The article provides an overview of treatment for early prostate cancer. Major strengths of the article are that the true natural history of prostate cancer is accurately described, namely that prostate cancer is slow-growing, many men will die of something else, and that men may not need to be treated at all. The article also does a good job of comparing and contrasting what men might stand to gain or lose by undergoing treatment or by waiting. Information on costs could improve the article as well as stating more explicitly that the benefit of aggressive treatment of early prostate cancer is unknown and/or uncertain.
The article doesn’t mention costs of “active surveillance” or any other treatment strategy. There is a cost associated with any of these choices.
Because of the uncertainty over treatment benefit, quantification of benefits, such as how much longer can one expect to live or how many lives are saved can’t be known. However, the article could have been more explicit about the issue of uncertain benefits with aggressive treatment for early prostate cancer.
The article does a good job of discussing harms of treatment, including risk of losing an opportunity to cure one’s disease by waiting, risk of sexual problems and leaking urine with treatment, and risk of having treatment and subsequent side effects and still having prostate cancer threaten your life.
The story is an informational piece about prostate cancer treament in general, making this a difficult criterion to evalaute. However, one overarching message is that there is a great deal of uncertainty around treating early prostate cancer. With that in mind, the article does describe that there are no direct head to head trials comparing surgery and radiation treatments, which accounts for much of the uncertainty. It remains controversial whether any aggressive treatment of early prostate cancer is effective.
The article does a terrific job of discussing early prostate cancer, includuing the fact that many prostate cancers are slow-growing, that many men will die of something else, and that many men may never need treatment. It also does a good job of comparing and contrasting what a man might have to gain and lose with and without treatment. Calling surgeons “medical artists” is a bit dramatic, but this term is attributed to patient support groups.
The story used several independent sources of information and for that we give it a satisfactory score. However, one concern is reporting that “researchers–and a few doctors–are beginning to agree” about waiting for treatment. Many of the researchers are themselves doctors, so this is clumsily confusing.
The article does a nice job of comparing and contrasting treatment options, including active surveillance, surgery, and radiation. It also talks about hormone therapy, but appropriately cautions readers about what is and isn’t known about the timing of this option as well.
The article describes several available treatment choices currently being used for prostate cancer.
This story refers to “active surveillance” as the “newest thinking in the disease.” However, this really isn’t a new treatment option and is widely used in other countries. It’s probably more accurate to describe this as a treatment that is chosen less commonly rather than a new treatment.
There is no evidence that this story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
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/
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