This story provides readers with a balanced discussion of the potential downside of incorporating newer technologies into routine practice too soon. Specifically, the story reports evidence recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine that computer-aided detection (CAD), a newer method of reading mammographies, was no better–and may have produced more false positives–than images read and interpreted by radiologists alone. There was 20% increase in biopsies after mammographers used the CAD software, and many of these women had non-malignant lesions.
The article did not adequately describe the study. It was an observational study of select practices in the US – not randomized, not controlled and there was no information about how representative these samples were, especially in the centers that used CAD. The story reported on key results, but without adequately explaining how they were arrived at.
The story provides multiple perspectives on the CAD technology in breast cancer detection. The reporter interviews not only the lead author of the NEJM study, but also the author of an accompanying editorial on this newer technology, as well as radiologists who talk about CAD in their practice. Interviews with clinicians who offer a rationale for not using the CAD technology give excellent balance to the story and provide an often overlooked perspective: newer and more high-tech devices are not necessarily better.
The story notes the additional $20 per mammogram cost to Medicare with CAD. With the newer technology, costs to public health would increase via additional screening and unnecessary biopsies, and treatment would likely increase for cancers that may never become problematic (i.e. some forms of DCIS or ductal carcinoma in situ).
Importantly, the story discuses the continued benefit of mammography for early detection of breast cancer. The story highlights that computer-assisted screening does not replace human judgment in interpretation of radiological films. More screening centers with the CAD technology are available; however, the new technology may not serve women any better. Traditional mammography with a radiologist interpreting the results may be more accurate and result in fewer unnecessary tests and biopsies.
The story notes the an additional $20 per mammogram with CAD when billed to Medicare. With the newer technology, costs to public health would increase via additional screening and unnecessary biopsies, and treatment would increase for cancers that may never become problematic (i.e. some forms of DCIS or ductal carcinoma in situ).
The story provides data that there was little positive difference between radiologists' and CAD detection of cancer via mammogram images. However, the story does not mention results of any other evaluations of the technology (e.g. how it has been used in UK and other countries where results did show benefit in terms of increased detection of cancer).
The story mentions that the newer technology may result in over treatment as there are more false positives with the CAD technology vs. radiologists' analysis alone. In a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, there was 20% increase in biopsy rates after mammographers used the CAD software.
The article does not present the study well. It was an observational study of select practices in the US – not randomized, not controlled and there was no information about how representative these samples were, especially the centers that used CAD. The story presented some key results but virtually nothing about the study design.
The story does not engage in disease mongering or suggest that women should opt for mammograms at centers that have the new CAD technology.
The story provides many clinical perspectives on the CAD technology. The reporter interviews not only the study author and the author of an accompanying NEJM editorial, but also clinicians and radiologists who talk about use of CAD in practice. Interviews with clinicians who provide their rationale for not using the CAD technology provide excellent balance to the story.
The story discusses the continued benefit of mammography for early detection of breast cancer. The story highlights that computer-assisted screening does not replace human judgment in interpretation of radiological films.
The story mentions that about 30% of mammography centers use computer-aided detection (CAD) technology.
The story mentions that CAD is a newer method of reading mammographies, but in a recent observational trial it was no better–and may have produced more false positives–than images read and interpreted by radiologists alone.
The story does not rely solely on a press release for information, and there is independent reporting and sources cited not affiliated with the recently published data on CAD.
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.