This generally well-balanced and informative article uses one man's story to demonstrate the challenge faced by all men and their doctors who have to decide if and how to screen for prostate cancer. Stories about prostate cancer often overemphasize the 'life-saving' role of PSA testing, which is not supported by the evidence. This article makes it clear that there is still much to learn about the role of this screening test. By including quotes from providers who say they would 'rather overtreat men,' the story suggests that men who aren't convinced of the test's value would do well to find a provider willing to discuss the risks and benefits. Quotes from experts on both sides of the issue and a summary of expert recommendations provide useful context for the experience of the one man who was profiled..
The 'unsatisfactory' ratings for costs and treatment options are relatively minor issues in this otherwise balanced story.
The story mentions the costs to a particular health plan of PSA testing, but does not mention the costs of (potentially unnecessary) followup tests and treatments for detected cancer.
The story notes that 5-year survival is better when prostate cancer is detected early, but does not clearly link screening to detection at earlier stages. It is noted, however, that the recent decline in prostate cancer deaths cannot be clearly linked to PSA screening.
The story makes it clear that far from being a 'simple blood test,' the PSA test can trigger a series of additional tests and treatments that have definite side effects
This story is not pegged to a particular trial or study, but it outlines what is known about how well PSA test is able to detect cancer and the uncertainty about whether screening affects mens' risk of dying from prostate cancer.
The story cites several experts who have different perspectives on the severity of prostate cancer, ranging from those who would treat all to those who are not certain that all men should be screened. This lends the story balance and gives an accurate view of the uncertainties surrounding the condition.
The story cites several experts who hold different views on the role and value of PSA testing, and indicates their speciality areas, which helps the reader to assess whether their perspectives might be affected by their areas of expertise.
The article only briefly mentions radiation therapy in passing, but it is another acceptable treatment option for prostate cancer, and would have been an option when the patient appeared clinically to have cancer confined to his prostate. The story said, "If true, it meant Wildes needed surgery only to remove his prostate. It would be a cure without radiation or chemotherapy." There are several misstatements in that sentence. It did not mean surgery was his only choice. Radiation was an option. But chemotherapy is not used in early prostate cancer. Hormone therapy may be an option, but the story didn't refer to that. Finally, it is misleading to say "It would be a cure." That is not known.
It's clear that the tests and treatments discussed are readily available.
It is clear from the story that neither the PSA test nor treatments for prostate cancer are novel.
Quotes several apparently independent sources and points of view and does not appear to have relied on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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