Stand Up to Cancer and the PSA test -- yes, no, maybe?
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Do you like to read about ethical hanky-panky in the world of science and medicine? Check out Integrity in Science Watch, a project of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. (That’s the consumer advocacy group better known for its analysis of restaurant food and periodic releases dubbing dishes such as fettuccine al fredo ‘heart attack on a plate.’)
Undisclosed affiliations with pharmaceutical companies? They’re here! Potential cherry-picking of scientific data? It’s here too! The press get a drubbing, too, with ‘cheers’ or ‘jeers’ awarded for examples of squeaky clean reports or ones that missed a beat or two.
One of the jeers this week was ‘to network anchors Charles Gibson, Katie Couric, and Brian Williams for appearing on the hour-long ‘Stand Up to Cancer’ telethon that ran on all three national networks last Friday ... Among the many unproven statements made during the hour: All men over 50 should get an annual prostate exam, even though the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently issued a report questioning its usefulness to men over 75.’
The Stand Up to Cancer public service announcement gripe came from University of Minnesota journalism/mass communication professor Gary Schwitzer’s health news blog. He takes issue with other aspects of the telethon as well, such as involvement of news media: ‘There are serious issues to discuss about cancer research in this country. But journalists are undoubtedly less likely to pursue such questions when they’re involved in glad-handing endorsement of a cause,’ he writes. And, ‘What does it mean that drug companies Amgen and GlaxoSmithKline are listed as ‘heroes’ on the project website?’
Schwitzer’s not the only ‘Stand Up to Cancer’ grump out there. Junkfood Science blogger Sandy Szwarc had this and more to say: ‘Like all advocacy groups, heightening the dangers and seriousness of their cause is fundamental to justifying the need for more and more money to address it. After an hour of watching Stand Up to Cancer, if you weren’t in tears and scared to death that you or someone you love might already have cancer or be next to die if researchers don’t get money now, you weren’t watching. Even the program’s website has five pages of terrifying statistics on the deadliness of the cancer epidemic. Unlike the repeated claim of a “growing crisis of cancer,” however, all facts paint a far more optimistic and hopeful picture. But any balance was missing in this program.’
As far as the PSA issue goes, you can read a synopsis of the task force recommendations here and the full report, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in August, here. Its conclusions: ‘Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer in men younger than age 75 years ... Do not screen for prostate cancer in men age 75 years or older.’
Wow. Confusing. I’m sure glad I’m not a man -- except, wait a minute! There are those sparkling-clear breast-self examination recommendations we women have to wrestle with: ‘Examine your breasts every month’ ... ‘Don’t examine your breasts every month’ ... ‘Don’t formally examine your breasts, but if you notice anything ...’ ... ‘Examine your breasts every month if you want to, but don’t examine your breasts every month if you don’t want to, it’s really up to you.’
-- Rosie Mestel