Other than the too-simple headline, this story about four dogs in Europe finding 71 out of 100 lung cancers is pretty responsible. For readers who get all the way to the end, it will be clear that the dog-detection system is far from available now and might require technology to replicate it into a device that works accurately almost all the time. But we wish the story had looked at some other valid questions about the research: They don’t provide any data about test-retest over time, or the other challenges that might exist with training large numbers of dogs over time and space.
The US spends an estimated $10 billion on treatment for patients with lung cancer. It is the second most common form of cancer in the US, and the leading cause of cancer death. An estimated 220,000 people will be diagnosed this year and about 157,000 will die of lung cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute. If there were a way to detect it earlier, it might add years to those lives and save the cost of more invasive testing for those who don’t have the disease. This story does not include any of this context for the reader. Of course, preventing smoking addiction in the population also helps save lives.
The story does not mention costs. At the very least, what does it cost to train dogs? If you can let someone call this the “holy grail,” you can tell people how much the search for the grail costs.
The study was not designed to compare CT with dog-sniffing, yet the researcher is allowed to say that the dog-sniffing “even surpasses the combination of chest computed tomography (CT) scan and bronchoscopy.”
The story does not explicitly discuss harms from a potential “sniff” test by dogs or machines imitating dogs. It does discuss contradictory research on whether cancer-sniffing dogs can achieve high accuracy. The obvious “harm” of inaccuracy is that a patient goes untreated for cancer, or conversely, is exposed to invasive testing because of a false positive. Without early detection by dogs, patients are already getting exposed to tests such as computer tomography and bronchoscopy.
The story shares that the European study involved only 100 samples from patients, and the dogs identified lung cancer accurately in only 71 samples. The story also points out that the length of training of the dogs, and the variability between dogs, makes this technique largely useless for clinical work. A machine equivalent of the sensing system in the dogs is necessary before this can be useful as a clinical tool, one expert says.
There is no disease mongering of lung cancer here.
The story quotes independent sources and identifies that one expert, who is not tied to the European research, is also working in a related area – developing technology to mimic the canine sniff test.
The story does a good job of explaining how lung cancer is detected by existing CT scan and bronchoscopy, and discusses the exposure of the patients to some risk during these procedures. Where it fails is in giving us numbers for how the earlier detection might show an increase in survival for patients.
The story explains that this very preliminary research procedure with dogs is not available yet.
Yes, the story explains that this new research on canine cancer detection is for lung cancer, which is a new application of a sniff-testing that has already been done for colon and skin cancers.
The story shows reporting beyond 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
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