Cancer screening rates in individuals with different life expectancies

Randomized Trial of Information for Older Women About Cessation of Breast Cancer Screening Invitations

BACKGROUND

Older women receive no information about why Australia's breast screening program (BreastScreen) invitations cease after 74 years. We tested how providing older women with the rationale for breast screening cessation impacted informed choice (adequate knowledge; screening attitudes aligned with intention).

METHODS

In a three-arm online randomized trial, eligible participants were females aged 70-74 years who had recently participated in breast screening (within 5 years), without personal breast cancer history, recruited through Qualtrics. Participants read a hypothetical scenario in which they received a BreastScreen letter reporting no abnormalities on their mammogram. They were randomized to receive the letter: (1) without any rationale for screening cessation (control); (2) with screening cessation rationale in printed-text form (e.g., downsides of screening outweigh the benefits after age 74); or (3) with screening cessation rationale presented in an animation video form. The primary outcome was informed choice about continuing/stopping breast screening beyond 74 years.

RESULTS

A total of 376 participant responses were analyzed. Compared to controls (n = 122), intervention arm participants (text [n = 132] or animation [n = 122]) were more likely to make an informed choice (control 18.0%; text 32.6%, p = .010; animation 40.5%, p < .001). Intervention arm participants had more adequate knowledge (control 23.8%; text 59.8%, p < .001; animation 68.9%, p < .001), lower screening intentions (control 17.2%; text 36.4%, p < .001; animation 49.2%, p < .001), and fewer positive screening attitudes regarding screening for themselves in the animation arm, but not in the text arm (control 65.6%; text 51.5%, p = .023; animation 40.2%, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Providing information to older women about the rationale for breast cancer screening cessation increased informed decision-making in a hypothetical scenario. This study is an important first step in improving messaging provided by national cancer screening providers direct to older adults. Further research is needed to assess the impact of different elements of the intervention and the impact of providing this information in clinical practice, with more diverse samples.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ANZCTRN12623000033640.

Development and Evaluation of Messages for Reducing Overscreening of Breast Cancer in Older Women

BACKGROUND

Many older women are screened for breast cancer beyond guideline-recommended thresholds. One contributor is pro-screening messaging from health care professionals, media, and family/friends. In this project, we developed and evaluated messages for reducing overscreening in older women.

METHODS

We surveyed women ages 65+ who were members of a nationally representative online panel. We constructed 8 messages describing reasons to consider stopping mammograms, including guideline recommendations, false positives, overdiagnosis, and diminishing benefits from screening due to competing risks. Messages varied in their format; some presented statistical evidence, and some described short anecdotes. Each participant was randomized to read 4 of 8 messages. We also randomized participants to one of 3 message sources (clinician, family member, and news story). We assessed whether the message would make participants "want to find out more information" and "think carefully" about mammograms.

RESULTS

Participants (N=790) had a mean age of 73.5 years; 25.8% were non-White. Across all messages, 73.0% of the time, participants agreed that the messages would make them seek more information (range among different messages=64.2%-78.2%); 46.5% of the time participants agreed that the messages would make them think carefully about getting mammograms (range =36.7%-50.7%). Top-rated messages mentioned false-positive anecdotes and overdiagnosis evidence. Ratings were similar for messages from clinicians and news sources, but lower from the family member source.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, participants positively evaluated messages designed to reduce breast cancer overscreening regarding perceived effects on information seeking and deliberation. Combining the top-rated messages into messaging interventions may be a novel approach to reduce overscreening.

Prostate Specific Antigen Screening on a Nationwide Level: Featuring the Contribution of Race and Life Expectancy in Decision Making

BACKGROUND

Estimation of life expectancy (LE) is important for the relative benefit of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening. Limited data exists regarding screening for Black men with extended LE. The aim of the current study was to assess temporal trends in screening in United States (US) Black men with limited vs. extended LE, using a nationally representative dataset.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the National Health Institution Survey (NHIS) 2000 to 2018, men aged ≥40 without prior history of prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent PSA screening in the last 12 months were stratified into limited LE (ie, LE <15 years) and extended LE (ie, LE≥15 years) using the validated Schonberg index. LE-stratified temporal trends in PSA screening were analyzed for all men, and then in Black men. Weighted multivariable analyses and dominance analyses identified the predictors of PSA screening.

RESULTS

PSA screening declined over the study period both for all eligible men with limited and extended LE, particularly between NHIS 2008 and 2013 (27.9%-20.7% in the extended). Screening increased significantly in Black men with extended LE (17.6% in 2010-25.7% in 2018). However, LE was not an independent predictor of screening in the Black cohort. Prior recipient of colonoscopy (55%-57%) and visit to health care provider (24%-32%) were the most important determinants for screening.

CONCLUSION

For US men with extended LE, only 1 in 4 receive PSA screening, with a decline over the study-period. Screening rates increased for Black men. However, these changes were not driven by LE consideration itself, but participation in other screenings and access to a provider.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Receipt Does Not Differ by 10-Year Mortality Risk Among Older Adults

BACKGROUND

Health status and life expectancy are important considerations for assessing potential benefits and harms of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs, particularly among older adults.

METHODS

We examined receipt of past-year CRC screening according to predicted 10-year mortality risk among 25,888 community-dwelling adults aged 65-84 years who were not up-to-date with screening in the nationwide National Health Interview Survey. Ten-year mortality risk was estimated using a validated index; from the lowest to highest quintiles of the index, risk was 12%, 24%, 39%, 58%, and 79%, respectively. We also examined the proportion of screening performed among adults with life expectancy <10 years.

RESULTS

The prevalence of past-year CRC screening was 39.5%, 40.6%, 38.7%, 36.4%, and 35.4%, from the lowest to highest quintile of 10-year mortality risk. Odds of CRC screening did not differ between adults in the lowest vs highest quintile (adjusted odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.93-1.20). One-quarter (27.9%) of past-year CRC screening occurred in adults with life expectancy <10 years, and more than half (50.7%) of adults aged 75-84 years had 10-year mortality risk ≥50% at the time of screening. In an exploratory analysis, invasive but not noninvasive screening increased as 10-year mortality risk increased ( P < 0.05) among adults aged 70-79 years.

DISCUSSION

Past-year CRC screening does not differ by predicted 10-year mortality risk. An age-based approach to CRC screening results in underscreening of older, healthier adults and overscreening of younger adults with chronic conditions. Personalized screening with incorporation of individual life expectancy may increase the value of CRC screening programs.

