Our Review Summary
In the same week that new data were published by the US National Lung Screening Trial – subject of some badly flawed national news coverage – here’s a story on a different lung screening trial in Japan.
To those journalists who are challenged by screening stories – as many are – there are many lessons from the way this story was reported:
- how to deliver caveats and limitations up high in the story and throughout
- how to emphasize what WAS shown and what WASN’T and how this might not be generalizable
- cost implications
- harms of screening.
And all in fewer than 800 words. It doesn’t require a PhD candidate writing a dissertation to evaluate evidence in a news story.
Why This Matters
Costs, harms and limitations of the evidence – issues often left out of many screening stories – were emphasized in this one.
Criteria
Satisfactory
The story emphasizes cost several times, including the estimate of a few hundred dollars per scan.
Satisfactory
The story explained: “Five years after their diagnosis, 95 percent of people whose cancers were found through a CT scan were still alive, compared to 73 percent diagnosed with an X-ray and 40 percent of patients who had not been screened and whose symptoms led to discovery their disease.”
Satisfactory
No quantification of what may have been observed in the study, but adequate general caveats were given:
“… each scan exposes a person to radiation, which also slightly increases cancer risks over time with repeated scans.
And screening comes with an inherent risk of false-positives — scans which suggest a lung cancer that turns out not to be there.
Dr. Christine Berg, one of the leaders of the U.S. screening studies, said that generally about a quarter of chest CT scans show some kind of abnormality — but 96 percent of those abnormal scans turn out not to be lung cancer. While doctors ruled out cancer, those patients would have undergone further tests, sometimes including biopsies, which can cause complications including infection and bleeding.
And for some patients, “if you really weren’t going to benefit from the screening…that complication is something you may not have faced,” Berg said. “Those are some of the things I worry about.”
Satisfactory
Limited generalizability of the findings is stressed as early as the second sentence, and the story concludes with “it’s not a home run and it clearly has these limitations.”
It also gave important context: “The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a federally-supported expert panel, has said there isn’t enough evidence for it to recommend screening for lung cancer in symptom-free people using CT scans or other methods.”
Satisfactory
No disease mongering of lung cancer.
Satisfactory
Good perspective added from one of the leaders of US lung screening studies.
Satisfactory
The focus of the story was a comparison of lung CT versus x-rays or physician followup of patient symptoms.
Satisfactory
The story differentiates between this study’s screening in people who’ve never smoked and the practice in non-Asian countries where most lung cancers are found in people who’ve smoked. It stated:
“East Asian countries are more likely to regularly screen non-smokers for lung cancer because biological differences seem to put Asians at a higher risk than other non-smokers, researchers explained.
Non-smokers without symptoms generally are not screened for lung cancer in the U.S.”
Satisfactory
The story put the new study in the context of other research in this field.
Satisfactory
It’s clear the story didn’t simply rely on a news release.
Total Score: 10 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.
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