The article describes a new study which suggests aggressive treatment with surgery or radiation may benefit older men who were traditionally thought not to benefit (or benefit as much) from these treatments, due to their life expectancies. The article does provide some context around the nature of early prostate cancer, including the controversy over whether or not to treat it, but still seems to exaggerate the problem of prostate cancer. The article also describes the nature of the latest evidence, but seems to overstate the evidence in places ("…treatment offered a clear advantage") and lacks appropriate interpretation of the data, which is biasing in the direction of treatment. The research is observational and the story does caution readers that more research is needed to confirm these findings.
But overall the story seems tilted toward benefits of treatment, rather than caution about needing more research to confirm these findings. The story also obtains several independent sources to comment on the findings and acknowledges that not all experts agree on what the latest findings tell us. Other limitations including reporting relative risk reductions vs. absolute risk reductions, minimizing harms of treatment by not providing estimates of how frequently these occur, and not providing any cost information.
The article does not provide any cost information, and there are clearly wide variations in costs among the various prostate cancer treatment options.
The article only provides relative risk reductions when absolute risk reductions are best (and are provided in the study findings). The article also claims that the study findings "indicate that treatment offered a clear advantage," which is premature since this is not a randomized trial. The quote from an "expert" (the story gives no information about his expertise) is misleading: "This debunks the idea that older men do not benefit from treatment." Clearly, the study is completely insufficient to 'debunk' watchful waiting as a treatment option for prostate cancer, especially in older men.
While the article does mention some harms of aggressive treatment, impotence and incontinence, it doesn't provide readers with any context around how often these occur or how troubling men may find these. There are qualitative statements telling readers that quality of life can be affected, but overall, the seriousness of treatment side effects seems to be minimized.
The article describes the study as a database study in which men who chose various treatment paths were followed over time (which means it cannot be a randomized trial). Astute readers might be able to tell this is an observational study. The article describes some of the study limitations and states that additional research is needed to verify these results. However, the story does not appropriately interpret the evidence, which seems biasing (toward treatment). Errors include "30% less likely to die" (All will die sometime. Time frame – within 12 years – was not cited in second paragraph.) and "…indicating a clear advantage" (Not true). Although the author of the study says "we adjusted for as many of those differences as we could," we are still left with the limitations of an observational study. This story seems to hype the results which were not that impressive, given all the limitations associated with the study. But, the study is interesting and warrants additional research, as was noted in the article, and the tone could have been more in that direction, rather than the "treatment can prolong older men's lives" approach.
The article does provide some context about early prostate cancer, including numbers of men who are diagnosed with or die from the condition, as well as the fact that many prostate cancers are slow-growing and may never cause harm before a man dies of something else.
The article provides multiple sources of information, some of whom appear to be independent of the current study. The sources also provide a range of opinions about what the latest study means, which adds balance.
The study does describe the three main treatment options for early prostate cancer: surgery, radiation, and observation. While more information about surgery or radiation may have been helpful, overall, the article does describe the main choices and especially provides context about where observation may fit into the list of choices.
The article states that the study followed men who chose aggressive treatment (either surgery or radiation) or observation (also known as watchful waiting) for early prostate cancer, indicating these options are currently available to manage early prostate cancer.
It's clear from the story that it is reporting on established treatments – surgery, radiation, or observation (watchful waiting).
Because the story relied on a number of independent sources, it is safe to assume it did not 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