This story reports on the results of a study on using CT scans to screen for lung cancer screening published in the New England Journal of Medicine. This study appears to indicate that all people at "high risk" (current or former smokers) could benefit from screening. But unfortunately, because of the limitations of this study, the question of whether screening for lung cancer saves lives remains to be answered. This story grossly exaggerates the strength of the existing evidence by promoting CT screening as a "shining light" to "cure" lung cancer. Citing questionable statistics and lacking in balance, this story does a disservice to its readers.
Although the story does describe the design of the screening trial, it minimizes the limitations of the available evidence. The story seems to treat the lack of a control group as a minor issue and downplays the potential for bias in the design of the study. The story also does not mention other studies that have failed to show a mortality benefit from lung cancer screening with X-rays.
The story minimizes the potential harms of screening. The story describes the radiation exposure from CT as being equivalent to that of a mammogram. It is not clear where this information comes from. CT scans generally have many times the amount of radiation exposure of x-rays.
While the story provides some quantification of benefits from screening, it also exaggerates these benefits in qualitative terms. The story claims that the study is a "shining light" and that screening could "cure or substantially lengthen the lives" of lung cancer patients. Unfortunately, the current study does not prove that screening actually lengthens lives.
By accurately describing the seriousness and prevalence of lung cancer, the story avoids disease mongering. However, the story verges on "treatment mongering" by comparing lung cancer screening to the "many cures" from prostate cancer screening, which has not been shown to save lives. Furthermore, the story inappropriately highlights a patient with a cough, a symptom of lung cancer, who went on to die of the disease. First, it is not clear if doing the CT scan in this patient would have prolonged his life and second, this example highlights the use of CT for diagnosing lung cancer, not screening for lung cancer in people who do not have symptoms. These are very different concepts.
The story does not mention the cost of the scan, an important piece of information for the consumer given that insurance is unlikely to cover it. Finally, the story only quotes the lead author of the recent study, Claudia Henschke. The story should have quoted other clinicians or researchers who could have provided some much needed balance.
The story does not mention the cost of the scan, an important piece of information for the consumer given that insurance is unlikely to cover it.
While the story provides some quantification of benefits from screening, it also exaggerates these benefits in qualitative terms. The story claims that the study is a "shining light" and that screening could "cure or substantially lengthen the lives" of lung cancer patients. Unfortunately, the current study does not prove that screening actually lengthens lives.
The story minimizes the potential harms of screening. The story describes the radiation exposure from CT as being equivalent to that of a mammogram. It is not clear where this information comes from. CT scans generally have many times the amount of radiation exposure of x-rays. There is also no discussion of the harms caused by false positives, which may lead to unnecessary biopsies, which may lead to further complications.
Although the study does describe the design of the screening trial, it minimizes the limitations of the available evidence. The story seems to treat the lack of a control group as a minor issue and downplays the potential for bias in the design of the study. The story also does not mention other studies that have failed to show a mortality benefit from lung cancer screening with X-rays.
By accurately describing the seriousness and prevalence of lung cancer, the story avoids disease mongering. However, the story verges on "treatment mongering" by compared lung cancer screening to the "many cures" from prostate cancer screening, which has not been shown to save lives. Furthermore, the story inappropriately highlights a patient with a cough, a symptom of lung cancer, who went on to die of the disease. First, it is not clear if doing the CT scan in this patient would have prolonged his life and second, this example highlights the use of CT for diagnosing lung cancer, not screening for lung cancer in people who do not have symptoms. These are very different concepts.
The story only quotes the lead author of the recent study, Claudia Henschke. The story should have quoted other clinicians or researchers who could have provided some much needed balance.
The story does not mention other ways to reduce lung cancer risk, such as quitting smoking.
The story does not mention that lung cancer screening is already being offered and advertised by many hospitals and imaging centers across the country. We're told the study was done in 38 centers around the world but are given no idea of the availability of spiral CT scanners.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
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