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

Reuters turns unpublished pilot studies into news

Rating

2 Star

Categories

Blood test by Britain's Angle detects ovarian cancer in study

Our Review Summary

Promising but preliminary studies of the ability of a blood test to detect the presence of ovarian cancer were heralded in a company press release and picked up in this Reuters story.

Although devoid of many evidentiary details, this text’s bigger problem is that it turns unpublished pilot studies into news.  The blood test has a long way to go to surmount regulatory hurdles, and success is uncertain. Better to wait, we think, until more evidence is in hand.

 

Why This Matters

Early and accurate diagnosis of ovarian cancer is a high priority, as many of these cancers are found too late to permit long-term survival. Existing blood tests for the early diagnosis of ovarian cancer have a relatively high sensitivity to detect the disease but are limited due to their false positive rate.  A more sensitive and specific test would be a clear advancement.

While the intended audience may be investors, and not the general public, this story is easily discoverable and will likely be read by patients and loved ones. But sharing diagnostic news prematurely and incompletely is problematic, as stories such as this could send many women to their doctor’s offices looking for help that is simply not yet available.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Cost is not discussed here. Cost is always a consideration when discussing a new testing method. The existing blood tests (CA-125 and OVA-1) are relatively inexpensive ($60 and $650 respectively).  Although this new method may be more sensitive and specific, its cost effectiveness is uncertain at the moment.

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

Not Satisfactory

Existing tests have a relatively high ability to identify ovarian cancer (known as “sensitivity”) but are hampered by false positives (50% specificity). The story attempts to quantify the benefits of the test (“…correctly identified cancer in up to 95 percent of cases…” and “The test was nearly twice as successful in eliminating false-positives than current tests.”) but does not do so adequately.  We would have liked to have seen a quantification of the specificity rate to meet this criterion–how many tests come up as positive for ovarian cancer, but are actually wrong (false positive)?

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

Not Satisfactory

Although the rate of false positive diagnoses in the pilot studies described here were quite low, they still occurred.  The story would benefit from directly addressing that and other possible debits of the test.

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

Not Satisfactory

Sadly, this story appears to have jumped the evidentiary gun.  The British company that funded the studies, Angle, generated a press release based on two relatively small (200 patients per study) proprietary pilot studies that have not yet been subjected to peer review.  Even worse, those studies are only the first in an evidentiary chain of clinical studies needed to allow regulatory bodies to evaluate this blood test for commercial use.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

Ovarian cancer diagnosis is a difficult challenge.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story’s sole source is clearly identified as the chief executive of the company that appears to have funded the work.  But the presence of only that source is a problem, as the text offers no independent viewpoints.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story dances around a key issue, that of comparative effectiveness.  Although the point of this story is that this new blood test does a better job of detecting ovarian cancer than do available diagnostic tests, the story offers no information about those alternatives.

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

Satisfactory

The story indicates that further studies are needed to fulfill European and US regulatory requirements, implying that the test is not yet available. But the comments of the company spokesperson make the likelihood of approval seem like a foregone conclusion.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

There are multiple efforts to utilize the detection of circulating tumor cells (CTC’s) as a method of early redirection of cancer.  The technology has been under study for a number of years.  So, while perhaps an improvement over existing methods, the test method is not novel. We have repeatedly taken issue with the use of “breakthrough” in stories and this one is no exception.  If the results of this relatively small study are repeatable, the Angle test would be an improvement over existing methods.

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

Satisfactory

Parts of this story (a direct quote, for example) are independent of the company’s news release.

 

Total Score: 3 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.