Variation in Receipt of Cancer Screening and Immunizations by 10-year Life Expectancy among U.S. Adults aged 65 or Older in 2019

IMPORTANCE

The likelihood of benefit from a preventive intervention in an older adult depends on its time-to-benefit and the adult's life expectancy. For example, the time-to-benefit from cancer screening is >10 years, so adults with <10-year life expectancy are unlikely to benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To examine receipt of screening for breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer and receipt of immunizations by 10-year life expectancy.

DESIGN

Analysis of 2019 National Health Interview Survey.

PARTICIPANTS

8,329 non-institutionalized adults >65 years seen by a healthcare professional in the past year, representing 46.9 million US adults.

MAIN MEASURES

Proportions of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer screenings, and immunizations, were stratified by 10-year life expectancy, estimated using a validated mortality index. We used logistic regression to examine receipt of cancer screening and immunizations by life expectancy and sociodemographic factors.

KEY RESULTS

Overall, 54.7% of participants were female, 41.4% were >75 years, and 76.4% were non-Hispanic White. Overall, 71.5% reported being current with colorectal cancer screening, including 61.4% of those with <10-year life expectancy. Among women, 67.0% reported a screening mammogram in the past 2 years, including 42.8% with <10-year life expectancy. Among men, 56.8% reported prostate specific antigen screening in the past two years, including 48.3% with <10-year life expectancy. Reported receipt of immunizations varied from 72.0% for influenza, 68.8% for pneumococcus, 57.7% for tetanus, and 42.6% for shingles vaccination. Lower life expectancy was associated with decreased likelihood of cancer screening and shingles vaccination but with increased likelihood of pneumococcal vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the long time-to-benefit from cancer screening, in 2019 many US adults age >65 with <10-year life expectancy reported undergoing cancer screening while many did not receive immunizations with a shorter time-to-benefit. Interventions to improve individualization of preventive care based on older adults' life expectancy may improve care of older adults.

Screening for cancer beyond recommended upper age limits: views and experiences of older people

BACKGROUND

Internationally, screening programmes and clinical practice guidelines recommend when older adults should stop cancer screening using upper age limits, but it is unknown how older adults view these recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

To examine older adults' views and experiences about continuing or stopping cancer screening beyond the recommended upper age limit for breast, cervical, prostate and bowel cancer.

DESIGN

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews.

SETTING

Australia, telephone.

SUBJECTS

A total of 29 community-dwelling older adults (≥70-years); recruited from organisation newsletters, mailing lists and Facebook advertisements.

METHODS

Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis.

RESULTS

Firstly, older adults were on a spectrum between trusting recommendations and actively deciding about cancer screening, with some who were uncertain. Secondly, participants reported limited in-depth discussions with health professionals about cancer screening. In primary care, discussions were focused on checking they were up to date with screening or going over results. Discussions mostly only occurred if older adults initiated themselves. Finally, participants had a socially- and self-constructed understanding of screening recommendations and potential outcomes. Perceived reasons for upper age limits were cost, reduced cancer risk or ageism. Risks of screening were understood in relation to their own social experiences (e.g. shared stories about friends with adverse outcomes of cancer treatment or conversations with friends/family about controversy around prostate screening).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct-to-patient information and clinician support may help improve communication about the changing benefit to harm ratio of cancer screening with increasing age and increase understanding about the rationale for an upper age limit for cancer screening programmes.

Incorporating Value-Based Decisions in Breast Cancer Treatment Algorithms

Given the excellent prognosis and availability of evidence-based treatment, patients with early-stage breast cancer are at risk of overtreatment. In this review, we summarize key opportunities to incorporate value-based decisions to optimize the delivery of high-value treatment across the breast cancer care continuum.

Factors Influencing Primary Care Practitioners' Cancer Screening Recommendations for Older Adults: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Primary care practitioners (PCPs) play a key role in cancer screening decisions for older adults (≥ 65 years), but recommendations vary by cancer type and jurisdiction.

PURPOSE

To examine the factors influencing PCPs' recommendations for breast, cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer screening for older adults.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Pre-Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, searched from 1 January 2000 to July 2021, and citation searching in July 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Assessed factors influencing PCPs' breast, prostate, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening decisions for older adults' (defined either as ≥ 65 years or < 10-year life expectancy).

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently conducted data extraction and quality appraisal. Decisions were crosschecked and discussed where necessary.

DATA SYNTHESIS

From 1926 records, 30 studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty were quantitative, nine were qualitative, and one used a mixed method design. Twenty-nine were conducted in the USA, and one in the UK. Factors were synthesized into six categories: patient demographic characteristics, patient health characteristics, patient and clinician psycho-social factors, clinician characteristics, and health system factors. Patient preference was most reported as influential across both quantitative and qualitative studies. Age, health status, and life expectancy were also commonly influential, but PCPs held nuanced views about life expectancy. Weighing benefits/harms was also commonly reported with variation across cancer screening types. Other factors included patient screening history, clinician attitudes/personal experiences, patient/provider relationship, guidelines, reminders, and time.

LIMITATIONS

We could not conduct a meta-analysis due to variability in study designs and measurement. The vast majority of included studies were conducted in the USA.

CONCLUSIONS

Although PCPs play a role in individualizing cancer screening for older adults, multi-level interventions are needed to improve these decisions. Decision support should continue to be developed and implemented to support informed choice for older adults and assist PCPs to consistently provide evidence-based recommendations.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021268219.

FUNDING SOURCE

NHMRC APP1113532.

When should electronic medical records reminders for cancer screening stop?-Results from a national physician survey

BACKGROUND

Many older adults are screened for breast and colorectal cancers beyond guideline recommended thresholds. Electronic medical record (EMR) reminders are commonly used to prompt cancer screening. Behavioral economics theory suggests that changing the default settings for these reminders can be effective to reduce over-screening. We examined physician perspectives about acceptable thresholds for stopping EMR cancer screening reminders.

METHODS

In a national survey of 1200 primary care physicians (PCP) and 600 gynecologists randomly selected from the AMA Masterfile, we asked physicians to choose whether EMR reminders for cancer screening should stop based on a list of criteria that included age, life expectancy, specific serious illnesses, and functional limitations. Physicians could choose multiple responses. PCPs were randomized to questions about breast or colorectal cancer screening.

