evidence is insufficient. What are they?
Quotes only one expert in the story – a director of a CT center.
While the story discusses what unnamed skeptics say, we should have heard from some directly to balance the story.
The story creates a false dichotomy – as if screening is a choice between regular colonoscopy or CT colonoscopy. And it inaccurately states that “the American Cancer Society, the American College of Physicians and other gastroenterology experts recommend virtual screening every five years.” That is not, for example, what the American Cancer Society recommends.
On the ACS website, a range of choices are presented – not just virtual colonoscopy – making the story’s statement misleading at best. The ACS website states:
Beginning at age 50, both men and women should follow one of these testing schedules:
And it’s odd that the story never mentioned a new statement by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reminding women that they have a range of screening options including high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test.
The story is based on estimates of the rising use of virtual colonoscopy and cites one estimate that 17% of US hospials now offer it. The story suggests that the availability of CT colonoscopy is “on the rise.” In reality the study in question actually demonstrated only a 3% increase over a 3 year period. Is that high or low?
The story adequately frames the growing use of this technology.
Does not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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