- nytimes.com/2011/10/09/magazine/can-cancer-ever-be-ignored.html?pagewanted=all
- youtube.com/watch?v=xb6TI14GINc
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
5-Oct-11
See this entry: Submission 1, Submission 2.
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
The Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) test is one of the most controversial tests in medicine. This story examines the source of the controversy and the history of how the test came to be widely used before it was validated, and the acrimonious debate it has triggered within the medical and patient advocacy communities. The story explains, perhaps better than any other in the popular media, the trade-offs involved in the test and the downstream treatments to which it commonly leads.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
This story is based on a thorough review of the relevant medical literature from the U.S. and abroad. It also relied heavily on the work of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Explain types of human sources used.
We conducted more than 40 interviews with patients, physicians, government officials, members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a hospital marketer, and experts in medical evidence.
Results:
The story was reported in the Fall of 2010, and completed in early 2011 in anticipation that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force would soon release its latest review of PSA testing. In the end, the publication of the story precipitated the release of the task force’s new recommendation. Our story and the task force recommendations triggered a deluge of news stories (including a story the following day in the NY Times), and blog posts, and vociferous argument from urologists and patient advocates who support the use of the test.
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
No correction or clarification was needed as the story was airtight.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Know your science, or find sources who can walk you through it. Unlike the vast majority of stories about medical controversy in general, and the PSA test in particular, this story did not fall back on “he said, she said” reporting in order to convey the facts of the controversy and to appear balanced. We were able to write a clear authoritative story because we waded into the science and were able to question both advocates and critics of the test very closely. It also helps to look at such controversies in a historical light. The history of cancer screening in the U.S. is an important clue to the adoption of new ideas in medicine. This helped us think about how to convey the information in the story in ways that we hoped might help readers examine their own assumptions.