The story appropriately notes that radioactive imaging for detection of breast cancer is not a replacement for clinical breast exams, mammograms and/or ultrasound. This is a newer screening technique used in difficult-to-call cases where a woman may have an unclear mammogram result or there is a suspicion of breast cancer. What is not mentioned is that this test may not replace the need for a definitive surgical biopsy, where cells from breast tissue are examined more closely for cancer.
The story reports only anecdotal experience of radioactive imaging, but no quantitative evidence on the benefits of this method of detection. (Currently, there is very limited evidence on the value of this type of screening.) The story also does not mention potential harms of this screening. We are not told if the radioactive liquid can cause side effects. We are also not told the rate of false negatives or false positives from this test. If a woman is not biopsied because she is told she does not have breast cancer she may miss an opportunity for early treatment. A false positive result may lead to unnecessary treatment and psychological suffering.
The story does mention that this screening technique is available at 33 U.S. hospitals, however, this means the test is not widely available for many women. The story does not mention the cost of this screening or whether it is covered by Medicare or private health insurance.
The story does not provide the cost of this screening and does not explain whether it is covered by Medicare or private health insurance.
The story implies that this new screening is the best method of detecting cancer in difficult to read cases, but we are not provided with the benefits of this screening over existing methods of detection for difficult to read mammograms or palpable breast masses with a negative mammogram. One women's anecdotal experience does not prove any benefit of this screening over existing, widely available methods of screening. And when the anecdote is framed as "if she has breast cancer it will find it" and "finally she can relax", there are no data given to support those claims.
There is no mention of the harms of this screening. We are not told if the radioactive liquid can cause side effects. We are also not told the rate of false negatives from this test. If a woman is not biopsied because she is told she does not have breast cancer she may miss an opportunity for early treatment. False positives may result in unnecessary treatment and psychological distress.
The story does not provide data on the false positive or false negative results of radioactive screening. The story also does not give quantitative data on the benefits of this secondary screening compared with combined mammogram and ultrasound, or mammogram and other imaging such as MRI or PET scans.
The story does not engage in disease mongering, per se, however, the story offers an anecdote saying "if she has breast cancer it will find it" and "finally she can relax." That may not be overstating the issue of breast cancer, but it is overselling the potential solution.
There is independent corroboration with physicians (presumably) not affiliated with the makers of the radioactive imaging device. We are not told if these physicans are radiologists or oncologists. It would be important to know if these physicians specialize in breast cancer detection and/or treatment as they could provide a more accurate perspective on the new screening in the context of other, more widely available methods of breast cancer detection for hard-to-read cases.
The story mentions that this screening is not a replacement for clinical breast exams, mammograms and/or ultrasound. It is a screening used in difficult to call cases where a woman may have an unclear mammogram, and there is a suspicion of breast cancer. What is important, but not mentioned, is that this test may not replace the need for a definitive surgical biopsy, where cells from breast tissue are examined more closely for cancer.
The story mentions that this imaging technique is available at 33 U.S. hospitals. The story also provides a website with resources about the screening and where the screening is available.
The story mentions that that radioactive imaging is a new screening technique that is used in conjunction with mammograms in women who have dense breasts and/or difficult-to-read mammograms.
Because the story used multiple sources, it does not appear to rely solely or largely on a news 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.
You might also like