The article describes a newer surgical technique for prostate cancer that involves using robotic devices controlled by a surgeon. Unfortunately, this is just another article on how to “slice and dice” the prostate when it’s not even clear that surgery is needed for early prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is often slow-growing and many men may not ever need treatment. What’s more, it’s not clear that one treatment option is superior to another. The article also overstates what is currently known about robotic radical prostatectomy; a meta-analysis reported that it was too early to tell whether the technique actually improved outcomes, yet the article uses one study to make claims of benefit without telling readers anything about the strength of that study. The article also becomes unbalanced by focusing on one man’s particulary rosy experience with the new technology, even if experts quoted point out that there isn’t evidence that this new technology is superior. The story story also failed to discuss side effects or harms of the new technique and didn’t mention other treatment options besides various surgical approaches and seed implantation.
The article’s main focus is about robotic surgery for prostate cancer, although other applications are mentioned. Comparitive costs are given for a robotic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic prostatectomy, and open prostatectomy.
The article does not quantify benefits. It reports puported benefits (less blood loss, avoid damaging nerves during surgery) but there isn’t much evidence to support these claims.
There are no harms of treatments mentioned. The article mentions in a general way that “impotence and incontinence are common following surgery to remove the prostate…” Yet presenting one person’s very rosy experience with the new technology–…”had no difficulty with either incontinence or impotence”–seems unbalancing.
The article mentions a study published in the British Journal of Urology in 2003, but it fails to state the nature of the study. Readers don’t know whether the article’s conclusions are based on a randomized, controlled trial–the gold standard–or some other, weaker evidence. What’s more, this is only one study. A meta-analyses published in 2004 (Humphreys) found no compelling evidence for claims that robotic prostatectomies resulted in improved outcomes.
Since the focus is on prostate cancer, more information about the natural history of prostate cancer, particularly early prostate cancer should be given. Importantly, there is no mention that early prostate cancer may not even need to be treated and that a man may survive just as long with or without treatment, which would make the distinction between which way to “slice and dice” the prostate less important. Unfortunately, researchers can’t predict which prostate cancers will eventually harm a man or even whether treatment for early prostate cancer is beneficial.
The article appropriately obtains various expert opinions about the claims of superiority of this surgical approach. Some experts appropriately point out that there is no evidence that this is superior to other approaches.
While the article does mention cryo, seeds, and other forms of surgery for prostate cancer, the article doesn’t mention other treatments, which could include active monitoring or radiation. Viewers are left with the impression that surgery is needed and is really the only option for treating prostate cancer.
The article states the robotic tool is available at selected hospitals throughout the country and that availability is expected to increase.
The article appropriately describes the emergence and history of this treatment–it is not new, but is becoming more popular.
No obvious elements of a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.