This story reports on the results of a study on lung cancer screening published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine. Lung cancer is a common and deadly disease that can be effectively treated if caught early. Unfortunately by the time symptoms appear it is often too late for treatment to be effective. It would seem, therefore, that lung cancer would be a prime target for screening, much in the way that we already screen for breast cancer. On the surface, this study appears to indicate that all people at "high risk" (current or former smokers) could benefit from screening. But the reality is that the question of whether screening for lung cancer is effective remains to be answered. This story does a good job of representing what this new study tells us while providing the reader with the information needed to critically evaluate its usefulness.
The story adequately quantifies the benefits of treatment. Because this study had no control group, there is no way to directly compare screening to no screening, and the story explains that. Furthermore, the story rightly points out that the study looked at survival at 10 years as the outcome (although the study only followed patients for an average of 3 years and 10-year survival was estimated), not mortality, leaving open the question about whether or not screening actually extends life or if it only pushes forward the time of diagnosis (a situation known as lead-time bias).
The story mentions that abnormal scans can lead to biopsies and that the scans may pick up cancers that "grow so slowly they will never pose a health problem." The story should have also mentioned radiation exposure as a potential harm and described the consequences of false positive test results.
The story does not discuss if the lung cancer screenings are available, or how widely available the screening scanners may be. The story should have mentioned that the tests are being advertised by private screening centers and some hospitals, but are not generally covered by insurance. The story also does not mention the cost of the test. Since most costs will be covered by the patient and not by the insurance company, this is vital information for the consumer.
The story does not mention the cost of the test. Since most costs will be covered by the patient and not by the insurance company, this is vital information for the consumer.
The story adequately quantifies the benefits of treatment. Because this study had no control group, there is no way to directly compare screening to no screening – and the story explains that. Furthermore, the story rightly points out that the study looked at survival at 10 years as the outcome (although the study only followed patients for an average of 3 years and 10-year survival was estimated), not mortality, leaving open the question about whether or not screening actually extends life or if it only pushes forward the time of diagnosis (a situation known as lead-time bias).
The story mentions that abnormal scans can lead to biopsies and that the scans may pick up cancers that "grow so slowly they will never pose a health problem." The story should have also mentioned radiation exposure as a potential harm and described the consequences of false positive test results.
The story adequately describes the design of the current study and, very appropriately, points out the limitations – that is, lack of controls and the use of 10-year survival as an outcome instead of mortality. These are very important caveats.
By accurately describing the prevalence and seriousness of lung cancer, the story avoids disease mongering.
The story quotes multiple independent sources, providing much needed balance in the story.
The story mentions x-rays and no screening as alternatives to CT scanning.
The story does not discuss if the lung cancer screenings are available, or how widely available the screening scanners may be. The story should have mentioned that the tests are being advertised by private screening centers and some hospitals, but are not generally covered by insurance.
The story states that screening for lung cancer is not a new idea, but that screening with CAT scan is relatively new.
Because the story quotes multiple independent sources, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
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