The story focuses on a relatively new treatment for patients with enlarged prostates who have related urinary problems, such as the need to urinate frequently. The treatment has been clinically available since late 2016, and the story also refers to a study published online in the Journal of Urology in December 2016. The treatment is called “Rezūm,” and involves using targeted blasts of steam to shrink prostate tissue.
The story does a fair job of describing the technique and its costs, but would have been much stronger if it had incorporated input from an expert or experts who have no ties to the company that markets the treatment.
Because there is no independent source, it raises the possibility that the story is presenting the rosiest possible take on this technology and its effects.
The story does a good job here, noting that a treatment with Rezūm costs around $2,000, and that it is often (but not always) covered by health insurance. In addition, the story notes that patients may need multiple treatments.
As a side note, we would like to know how this compares with costs of surgery and with costs of other minimally invasive procedures.
The story notes that “At the end of two years, patients treated with Rezūm showed a 51% reduction in urinary symptoms (as measured by a seven-question survey), compared with the beginning of the study.”
However, without knowing what a sample baseline was, it’s hard to say if this is a big improvement. (51% of what?)
We also wanted to know more about the patients: Average age, average prostate size, whether subjects had tried medications, whether investigators assessed improvement in not just self-reported symptoms but also urinary stream.
The story discusses a few potential side effects, at least to the same extent as discussed in the related journal article — namely, the need to wear a catheter for a few days after treatment, and issues in some patients related to ejaculatory volume. It also talked about the need for more long-term data.
That said, it would have been helpful to specifically address other potential treatment side effects–bleeding, infection, etc.
The story makes clear that this was a controlled study, with some patients receiving a placebo (or “sham procedure,” in the words of the story). It also makes clear that the study was of 197 men. The story also notes that the research was done on men with enlarged prostates, but not “large” ones — meaning there is still no clinical data on the extent to which Rezūm may work for patients whose prostates are larger than 80 grams.
One point that is a little confusing refers to how Rezūm works. Early in the story, the procedure is described this way: “Thermal energy in the form of steam is applied to the prostate with a needle. As it cools it releases heat energy into the tissue, killing cells and shrinking the prostate overall by about a third.” Later in the story, a NxThera employee says “Early in the trial, physicians were new at performing the procedure and didn’t always remove enough tissue.” It’s not clear what this means. Are the dead prostate cells removed in some way during treatment? Or are the absorbed back into the body? Were physicians not applying enough steam, or were they failing to remove dead cells in some other part of the procedure?
One detail that would have improved the story: Until comparison trials are completed, we don’t know how this treatment compares to surgery or other medication.
We are always on the lookout for disease mongering in stories like this one, in which a medical condition that affects quality of life could misleadingly be treated as if it was a life-threatening illness. This story handles the issue well, treating an enlarged prostate and its related symptoms in a matter-of-fact way — neither downplaying nor sensationalizing the symptoms associated with an enlarged prostate.
There are no independent sources here. Claus G. Roehrborn, who is referred to as a co-author on studies of enlarged prostate treatments, is a paid consultant to the study’s funder, NxThera (see this 2015 paper), but the story didn’t disclose that. As noted above, input from an independent source would have made this story much stronger.
There are numerous other minimally invasive treatments (laser, thermotherapy, radio frequency ablation) that are not mentioned.
It is clear that Rezūm is clinically available.
It isn’t clear what makes this treatment novel, nor why the story is running now. Rezūm has been on the market for since last year, and the related research was published more than four months ago. Maybe it’s because two major health insurance companies decided earlier this month to cover the treatment?
The story does not appear to be based on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
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/
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