RESULTS

A total of 592 physicians participated (adjusted response rate 54.1%). 54.6% chose age and 71.8% chose life expectancy as criteria for stopping EMR reminders; only 30.6% chose functional limitations. Regarding age thresholds, 52.4% chose ages ≤75, 42.0% chose a threshold between 75 and 85, 5.6% would not stop reminders even at age 85. Regarding life expectancy thresholds, 32.0% chose ≥10 years, 53.1% chose a threshold between 5 and 9 years, 14.9% would not stop reminders even when life expectancy is <5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that many physicians would continue EMR reminders for cancer screening even in light of older age, limited life expectancy, and functional limitations. This may reflect reluctance to stop cancer screening and/or reluctance to stop EMR reminders so that physicians can retain control to decide for individual patients, for example, to assess patient preference and ability to tolerate treatment. There was consensus for stopping EMR reminders at ages 85+ and <5-year life expectancy. Interventions that seek to reduce over-screening by suppressing EMR reminders may be important for these groups but may have limited physician buy-in outside these thresholds.

Personalized Breast Cancer Screening

PURPOSE

Abundant literature and clinical trials indicate that routine cancer screenings decrease patient mortality for several common cancers. However, current national cancer screening guidelines heavily rely on patient age as the predominant factor in deciding cancer screening timing, neglecting other important medical characteristics of individual patients. This approach either delays screening or prescribes excessive screenings. Another disadvantage of the current approach is its inability to combine information across hospital systems because of the lack of a coherent records system.

METHODS

We propose to use claims data and medical insurance transactions that use consistent and pre-established sets of codes for diagnosis, procedures, and medications to develop a clinical support tool to supply supplemental insights and precautions for physicians to make more informed decisions. Furthermore, we propose a novel machine learning framework to recommend personalized, data-driven, and dynamic screening decisions.

RESULTS

We apply this new method to the study of breast cancer mammograms using claims data from 378,840 female patients to demonstrate that across different risk populations, personalized screening reduces the average delay in a cancer diagnosis by 2-3 months with statistical significance, with even stronger benefits for individual patients up to 10 months.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating personal medical characteristics using claims data and novel machine learning methodologies into breast cancer screening improves screening delay by more dynamically considering changing patient risks. Future incorporation of the proposed methodology in health care settings could be provided as a potential support tool for clinicians.

Frequency of Use and Outcomes of Colonoscopy in Individuals Older Than 75 Years

Importance

The benefits from colorectal cancer (CRC) screening may take 10 to 15 years to accrue. Therefore, screening is recommended for older adults who are in good health.

Objective

To determine the number of screening colonoscopies done in patients older than 75 years with a life expectancy of fewer than 10 years, diagnostic yield, and associated adverse events within 10 days and 30 days of the procedure.

Design

This cross-sectional study with a nested cohort between January 2009 and January 2022 in an integrated health system assessed asymptomatic patients older than 75 years who underwent screening colonoscopy in the outpatient setting. Reports with incomplete data, any indication other than screening, patients who had a colonoscopy within the previous 5 years, and patients with a personal history of inflammatory bowel disease or CRC were excluded.

Exposures

Life expectancy based on a prediction model from previous literature.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the percentage of screened patients who had limited (<10 years) life expectancy. Other outcomes included colonoscopy findings and adverse events that developed within 10 days and 30 days of the procedure.

Results

A total of 7067 patients older than 75 years were included. The median (IQR) age was 78 (77-79) years, 3967 (56%) were women, and 5431 (77%) were White with an average of 2 comorbidities (taken from a select group of comorbidities). The proportion of colonoscopies performed on patients with a life expectancy of fewer than 10 years aged 76 to 80 years was 30% in both sexes and increased with age-82% of men and 61% of women aged 81 to 85 years (71% total), and 100% of patients beyond the age of 85 years. Adverse events requiring hospitalizations were common at 10 days (13.58 per 1000) and increased with age, particularly among patients older than 85 years. The detection of advanced neoplasia varied from 5.4% among patients aged 76 to 80 years to 6.2% in those aged 81 to 85 years and 9.5% among patients older than 85 years (P = .02). Of the total population, 15 patients (0.2%) had invasive adenocarcinoma; among patients with a life expectancy of fewer than 10 years, 1 of 9 was treated, whereas 4 of 6 patients with a life expectancy of greater than or equal to 10 years were treated.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study with a nested cohort, most screening colonoscopies performed in patients older than 75 years were in patients with limited life expectancy and associated with increased risk of complications. Colorectal cancer was exceedingly rare.

Different Types of Patient Health Information Associated With Physician Decision-making Regarding Cancer Screening Cessation for Older Adults

Importance

Although guidelines use limited life expectancy to guide physician decision-making regarding cessation of cancer screening, many physicians recommend screening for older adults with limited life expectancies. Different ways of presenting information may influence older adults' screening decision-making; whether the same is true for physicians is unknown.

Objective

To examine how different ways of presenting patient health information are associated with physician decision-making about cancer screening cessation for older adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A national survey was mailed from April 29 to November 8, 2021, to a random sample of 1800 primary care physicians and 600 gynecologists from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. Primary care physicians were surveyed about breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer screenings. Gynecologists were surveyed about breast cancer screening.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Using vignettes of 2 older patients with limited life expectancies, 4 pieces of information about each patient were presented: (1) description of health conditions and functional status, (2) life expectancy, (3) equivalent physiological age, and (4) risk of dying from the specific cancer in the patient's remaining lifetime. The primary outcome was which information was perceived to be the most influential in screening cessation.

Results

The final sample included 776 participants (adjusted response rate, 52.8%; mean age, 51.4 years [range, 27-91 years]; 402 of 775 participants were men [51.9%]; 508 of 746 participants were White [68.1%]). The 2 types of information that were most often chosen as the factors most influential in cancer screening cessation were description of the patient's health or functional status (36.7% of vignettes [569 of 1552]) and risk of death from cancer in the patient's remaining lifetime (34.9% of vignettes [542 of 1552]). Life expectancy was chosen as the most influential factor in 23.1% of vignettes (358 of 1552). Physiological age was the least often chosen (5.3% of vignettes [83 of 1552]) as the most influential factor. Description of patient's health or functional status was the most influential factor among primary care physicians (estimated probability, 40.2%; 95% CI, 36.2%-44.2%), whereas risk of death from cancer was the most influential factor among gynecologists (estimated probability, 43.1%; 95% CI, 34.0%-52.1%). Life expectancy was perceived as a more influential factor in the vignette with more limited life expectancy (estimated probability, 27.9%; 95% CI, 24.5%-31.3%) and for colorectal cancer (estimated probability, 33.9%; 95% CI, 27.3%-40.5%) or prostate cancer (28.0%; 95% CI, 21.7%-34.2%) screening than for breast cancer screening (estimated probability, 14.5%; 95% CI, 10.9%-18.0%).

