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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
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.
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.”
The story indicated that the test was in development.
If this approach were truly confirmed, it would be a novel and important advance, and the story appropriately addressed that potential.
This story does not appear to rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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