Here’s one detail that should be included in almost all stories about cancer screening studies

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There’s no cost data. While this test isn’t on the market — and might never be — there are plenty of saliva-based genetic tests that are.

Says the U.S. National Library of Medicine: “The cost of genetic testing can range from under $100 to more than $2,000, depending on the nature and complexity of the test.”

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

Not Satisfactory

This story says the test could “pinpoint the 1 percent of men who are at six times greater risk of developing the condition, and the 10 percent of men who have a threefold greater risk of developing the disease.”

But it didn’t clarify two things that are essential to interpreting this result:

1. The researchers have identified genetic markers that are associated with prostate cancer in men who were already known to have prostate cancer. They have yet to show that testing for these markers helps identify which men without prostate cancer will go on to develop it.
2.  It’s unknown whether identifying men at increased risk of prostate cancer will improve outcomes that people care about such as duration and quality of life.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story mentioned PSA tests. which detects antigens that can be present in men without the cancer and “carries a risk of returning a false positive that can kick-start unnecessary, life-changing treatment.”

However, the story didn’t explain that a genetic test would not necessarily prevent these harms, without a better test to detect actual cancers. While men found to be at low risk might be spared additional testing, those with genetic markers for prostate cancer might be subject to more aggressive interventions that could harm them.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story mentioned “next steps” to understand “how this could be rolled out to patients.”

But two important caveats went unaddressed:

First, it isn’t known how well these markers will predict which men will get life-threatening cancers and would benefit from aggressive prevention and treatment measures, as well as those men who can rest easy because they won’t get the disease. Other factors — such as lifestyle and environment — might influence who will and who won’t get life-threatening cancer.

Second, the study that identified these genetic markers drew on people of European descent, so it’s unclear whether the markers will apply in diverse populations such as that in the U.S.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story would have benefited from more sources who weren’t connected to the research (both of the advocate sources were from organizations that helped fund the study). Also, most of the information wasn’t cribbed from other news outlets (in this case, the Guardian and BBC News).