A new 3-D mammography is now available, but without strong scientific evidence to support using this device, it is not clear whether the harms associated with it are worth the benefits or extra cost.
Mammography is still one of the most common tools used by doctors to find breast tumors; however, some tumors may be difficult to see due to dense breast tissue or the angle at which current pictures are taken. The new 3-D device may help improve mammograms, but testing is still being done to determine the actual benefit, and whether it is worth the increase in the amount of radiation exposure during the procedure.
The story stated, “Insurance often doesn’t cover the 3-D portion so doctors say you often need to pay about $50 out of pocket.” However, would have preferred a quote from an insurance company instead of doctors to be sure that this cost is reflective of true out-of-pocket expenses.
The story mentioned a 47% increase in cancer detection, but 47% of what? Also, the story mentioned the recall rate for women needing a follow up mammogram was reduced with the new device from 11% to 6.6%, but recall rate is not the true gold standard of how the device could be beneficial to women.
The article did discuss the potential harm due to the increase in radiation exposure, but was then followed by a quote from the VP of breast health at the company making the device dismissing some of the concern related to the increase in radiation.
The article did not mention rates of false positives or false negatives with the new imaging. It could be that it finds lots of new things that lead to many more biopsies but not all cancer (i.e. they report the recall rate, but what about the biopsy rate for traditional vs. 3-D?)
So despite the headline that addresses false positives, the story doesn’t give any evidence on that question.
Mixed bag on this criterion. The article cautioned readers that results were preliminary, but it still didn’t pose enough tough questions about the new approach. A bothersome quote from a doctor who once consulted for the company stated that the new exam would likely save lives by finding cancers earlier; this is potentially an overstatement of benefits and also fails to consider lead-time bias.
The article did state doctor affiliations to the company making the device and also quoted some people not affiliated with the company.
The new device was compared with traditional 2-D mammography but, as already noted, the story did not compare the approaches on some meaningful measures such as rates of false positives or false negatives or biopsy rate for traditional vs. 3-D.
Although the article stated the device had been available in the U.S. since February, it was unclear if this was only for people in clinical trials, or if hospitals and cancer centers across the country were currently using it. Nonetheless, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this one.
The relative novelty of the approach and of the new study is clear in the story.
It does not appear that the story relied solely on a news release, although there was certainly a lot of space given to the manufacturer’s perspective.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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.