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings from this national survey study of physicians suggest that, in addition to the patient's health and functional status, the cancer risk in the patient's remaining lifetime and life expectancy were the factors most associated with physician decision-making regarding cancer screening cessation; information on cancer risk in the patient's remaining lifetime and life expectancy is not readily available during clinical encounters. Decision support tools that present a patient's cancer risk and/or limited life expectancy may help reduce overscreening among older adults.

A model for predicting both breast cancer risk and non-breast cancer death among women > 55 years old

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend shared decision making (SDM) for mammography screening for women ≥ 75 and not screening women with < 10-year life expectancy. High-quality SDM requires consideration of women's breast cancer (BC) risk, life expectancy, and values but is hard to implement because no models simultaneously estimate older women's individualized BC risk and life expectancy.

METHODS

Using competing risk regression and data from 83,330 women > 55 years who completed the 2004 Nurses' Health Study (NHS) questionnaire, we developed (in 2/3 of the cohort, n = 55,533) a model to predict 10-year non-breast cancer (BC) death. We considered 60 mortality risk factors and used best-subsets regression, the Akaike information criterion, and c-index, to identify the best-fitting model. We examined model performance in the remaining 1/3 of the NHS cohort (n = 27,777) and among 17,380 Black Women's Health Study (BWHS) participants, ≥ 55 years, who completed the 2009 questionnaire. We then included the identified mortality predictors in a previously developed competing risk BC prediction model and examined model performance for predicting BC risk.

RESULTS

Mean age of NHS development cohort participants was 70.1 years (± 7.0); over 10 years, 3.1% developed BC, 0.3% died of BC, and 20.1% died of other causes; NHS validation cohort participants were similar. BWHS participants were younger (mean age 63.7 years [± 6.7]); over 10-years 3.1% developed BC, 0.4% died of BC, and 11.1% died of other causes. The final non-BC death prediction model included 21 variables (age; body mass index [BMI]; physical function [3 measures]; comorbidities [12]; alcohol; smoking; age at menopause; and mammography use). The final BC prediction model included age, BMI, alcohol and hormone use, family history, age at menopause, age at first birth/parity, and breast biopsy history. When risk factor regression coefficients were applied in the validation cohorts, the c-index for predicting 10-year non-BC death was 0.790 (0.784-0.796) in NHS and 0.768 (0.757-0.780) in BWHS; for predicting 5-year BC risk, the c-index was 0.612 (0.538-0.641) in NHS and 0.573 (0.536-0.611) in BWHS.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed and validated a novel competing-risk model that predicts 10-year non-BC death and 5-year BC risk. Model risk estimates may help inform SDM around mammography screening.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Colorectal Cancer Mortality Beginning Ten Years after a Negative Colonoscopy, among Screen-Eligible Adults 76 to 85 Years Old

BACKGROUND

Few empirical data are available to inform older adults' decisions about whether to screen or continue screening for colorectal cancer based on their prior history of screening, particularly among individuals with a prior negative exam.

METHODS

Using a retrospective cohort of older adults receiving healthcare at three Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare systems in Northern California (KPNC), Southern California (KPSC), and Washington (KPWA), we estimated the cumulative risk of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality among older adults who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier, accounting for death from other causes.

RESULTS

Screen-eligible adults ages 76 to 85 years who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier were found to be at a low risk of colorectal cancer diagnosis, with a cumulative incidence of 0.39% [95% CI, 0.31%-0.48%) at 2 years that increased to 1.29% (95% CI, 1.02%-1.61%) at 8 years. Cumulative mortality from colorectal cancer was 0.04% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.08%) at 2 years and 0.46% (95% CI, 0.30%-0.70%) at 8 years.

CONCLUSIONS

These low estimates of cumulative colorectal cancer incidence and mortality occurred in the context of much higher risk of death from other causes.

IMPACT

Knowledge of these results could bear on older adults' decision to undergo or not undergo further colorectal cancer screening, including choice of modality, should they decide to continue screening. See related commentary by Lieberman, p. 6.

Should we screen for colorectal cancer in people aged 75 and over? A systematic review - collaborative work of the French geriatric oncology society (SOFOG) and the French federation of digestive oncology (FFCD)

BACKGROUND

We have done a systematic literature review about CRC Screening over 75 years old in order to update knowledge and make recommendations.

METHODS

PUBMED database was searched in October 2021 for articles published on CRC screening in the elderly, and generated 249 articles. Further searches were made to find articles on the acceptability, efficacy, and harms of screening in this population, together with the state of international guidelines.

RESULTS

Most benefit-risk data on CRC screening in the over 75 s derived from simulation studies. Most guidelines recommend stopping cancer screening at the age of 75. In private health systems, extension of screening up to 80-85 years is, based on the life expectancy and the history of screening. Screening remains effective in populations without comorbidity given their better life-expectancy. Serious adverse events of colonoscopy increase with age and can outweigh the benefit of screening. The great majority of reviews concluded that screening between 75 and 85 years must be decided case by case.

CONCLUSION

The current literature does not allow Evidence-Based Medicine propositions for mass screening above 75 years old. As some subjects over 75 years may benefit from CRC screening, we discussed ways to introduce CRC screening in France in the 75-80 age group. IRB: An institutional review board composed of members of the 2 learned societies (SOFOG and FFCD) defined the issues of interest, followed the evolution of the work and reviewed and validated the report.

Use Trends and Recent Expenditures for Cervical Cancer Screening-Associated Services in Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries Older Than 65 Years

Importance

Since 1996, the US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended against cervical cancer screening in average-risk women 65 years or older with adequate prior screening. Little is known about the use of cervical cancer screening-associated services in this age group.

Objective

To examine annual use trends in cervical cancer screening-associated services, specifically cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) tests, colposcopy, and cervical procedures (loop electrosurgical excision procedure, cone biopsy, and ablation) in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2019, and estimate expenditures for services performed in 2019.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based, cross-sectional analysis included health service use data across 21 years for women aged 65 to 114 years with Medicare fee-for-service coverage (15-16 million women per year). Data analysis was conducted between July 2021 and April 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion of testing modalities (cytology alone, cytology plus HPV testing [cotesting], HPV testing alone); annual use rate per 100 000 women of cytology and HPV testing, colposcopy, and cervical procedures from 1999 to 2019; Medicare expenditure for these services in 2019.

