STAT provides readers with necessary details to make sense of new PSA screening study

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

Satisfactory

There is good depth here discussing the benefits. Early in the story it indicates that “for a man in the U.S., the risk of dying of prostate cancer is about 2.5 percent. A mortality reduction of 30 percent would lower the death rate to 1.75 percent.”  Later this is described in relative terms, saying that more frequent PSA screening “moved some prostate cancers from too-advanced-to-treat to treatable, reducing prostate cancer mortality by 27 percent to 32 percent over 11 years.”

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

Satisfactory

Drawing from information produced by the USPSTF, the article concluded that the gains in prostate cancer detection “come at some cost to health, though: For every life saved, five men will be told they have cancer when in fact their abnormal cells would never grow, spread, or harm them. In other estimates, such “overdiagnoses” outnumber lives saved by 50-to-1.”

The one harm that is often overlooked in widely-promoted screening programs is the psychological harm that perfectly healthy people may experience when they have had a “cancer scare,” and that even though their life is unlikely to be saved, the worry, anxiety, depression and angst do exact a substantial life-altering toll that goes unmeasured.

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

Satisfactory

This story superbly describes the quality of the evidence, emphasizing that this is not new research but it is new (and controversial) mathematical modeling and that there are a number of biases that can affect the interpretation of the results. This was a much stronger discussion of the evidence compared to the LA Times story we also reviewed.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There are no signs of the common type of disease mongering we sometimes encounter in commentary about PSA testing, where some will take data from one age cohort as proof to suggest that other age cohorts (ie: younger men) would also benefit from PSA testing.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

This research is specifically about comparing the value of screening for prostate cancer vs not screening. New biomarkers and variations on the PSA test itself, along with other screening modalities, such as digital rectal exam, are not mentioned and were not addressed in the studies that are described.

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

Satisfactory

It’s clear from the article that PSA testing is ubiquitous in America. Mentioning that it is covered by most insurers, and for those on Medicaid/Medicare, still would have been helpful, however.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The report of this study establishes, correctly, how it might expand our view of the value of PSA testing and reminds us that what is “novel” here is the interpretation of previous research.

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

Satisfactory

This article clearly goes beyond what would have likely been the contents of a news release, particularly in deeply re-examining the findings from multiple perspectives.