In this brief story, the reporter describes three available fecal occult stool tests used to detect colorectal cancer. The story compares the three on such dimensions as false positives and reductions in cancer deaths.
Since the story is largely descriptive, it is unfortuante that one of the important variables missing from the text is cost; the story only notes that these procedures are covered by Medicare. Readers also would have benefited from a more detailed discussion of each procedure’s debits, as well as of the nature of evidence used to determine each procedure’s accuracy.
Although most Americans know that a colonoscopy is the gold standard for detecting colorectal cancer, many find prepping for the procedure to be so distasteful that avoidance is a real problem. Fecal stool tests can be a reasonable “plan B” for individuals who need an alternative, as long as folks are aware of the constraints that accompany these tests.
Colon cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, and only removal of premalignant polyps during colonoscopy actually prevents it. These tests, if they reveal something suspicious, will still trigger the need for a colonoscopy.
Cost should be a prominent part of this story, as the narrative is engaged in offering comparative advice about procedures, but we only learn, quite late in the story, that Medicare typically covers such screening.
The costs are the key for some patients, especially those with high deductible plans. According to the Healthcare Bluebook, the fair price for a screening colonoscopy is $1383, while stool testing for blood is $46. We could not find FIT on the Blue Book website but found prices online of $99.
Each of the three tests varies in its ability to catch problems early enough to avoid dying of colon cancer, and this story briefly mentions that variance, with some data for two of the three procedures.
Although the possibility of false positives exists for each test, the writer gets specific about that for only one of them, the FIT-DNA test.
Also, colonoscopy comes with a risk of perforation during biopsy procedures.
The reader will encounter little information about evidence, aside from a mention that, for the Cologuard FIT-DNA test, no long-term studies have been completed. That leads to inferences that the other two tests have survived long-term testing, but have they? While this story was not necessarily meant to be a review of the evidence, some discussion of how rigorous the research is for each test would help readers make informed decisions.
Detecting signs of colorectal cancer is important.
The two sources commenting on the tests both have received money from Genentech, which makes cancer drugs, and is involved in the business of cancer DNA testing.
Comparison is the point of the story, and the text does a good job of this.
These are all available as noted, and Medicare coverage is explained, which is helpful.
This was a review of the current diagnostic tools for colon cancer, not a new test, so we’ll rate this N/A.
Such a comparison story is unlikely to stem from a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The inimitable @garyschwitzer has published an opinion piece on how health journalism contributes to public health outcomes - and why the industry works the way it does.
US-centric, but Australian journos will find this helpful.
#aushealth https://t.co/zBDaOOsMGx
In the latest installment of @JAMA_current's series on the public's eroding trust in health care, @garyschwitzer calls for improving the accuracy and quality of health journalism https://t.co/kgCNz0BTgq
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.
You might also like