Results

There were 15 323 635 women 65 years and older with Medicare fee-for-service coverage in 1999 and 15 298 656 in 2019. In 2019, the mean (SD) age of study population was 76.2 (8.1) years, 5.1% were Hispanic, 0.5% were non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native, 3.0% were non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, 7.4% were non-Hispanic Black, and 82.0% were non-Hispanic White. From 1999 to 2019, the percentage of women who received at least 1 cytology or HPV test decreased from 18.9% (2.9 million women) in 1999 to 8.5% (1.3 million women) in 2019, a reduction of 55.3%; use rates of colposcopy and cervical procedures decreased 43.2% and 64.4%, respectively. Trend analyses showed a 4.6% average annual reduction in use of cytology or HPV testing during 1999 to 2019 (P < .001). Use rates of colposcopy and cervical procedures decreased before 2015 then plateaued during 2015 to 2019. The total Medicare expenditure for all services rendered in 2019 was about $83.5 million. About 3% of women older than 80 years received at least 1 service at a cost of $7.4 million in 2019.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that while annual use of cervical cancer screening-associated services in the Medicare fee-for-service population older than 65 years has decreased during the last 2 decades, more than 1.3 million women received these services in 2019 at substantial costs.

Effect of a Patient Decision Aid on Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Guidelines recommend individualized decision-making for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults aged 76 to 84 years, a process that includes a consideration of health state and patient preference.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a targeted patient decision aid would align older adults' screening preference with their potential to benefit from CRC screening.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This is a prespecified secondary analysis from a randomized clinical trial. Participants aged 70 to 84 years who were not up to date with screening and had an appointment within 6 weeks were purposively sampled by health state (poor, intermediate, or good) at 14 community-based primary care practices and block randomized to receive the intervention or control. Patients were recruited from March 1, 2012, to February 28, 2015, and these secondary analyses were performed from January 15 to March 1, 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Patient decision aid targeted to age and sex.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome of this analysis was patient preference for CRC screening. The a priori hypothesis was that the decision aid (intervention) group would reduce the proportion preferring screening among those in poor and intermediate health compared with the control group.

RESULTS

Among the 424 participants, the mean (SD) age was 76.8 (4.2) years; 248 (58.5%) of participants were women; and 333 (78.5%) were White. The proportion preferring screening in the intervention group was less than in the control group for those in the intermediate health state (34 of 76 [44.7%] vs 40 of 73 [54.8%]; absolute difference, -10.1% [95% CI, -26.0% to 5.9%]) and in the poor health state (24 of 62 [38.7%] vs 33 of 61 [54.1%]; absolute difference, -15.4% [95% CI, -32.8% to 2.0%]). These differences were not statistically significant. The proportion of those in good health who preferred screening was similar between the intervention and control groups (44 of 74 [59.5%] for intervention vs 46 of 75 [61.3%] for control; absolute difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -17.6% to 13.8%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this secondary analysis of a clinical trial did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in patient preferences between the health groups. Additional studies that are appropriately powered are needed to determine the effect of the decision aid on the preferences of older patients for CRC screening by health state.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01575990.

The Effect of Older Age and Frailty on the Time to Diagnosis of Cancer: A Connected Bradford Electronic Health Records Study

Over 60% of cancer diagnoses in the UK are in patients aged 65 and over. Cancer diagnosis and treatment in older adults is complicated by the presence of frailty, which is associated with lower survival rates and poorer quality of life. This population-based cohort study used a longitudinal database to calculate the time between presentation to primary care with a symptom suspicious of cancer and a confirmed cancer diagnosis for 7460 patients in the Bradford District. Individual frailty scores were calculated using the electronic frailty index (eFI) and categorised by severity. The median time from symptomatic presentation to cancer diagnosis for all patients was 48 days (IQR 21-142). 23% of the cohort had some degree of frailty. After adjustment for potential confounders, mild frailty added 7 days (95% CI 3-11), moderate frailty 23 days (95% CI 4-42) and severe frailty 11 days (95% CI -27-48) to the median time to diagnosis compared to not frail patients. Our findings support use of the eFI in primary care to identify and address patient, healthcare and system factors that may contribute to diagnostic delay. We recommend further research to explore patient and clinician factors when investigating cancer in frail patients.

General practitioners' views and experiences of communicating with older people about cancer screening: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Older adults should be supported to make informed decisions about cancer screening. However, it is unknown how general practitioners (GPs) in Australia communicate about cancer screening with older people.

AIM

To investigate GPs' views and experiences of communicating about cancer screening (breast, cervical, prostate, and bowel) with older people (≥70 years).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews, Australia.

METHOD

Interviews were conducted with GPs practising in Australia (n = 28), recruited through practice-based research networks, primary health networks, social media, and email invitation. Interviews were audio-recorded and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis.

RESULTS

Findings across GPs were organized into 3 themes: (i) varied motivation to initiate cancer screening discussions; some GPs reported that they only initiated screening within recommended ages (<75 years), others described initiating discussions beyond recommended ages, and some experienced older patient-initiated discussions; (ii) GPs described the role they played in providing screening information, whereby detailed discussions about the benefits/risks of prostate screening were more likely than other nationally funded screening types (breast, cervical, and bowel); however, some GPs had limited knowledge of recommendations and found it challenging to explain why screening recommendations have upper ages; (iii) GPs reported providing tailored advice and discussion based on personal patient preferences, overall health/function, risk of cancer, and previous screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies to support conversations between GPs and older people about the potential benefits and harms of screening in older age and rationale for upper age limits to screening programmes may be helpful. Further research in this area is needed.

Physician Attitudes About Using Life Expectancy to Inform Cancer Screening Cessation in Older Adults-Results From a National Survey

This survey study assessed physicians’ attitudes about the use of life expectancy as a guide in the decision to stop cancer screening in older adults.

Characteristics Associated with Low-Value Cancer Screening Among Office-Based Physician Visits by Older Adults in the USA

BACKGROUND

After a certain age, cancer screening may expose older adults to unnecessary harms with limited benefits and represent inefficient use of health care resources.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the frequency of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening among adults older than US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) age thresholds at which screening is no longer considered routine and to identify physician and patient factors associated with low-value cancer screening.

DESIGN

Observational study using pooled cross-sectional data (2011-2016) from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a nationally representative probability sample of US office-based physician visits.

PARTICIPANTS

Analyses for cervical and breast cancer screening were limited to visits by women over age 65 (N=37,818) and ages 75 and over (N=19,451), respectively. Analyses for colorectal cancer screening were limited to visits by patients over age 75 (N=31,543).

MAIN MEASURES

Cancer screening procedures were coded as low value using USPSTF age thresholds.

