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 May Help Predict Prostate Cancer

Rating

4 Star

Categories

Urine Test May Help Predict Prostate Cancer

Our Review Summary

This is a story about a potential new test that may improve the ability to determine when a man with elevated circulating PSA levels has prostate cancer and perhaps better predict if the prostate cancer that a man has is aggressive or not.  While mentioning in passing that additional studies are necessary to determine whether this set of tests really does improve the ability to predict the behavior of a man’s prostate cancer, the overall tone of this story was that this test is the tool that doctors have been waiting for.  The enthusiasm for a new test ought to be tempered until there is sufficient data demonstrating that it is successful.  It is certainly worth noting that while many other markers have been evaulated to improve the accuracy of the PSA test, few have been widely adopted and none have been rigorously evaluated for effectiveness in clinical trials.

 

Why This Matters

Having tools that better predict whether a prostate cancer is aggressive would be useful for helping men avoid treatment that isn’t needed.  Whether this test will prove to be useful in this regard remains to be demonstrated.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Although the story included price estimates for prostate biopsy, it did not include a ball park estimate for the cost to assay for the gene fusion product discussed nor the costs of testing for PCA3, which is currently commercially available.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story did not quantify the benefit of using these markers to avoid unnecessary biopsies. Typically, biopsy thresholds for the markers will be set to detect a large majority of the cancers (>= 90%) which will then reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies–which can be quantified.

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

Not Satisfactory

While alluding to problems with the PSA test, the story did not cover any potential problems that might arise with the experimental test.  Although this test may potentially improve the accuracy of a man’s risk estimate, there was still a fair amount of overlap and uncertainity.  The story did not report the proportions of cancers that were low and high risk.  Finding a low risk cancer could be considered a harm because many are considered overdiagnosed.  Missing a high risk cancer also causes harm.

This new test was suggested to eliminate the problem that arises because ‘it’s up to the patients and their doctors to figure out what to do next’ when an elevated PSA level is detected.  However – even if this new test were available – it would still be up to patients and their doctors to determine what next steps to take.

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

Satisfactory

The story did a fair job explaining the study reported on, including mention that additional studies are necessary to validate the results of this study, larger groups of men need to be studied, and more diverse populations need to be tested in order to better estimate the utility of this test.  However – the story does not report the PSA range of the men who where included in the study.

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?

Satisfactory

The story mentioned that the study reported on was funded by the company making the test; and it also mentioned that several of the authors of the study had financial interests in the company.

The story included quotes from a study author, as well as Dr. Jones from the Cleveland Clinic, though there was no mention of whether Dr. Jones had any financial interest in the test reported on.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The story explains that “when PSA levels are elevated, it’s up to patients and their doctors to figure out what to do next” and that “There really aren’t very good tools to utilize to help make that decision.”

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

Satisfactory

The story indicated that the test was in development.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

If this approach were truly confirmed, it would be a novel and important advance, and the story appropriately addressed that potential.

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

Satisfactory

This story does not appear to rely solely on a news release.

Total Score: 7 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.