The story employed very careful presentation of both the promise and the potential limitations of two new prostate cancer gene tests.
Until recently, the PSA test was routinely used as a screening instrument for prostate cancer resulting in millions of men suddenly facing a set of interesting choices. If the PSA is elevated, should a biopsy be performed? If so, how reliable is the Gleason scoring system in predicting the risk of spread and death? Because of uncertainty, many men undergo potentially needless surgical procedures rather than perhaps watchful waiting. A new and potentially more reliable test to determine the aggressiveness of the tumor type in concert with a Gleason score or as a replacement would be welcomed. A reliable predictive test of risk of death from prostate cancer would add considerably to the decision process.
One line from the story captures the essence of why this matters:
“Doctors say tests like these have the potential to curb a major problem in cancer care — overtreatment.”
The cost of the new test – and of one that recently came on the market – were listed (> $3,000 each). And the story explained it’s not known if insurers will pay for the tests.
The story carefully framed the potential benefits – “could triple the number of men thought to e at such low risk for aggressive disease that monitoring is a clearly safe option. Conversely, the test also suggested some tumors were more aggressive than doctors had believed.”
It explained that one manufacturer had published 9 studies while the other had not published any results yet – “another thing that makes doctors wary.”
It explained that in one study:
“Using one current method, 37 of the 395 men would have been called very low risk and good candidates for monitoring. Adding the gene test put 100 men into that category, said another study leader, Dr. Matthew Cooperberg of UCSF. The gene test shifted about half of the men into either a lower or a higher risk category.”
The story explained some of the potential limitations of the new testing approach.
“Unless you can be sure your biopsy has hit the most aggressive part that’s in the prostate, you can’t be sure” how accurate your risk estimate is, explained Dr. Eric Klein, chief of urology at the Cleveland Clinic, who led early development of the Oncotype prostate cancer test.
…
UCSF just got a federal grant to see how men choose treatments and whether this test might sway them.
“We throw all these numbers at them. Are they really going to make a better decision?” Cooperberg said.
The story carefully explained:
Independent experts say such a test is desperately needed but that it’s unclear how much information this one adds or whether it will be enough to persuade men with low-risk tumors to forgo treatment, and treat it only if it gets worse.
…
Genomic Health has not published any results on the prostate test, another thing that makes doctors wary.
…
Dr. Kevin McVary, chairman of urology at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine and a spokesman for the Urological Association, said the test must be validated in more men before it can be widely used.
“It’s not there yet,” he said.
But wouldn’t it be most helpful to report what the sensitivity and specificity of the test was?
There was no disease mongering of prostate cancer in the story.
Mixed bag.
Multiple sources were interviewed – which was admirable.
The story could have explained that two of the experts quoted either had paid consultant arrangements or received research funding from one of the companies mentioned in the story.
We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this one. It covered a lot of ground and we don’t want to ding it for what it might have done a bit better.
It at least gave data comparing one of the new tests with “one current method.”
It at least said the new test is “similar to tests used now for certain breast and colon cancers.”
And it at least reported that “Doctors now base risk estimates on factors such as a man’s age and how aggressive cells look from biopsies that give 12 to 14 tissue samples. But tumors often are spread out and vary from one spot to the other.”
The story explained that one test goes on sale today and that another recently came on the market. And it raised the questions about whether availability/use will be limited if there isn’t evidence it leads to better care or saves lives.
The story put the new test – set for discussion today at the American Urological Association annual conference – into the context of some other relatively new genetic tests for cancer.
Lots of independent reporting so it’s clear this story didn’t rely 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 (3)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Richard Hoffman
May 8, 2013 at 3:41 pmThe issue is that men with low PSA and Gleason scores on biopsy are considered candidates for active surveillance–a monitoring strategy where men are not offered active treatment unless there is evidence that the cancer is progressing. The big concern is that biopsy results might not accurately capture tumor aggressiveness due to sampling errors. The new tests are comparing biopsy results against prostatectomy findings to determine whether risk can be more accurately characterized from the biopsy tissue alone. However, it is important to note that we do not know whether these new tests can accurately predict the risk of dying from prostate cancer.
Gary Schwitzer
May 9, 2013 at 1:58 pmSee Dr. Len Lichtenfeld’s post on the American Cancer Society website, “A New Genomic Test To Guide Prostate Cancer Treatment: What We Know And What We Don’t.”
http://www.cancer.org/aboutus/drlensblog/post/2013/05/09/a-new-genomic-test-to-guide-prostate-cancer-treatment-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont.aspx
He concludes:
John Ludlow MD
May 24, 2014 at 8:25 pmA test to more accurately identify those with prostate cancer who NEED treatment would be welcome. The real problem is our fee-for-service healthcare system. I’m incentivized to biopsy patients with ‘elevated’ PSAs…whether they need it or not. And to make matters worse, none of what I do is tabulated for outcomes. This makes no sense. I could easily biopsy 20 patients every week and truthfully only 1 or 2 of those patients really need a biopsy. In the end, the validity of this genetic test will be confirmed by long-term (greater than 10 years) follow-up.
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