KEY RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2016, an estimated 509, 507, and 273 thousand potentially low-value Pap smears, mammograms, and colonoscopies/sigmoidoscopies, respectively, were ordered annually. Low-valuecervical cancer screening was less likely to occur for visits with older (vs. younger) patients. Compared to visits by non-HispanicWhite women, low-valuecervical and breast cancer screening was less likely to occur for visits by women whose race/ethnicitywas something other than non-HispanicWhite, non-HispanicBlack, or Hispanic. Obstetrician/gynecologistswere more likely to order low-valuePap smears and mammograms compared to family/generalpractice physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Thousands of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screenings at ages beyond routine guideline thresholds occur each year in the USA. Further research is needed to understand whether this pattern represents clinical inertia and resistance to de-adoption of previous screening practices, or whether physicians and/or patients perceive a higher value in these tests than that endorsed by experts writing evidence-based guidelines.

Comorbidity and life expectancy in shared decision making for lung cancer screening

Shared decision making (SDM) is an important part of lung cancer screening (LCS) that includes discussing the risks and benefits of screening, potential outcomes, patient eligibility and willingness to participate, tobacco cessation, and tailoring a strategy to an individual patient. More than other cancer screening tests, eligibility for LCS is nuanced, incorporating the patient's age as well as tobacco use history and overall health status. Since comorbidities and multimorbidity (ie, 2 or more comorbidities) impact the risks and benefits of LCS, these topics are a fundamental part of decision-making. However, there is currently little evidence available to guide clinicians in addressing comorbidities and an individual's "appropriateness" for LCS during SDM visits. Therefore, this literature review investigates the impact of comorbidities and multimorbidity among patients undergoing LCS. Based on available evidence and guideline recommendations, we identify comorbidities that should be considered during SDM conversations and review best practices for navigating SDM conversations in the context of LCS. Three conditions are highlighted since they concomitantly portend higher risk of developing lung cancer, potentially increase risk of screening-related evaluation and treatment complications and can be associated with limited life expectancy: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and human immunodeficiency virus infection.

Stage IV Non-breast Cancer Patients and Screening Mammography: It is Time to Stop

BACKGROUND

Patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer have shortened life expectancy with questionable benefit of routine screening mammography (SM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and consequences of continued SM in the setting of reduced survival from stage IV non-breast cancer.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with Stage IV non-breast cancer at a single institution from 2015 to 2019 were queried from the institutional tumor registry for demographics, stage IV cancer diagnosis, and survival. Incidence and timing of SM after stage IV diagnosis and further diagnostic workup were extracted from the medical record.

RESULTS

790 women with Stage IV non-breast cancer were identified, 109 (14%) had at least 1 SM, 23% required diagnostic mammography, 7% breast biopsy, and 1% breast surgery. No breast cancers were identified. SM was ordered most often in stage IV gynecological cancers (28%), with more common cancers still seeing a high percentage of patients screened (lung 10%, colorectal 15%). Study 3-year survival was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI] 23-30%), with 74% mortality during follow up and median time from Stage IV diagnosis to death of 1.2 years (CI 0.4-2.3 years). Of patients screened, 41/109 died within 2 years of undergoing SM.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite low overall survival for patients diagnosed with metastatic non-breast cancer, 14% of women underwent SM which resulted in additional imaging, biopsies, and surgery with no new breast cancers identified. Continued SM in this population offers risk without benefit of reduced breast cancer mortality and should no longer continue in women with stage IV non-breast cancer.

Number of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening tests in the last five years reported by men in the United States in 2010, 2015, and 2018

BACKGROUND

Longer intervals between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests for routine prostate cancer screening can reduce the harms while maintaining the benefits of screening. Limited information has been published on PSA screening frequency. The purpose of this report is to describe the number of PSA tests in the last 5 years reported by men in the United States.

METHODS

Using data from National Health Interview Survey Cancer Control Supplements in 2010, 2015, and 2018, the number of PSA tests in the last 5 years reported by men ≥40 years was categorized as 4 to 5 PSA tests, 1 to 3 PSA tests, and no PSA tests. Logistic regression was used to calculate model-adjusted prevalence risk ratios (aPRs) for the number of PSA tests in the last 5 years, adjusting for age, racial-ethnic group, education, marital status, and health insurance.

RESULTS

The proportion of men aged ≥70 years who reported 4 to 5 PSA tests in the last 5 years decreased from 37.2% in 2010 to 31.1% in 2018, while the proportion reporting 1 to 3 PSA tests increased from 25.5% to 31.9%. In 2018, aPRs for 4 to 5 PSA tests vs. 1 to 3 PSA tests in the last 5 years were significantly higher among men aged 70 to 79 years than among men aged 55 to 69 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Men aged ≥70 years reported a small shift to less intense PSA testing between 2010 and 2018, but PSA testing intensity remained higher in men aged ≥70 years than in men aged 55 to 69 years.

Utilization of Mammography During the Last Year of Life Among Older Breast Cancer Survivors

Background: Mammography is generally recommended for breast cancer survivors. However, discussion is ongoing about stopping surveillance mammography when life expectancy is <5-10 years as the benefit of screening might be diminished toward the end of life. The utilization pattern of mammography in the last year of life among this population has not been well studied. Methods: We identified 58,736 females diagnosed with breast cancer between January 2002 and December 2015, who died at the age of at least 67, from the SEER-Medicare database. We examined the utilization patterns of mammography during their last year of life and investigated factors associated with the use of mammography at the end of life using a multivariable logistic regression model. Results: Overall, 28.5% of the patients received mammography during the last year of life. Multivariable logistic regression showed that older age (OR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.29-0.34, p < 0.001 for 95 vs. 85 years old), more advanced cancer stage (OR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.20-0.24 p < 0.001 for distant vs. localized disease), and higher comorbidity score (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.91-0.93, p < 0.001 for every 1-point increase) were associated with less mammography use. Age was nonlinearly associated with mammography use, with a steady proportion of patients receiving a mammography until approximately age 80 and then a sharp decrease thereafter. Conclusion: This population-based study found that a sizable proportion of older breast cancer survivors received mammography during the last year of life.

Discontinuing Cancer Screening for Older Adults: a Comparison of Clinician Decision-Making for Breast, Colorectal, and Prostate Cancer Screenings

BACKGROUND

While guidelines recommend against routine screening for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers in older adults (65+ years) with <10-year life expectancy, many of these patients continue to be screened. How clinicians consider screening cessation across multiple cancer screening types is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare and contrast clinicians' perspectives on discontinuing breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer screenings in older adults.

DESIGN

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care clinicians in Maryland (N=30) APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured interviews with individual clinicians. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using standard techniques of qualitative content analysis to identify major themes.

