NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Urine test for prostate cancer may be better than blood test

Rating

2 Star

Urine test for prostate cancer may be better than blood test

Our Review Summary

This story didn’t meet as many of our criteria as the competing WebMD story did, but this one was much shorter.

Perhaps as a direct result of its brevity, it didn’t adequately address the current status of availability of the test, the cost (even projected cost), quality of the evidence, harms, benefits (potential number of unnecessary biopsies that might be avoided), and didn’t quote anyone except the lead author with the quote coming from a news release.

 

Why This Matters

There is merit in helping readers understand that prostate cancers differ in the risks they pose to the health of men and that there is value in being able to better distinguish between those that do and don’t need to be treated.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story did not discuss costs.  While the test for the fusion protein mentioned is not yet commercially available, some estimate could have been given on what it may cost. The test for PSA3 is already available and a cost could easily have been cited.

Given how the story projects a possible widespread use for this approach, cost is an important consideration.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story did not provide an estimate of the potential number of unnecessary biopsies that might be avoided with the use of this test – which is the potential benefit of concern.

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

Not Satisfactory

While providing information about how the test might provide information that could be used by men faced with the decision about what steps to take following up on their elevated PSA level, the story should have stressed that while this test might reduce the number of false positives, there would still be substantial numbers of men whose results would fail to correctly predict their risk.  Additionally – it is important to know that this test – at least in the current study design – does not change the absolute risk of missing an aggressive cancer.

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

Not Satisfactory

We wanted the story to tell us the number of men whose tests fell in the low, intermediate, and high ranges. Without that, it makes it difficult to interpret the predictive values (e.g., % with cancer, % with aggressive cancer). Ultimately, we need to know how many (absolute risks) unnecessary biopsies could be avoided (and how many aggressive cancers missed) if we use the new biomarkers. It would also be helpful to note whether the investigators provided any indication of the cutoff that would be used clinically–and the performance of the cutoff for avoiding biopsies and missing aggressive cancers.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story did not mention that the study reported on was funded by the company that makes the test; there were no experts without ties to the company or study quoted.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

By providing a clear explanation of overtreatment of prostate cancer using the current approach to testing, the story provided readers with the insight to glean the value in a test that would better distinguish whether a man had aggressive or indolent prostate cancer.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story only described this as a “new test.”  Is it available?  (No, the TMPRSS2:ERG is still experimental.)

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

This story was clear about the novelty of the test described.

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

Not Satisfactory

The only quote in the story is attributed to a news release.  There is no other source cited. If there was another source, it would be easy to list that at the end of the piece as a growing number of news organizations do.

Total Score: 3 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.