This story details the outcomes of a recent study examining whether the addition of male hormone therapy to radiation therapy improves outcomes for men with prostate cancer, and that the risk level of the man’s prostate cancer determines whether short term male hormone therapy is of benefit. The clear discussion of the study results should better enable readers to understand that not all prostate cancers are the same and that the approach to treatment should take into account the risk characteristic of the individual’s cancer.
It is important for men to understand that prostate cancer is not a monolith and that various therapies benefit specific groups of patients. It is not a one size fits all prospect. The lack of benefit of combined therapy for low-risk patients should be placed in the context that any treatment for low risk patients may be unnecessary.
There was no discussion of costs. Over and over again – more than 70& of >1,500 stories we’ve reviewed fail to adequately discuss costs. This has to change.
The story provided a clear description of the potential benefit seen in the group of men with intermediate risk prostate cancer who were treatment with male hormone therapy in addition to radiation therapy alone.
The harms associated with male hormone therapy were listed.
The story did a stellar job presenting information about the outcomes of chance of dying and chance of dying of prostate cancer in 10 years differed for men treated with either radiation therapy alone or in conjunction with male hormone therapy depending on whether their prostate cancer was low, intermediate, or high risk at diagnosis.
The story did not specifically mention that the study it was reported on was a randomized trial. And the information provided by the lead author indicating that the chance men with low risk prostate cancer had of surviving alone was almost 99% chance should have been that they an almost 99% chance of not dying of prostate cancer. Because the study did not include an active surveillance control group, it cannot be concluded that even radiation alone was beneficial to men with low-risk prostate cancer.
This story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story included quotes from the lead author of the study reported on along with quotes from the expert in the field who wrote an editorial about the study which accompanied its publication.
There was some discussion about how current radiation therapy differs from that received by the men in the study reported on. However there was no mention of some of the other forms of radiation therapy that are often used for men with low-risk prostate cancer such as brachytherapy.
There was no discussion of alternative approaches to prostate cancer such as surgery or delay of invasive treatment called active surveillance.
The story explained about the treatment used in the study reported on as well as how radiation therapy has changed since the men in the study were treated.
The story was clear that the treatments in the study, with some modification, are currently available.
Does not appear to rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
martin gugino
August 23, 2016 at 12:40 amSome reports have claimed that ADT added to radiation was helpful in just those cases where the radiation dose was too low.
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