Note to our followers: Our nearly 13-year run of daily publication of new content on HealthNewsReview.org came to a close at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. But all of the 6,000+ articles we have published contain lessons to help you improve your critical thinking about health care interventions. And those will be still be alive on the site for a couple of years.
Read Original Story

For story on experimental prostate cancer blood test, Guardian leans heavily on news release

Rating

1 Star

Categories

Prostate cancer blood test could transform treatment, say scientists

Our Review Summary

This story describes a potential advance in precision medicine. Certain cancer therapeutics target tumors that have specific characteristics, such as the so-called PARP inhibitors. A diagnostic test to see if those specific characteristic exist, such as the liquid biopsy test described here, could help select patients most likely to benefit.

Unfortunately, this article is essentially a rewrite of the news release, glossing over the measured benefits, the costs, the harms–and much more.

 

Why This Matters

There are many details of this study that warrant critical examination. Readers won’t be well-served by this story that parrots the PR promotions.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The article did not mention costs.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story did not quantify the benefits of using the three-in-one liquid biopsy. Readers learned that results of the biopsy were used to initiate (or not) and continue (or not) treatment with a cancer therapeutic drug that targets certain types of prostate cancers in men. Readers did not learn anything about the trial design or how effectiveness of the biopsy was measured. At the very least, it would have been helpful to know what proportion of patients “benefited” (changing drug vs. initiating drug).

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story made no mention of potential harms of the liquid biopsy itself or of guiding chemotherapeutic treatment decisions based on results of the liquid biopsy.

What about false positives? And false negatives? Erroneous results from a “simple” blood test could lead to a patient stopping the drug prematurely or initiating erroneously. Stories about screening tests must include the false positive and false negative rates for these reasons–they are a real risk.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The story does discuss the various ways the liquid biopsy might be helpful. Its descriptor — three-in-one — was explained for readers; its essentially a way to select patients that might benefit from targeted cancer therapy and to monitor response and resistance to the chemotherapeutic drug. But no study results were outlined, other than a brief mention that this was a phase 2 trial with about 49 men in the study.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The article did not overhype the risks of prostate cancer.

 

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

The story quotes two sources: 1) the first author, who’s a researcher at the UK’s Institute of Cancer Research; and 2) the Chief Executive of the very same research institution. No outside sources were mentioned, much less quoted. It was good that funding sources were mentioned, however.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The article makes no mention about alternatives. It doesn’t make clear what current standard therapy is for prostate cancer or how patients are currently selected for treatment with the targeted cancer drug.

It also didn’t discuss that the drug itself–olaparib–is still being researched for effectiveness.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story does not help readers understand whether this blood test is available now–or if not, when it might become available for wider, non-research use.

 

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The article makes clear that this is a new test for circulating DNA that provides specific information about a cancer patient’s individualized cancer profile. However, the only people to say so are the researchers testing the liquid biopsy. This claim would carry more weight if it came from an independent source.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Satisfactory

It appears that the story heavily relied on this news release from the UK’s Institute of Cancer Research. And without attribution. For example, this quote that appears in the news release appears verbatim in the news story:

 

“Our study identifies, for the first time, genetic changes that allow prostate cancer cells to become resistant to the precision medicine olaparib.

“From these findings, we were able to develop a powerful, three-in-one test that could in future be used to help doctors select treatment, check whether it is working and monitor the cancer in the longer term. We think it could be used to make clinical decisions about whether a PARP inhibitor is working within as little as four to eight weeks of starting therapy.

“Not only could the test have a major impact on treatment of prostate cancer, but it could also be adapted to open up the possibility of precision medicine to patients with other types of cancer as well.”

Total Score: 2 of 10 Satisfactory

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.