KEY RESULTS

Participants were mostly physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Four major themes highlighted differences in decision-making across cancer screenings: (1) Clinicians reported more often screening beyond guideline-recommended ages for breast and prostate cancers than colorectal cancer; (2) clinicians had different priorities when considering the benefits/harms of each screening; for example, some prioritized continuing colorectal cancer screening due to the test's high efficacy while others prioritized stopping colorectal cancer screening due to high procedural risk; some prioritized continuing prostate cancer screening due to poor outcomes from advanced prostate cancer while others prioritized stopping prostate cancer screening due to high false positive test rates and harms from downstream tests; (3) clinicians discussed harms of prostate and colorectal cancer screening more readily than for breast cancer screening; (4) clinicians perceived more involvement with gastroenterologists in colonoscopy decisions and less involvement from specialists for prostate and breast cancer screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight the need for more explicit guidance on how to weigh competing considerations in cancer screening (such as test accuracy versus ease of cancer treatment after detection). Recognizing the complexity of the benefit/harms analysis as clinicians consider multiple cancer screenings, future decision support tools, and clinician education materials can specifically address the competing considerations.

Likelihood of Lung Cancer Screening by Poor Health Status and Race and Ethnicity in US Adults, 2017 to 2020

IMPORTANCE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) via low-dose chest computed tomography can prevent mortality through surgical resection of early-stage cancers, but it is unknown whether poor health is associated with screening. Though LCS may be associated with better outcomes for non-Hispanic Black individuals, it is unknown whether racial or ethnic disparities exist in LCS use.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether health status is associated with LCS and whether racial or ethnic disparities are associated with LCS independently of health status.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional, population-based study of community-dwelling US adults used data from Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System annual surveys, 2017 to 2020. Participants were aged 55 to 79 years, with a less than 30 pack-year smoking history, and were current smokers or those who quit within 15 years. Data were analyzed from August to November 2021.

EXPOSURES

Self-reported health status and race and ethnicity.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Self-reported LCS in the last 12 months.

RESULTS

Of 14 550 individuals (7802 men [55.5%]; 7527 [55.0%] aged 65-79 years [percentages are weighted]), representing 3.68 million US residents, 17.0% (95% CI, 15.1%-18.9%) reported undergoing LCS. The prevalence of LCS was lower among non-Hispanic Black than non-Hispanic White individuals but not to a significant degree (12.0% [95% CI, 4.3%-19.7%] vs 17.5% [95% CI, 15.6%-19.5%]; P = .57). Health status was associated with LCS: 468 individuals in poor health vs 96 individuals in excellent health reported LCS (25.2% [95% CI, 20.6%-29.9%] vs 7.6% [95% CI, 5.0%-10.3%]; P < .001), and those with difficulty climbing stairs were more likely to report LCS than those without this functional limitation. Adjusting for sociodemographic factors, functional status, and comorbidities, self-rated health status remained associated with LCS (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19 per each 1-step decline in health; 95% CI, 1.03-1.38), and non-Hispanic Black individuals were 53% less likely to report LCS than non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90). Results were robust in sensitivity analyses in which health was alternatively quantified as number of comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

LCS in the US is more common among those who may be less likely to benefit from screening because of poor underlying health. Furthermore, racial or ethnic disparities were evident after accounting for health status, with non-Hispanic Black individuals nearly half as likely as non-Hispanic White individuals to report LCS despite the potential for greater benefit of screening this population.

Long-term effects and benefits of Helicobacter pylori eradication on the gastric mucosa in older individuals

BACKGROUND

The current international consensus report indicated that all Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori)-positive patients should be treated. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term effects and benefits of H. pylori eradication on the gastric mucosa in the elderly population.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study with 311 individuals aged ≥60 years, including 83 with persistent H. pylori infection (persistent group), 128 with successful H. pylori eradication (eradicated group), and 100 without H. pylori infection (control group). The results of endoscopy and mucosal histology were investigated at baseline and followed up for 5 and 10 years.

RESULTS

In the 5 to 10-year follow-up, there was a significant difference in the atrophy score among the three groups (P < 0.001); however, no significant difference was observed in the intestinal metaplasia (IM) score (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the cumulative incidence of gastric neoplastic lesion (GNL) between the eradicated and persistent groups during the 5 to 10-year follow-up period (P > 0.05). The baseline IM score of patients with GNL was significantly higher than that of those without GNL in the eradicated and control groups (P < 0.05). In all patients with GNL, the mean interval time between baseline and diagnosis of GLN was more than 6 years. The severity of baseline mucosal IM (odds ratio: OR 3.092, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.690-5.655, P < 0.001) and H. pylori infection (OR: 2.413, 95%CI: 1.019-5.712, P = 0.045) significantly increased the risk for GNL.

CONCLUSIONS

Older patients with a life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, especially those with moderate to severe gastric mucosal IM, may not benefit from the eradication of H. pylori to prevent gastric cancer.

Psychosocial and clinical predictors of continued cancer screening in older adults

OBJECTIVE

Many older adults (aged 75+) continue cancer screening despite guidelines suggesting they should not. Using mixed-methods, we examined psychosocial and clinical factors associated with continued breast/prostate screening.

METHODS

We conducted an online, scenario-based, randomized study in Australia with participants aged 65+ years. The primary outcome was screening intention (10-point scale, dichotomized: low (1-5) and high (6-10)). We also measured demographic, psychosocial, and age-related clinical variables. Participants provided reason/s for their screening intentions in free-text.

RESULTS

271 eligible participants completed the survey (aged 65-90 years, 71% adequate health literacy). Those who reported higher cancer anxiety, were men, screened more recently, had family history of breast/prostate cancer and were independent in activities of daily living, were more likely to intend to continue screening. Commonly reported reasons for intending to continue screening were grouped into six themes: routine adherence, the value of knowing, positive screening attitudes, perceived susceptibility, benefits focus, and needing reassurance.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychosocial factors may drive continued cancer screening in older adults and undermine efforts to promote informed decision-making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

When communicating benefits and harms of cancer screening to older adults, both clinical and psychosocial factors should be discussed to support informed decision-making.

Factors affecting the decision to investigate older adults with potential cancer symptoms: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Older age and frailty increase the risk of morbidity and mortality from cancer surgery and intolerance of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The effect of old age on diagnostic intervals is unknown; however, older adults need a balanced approach to the diagnosis and management of cancer symptoms, considering the benefits of early diagnosis, patient preferences, and the likely prognosis of a cancer.

AIM

To examine the association between older age and diagnostic processes for cancer, and the specific factors that affect diagnosis.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic literature review.

METHOD

Electronic databases were searched for studies of patients aged >65 years presenting with cancer symptoms to primary care considering diagnostic decisions. Studies were analysed using thematic synthesis and according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines.

RESULTS

Data from 54 studies with 230 729 participants were included. The majority of studies suggested an association between increasing age and prolonged diagnostic interval or deferral of a decision to investigate cancer symptoms. Thematic synthesis highlighted three important factors that resulted in uncertainty in decisions involving older adults: presence of frailty, comorbidities, and cognitive impairment. Data suggested patients wished to be involved in decision making, but the presence of cognitive impairment and the need for additional time within a consultation were significant barriers.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review has highlighted uncertainty in the management of older adults with cancer symptoms. Patients and their family wished to be involved in these decisions. Given the uncertainty regarding optimum management of this group of patients, a shared decision-making approach is important.

Patient-Reported Factors Associated With Older Adults' Cancer Screening Decision-making: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Decisions for older adults (aged ≥65 years) and their clinicians about whether to continue to screen for cancer are not easy. Many older adults who are frail or have limited life expectancy or comorbidities continue to be screened for cancer despite guidelines suggesting they should not; furthermore, many older adults have limited knowledge of the potential harms of continuing to be screened.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the patient-reported factors associated with older adults' decisions regarding screening for breast, prostate, colorectal, and cervical cancer.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Studies were identified by searching databases from January 2000 to June 2020 and were independently assessed for inclusion by 2 authors. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently conducted by 2 authors, and then all decisions were cross-checked and discussed where necessary. Data analysis was performed from September to December 2020.

FINDINGS

The search yielded 2475 records, of which 21 unique studies were included. Nine studies were quantitative, 8 were qualitative, and 4 used mixed method designs. Of the 21 studies, 17 were conducted in the US, and 10 of 21 assessed breast cancer screening decisions only. Factors associated with decision-making were synthesized into 5 categories: demographic, health and clinical, psychological, physician, and social and system. Commonly identified factors associated with the decision to undergo screening included personal or family history of cancer, positive screening attitudes, routine or habit, to gain knowledge, friends, and a physician's recommendation. Factors associated with the decision to forgo screening included being older, negative screening attitudes, and desire not to know about cancer. Some factors had varying associations, including insurance coverage, living in a nursing home, prior screening experience, health problems, limited life expectancy, perceived cancer risk, risks of screening, family, and a physician's recommendation to stop.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although guidelines suggest incorporating life expectancy and health status to inform older adults' cancer screening decisions, older adults' ingrained beliefs about screening may run counter to these concepts. Communication strategies are needed that support older adults to make informed cancer screening decisions by addressing underlying screening beliefs in context with their perceived and actual risk of developing cancer.

Factors Associated With Low-Value Cancer Screenings in the Veterans Health Administration

IMPORTANCE

Most clinical practice guidelines recommend stopping cancer screenings when risks exceed benefits, yet low-value screenings persist. The Veterans Health Administration focuses on improving the value and quality of care, using a patient-centered medical home model that may affect cancer screening behavior.

OBJECTIVE

To understand rates and factors associated with outpatient low-value cancer screenings.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study assessed the receipt of low-value cancer screening and associated factors among 5 993 010 veterans. Four measures of low-value cancer screening defined by validated recommendations of practices to avoid were constructed using administrative data. Patients with cancer screenings in 2017 at Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics were included. Excluded patients had recent symptoms or historic high-risk diagnoses that may affect test appropriateness (eg, melena preceding colonoscopy). Data were analyzed from December 23, 2019, to June 21, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Receipt of cancer screening test.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Low-value screenings were defined as occurring for average-risk patients outside of guideline-recommended ages or if the 1-year mortality risk estimated using a previously validated score was at least 50%. Factors evaluated in multivariable regression models included patient, clinician, and clinic characteristics and patient-centered medical home domain performance for team-based care, access, and continuity previously developed from administrative and survey data.

RESULTS

Of 5 993 010 veterans (mean [SD] age, 63.1 [16.8] years; 5 496 976 men [91.7%]; 1 027 836 non-Hispanic Black [17.2%] and 4 539 341 non-Hispanic White [75.7%] race and ethnicity) enrolled in primary care, 903 612 of 4 647 479 men of average risk (19.4%) underwent prostate cancer screening; 299 765 of 5 770 622 patients of average risk (5.2%) underwent colorectal cancer screening; 21 930 of 469 045 women of average risk (4.7%) underwent breast cancer screening; and 65 511 of 458 086 women of average risk (14.3%) underwent cervical cancer screening. Of patients screened, low-value testing was rare for 3 cancers, with receipt of a low-value test in 633 of 21 930 of women screened for breast cancer (2.9%), 630 of 65 511 of women screened for cervical cancer (1.0%), and 6790 of 299 765 of patients screened for colorectal cancer (2.3%). However, 350 705 of 4 647 479 of screened men (7.5%) received a low-value prostate cancer test. Patient race and ethnicity, sociodemographic factors, and illness burden were significantly associated with likelihood of receipt of low-value tests among screened patients. No single patient-, clinician-, or clinic-level factor explained the receipt of a low-value test across cancer screening cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This large cohort study found that low-value breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings were rare in the Veterans Health Administration, but more than one-third of patients screened for prostate cancer were tested outside of clinical practice guidelines. Guideline-discordant care has quality implications and is not consistently explained by associated multilevel factors.

State Variation in Low-Dose Computed Tomography Scanning for Lung Cancer Screening in the United States

BACKGROUND

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography in older current and former smokers (ie, eligible adults) has been recommended since 2013. Uptake has been slow and variable across the United States. We estimated the LCS rate and growth at the national and state level between 2016 and 2018.

METHODS

The American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry was used to capture screening events. Population-based surveys, the US Census, and cancer registry data were used to estimate the number of eligible adults and lung cancer mortality (ie, burden). Lung cancer screening rates (SRs) in eligible adults and screening rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure changes by state and year.

RESULTS

Nationally, the SR was steady between 2016 (3.3%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 3.7%) and 2017 (3.4%, 95% CI = 3.4% to 3.9%), increasing to 5.0% (95% CI = 5.0% to 5.7%) in 2018 (2018 vs 2016 SR ratio = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.62). In 2018, several southern states with a high lung-cancer burden (eg, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas) had relatively low SRs (<4%) among eligible adults, whereas several northeastern states with lower lung cancer burden (eg, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire) had the highest SRs (12.8%-15.2%). The exception was Kentucky, which had the nation's highest lung cancer mortality rate and one of the highest SRs (13.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than 1 in 20 eligible adults received LCS nationally, and uptake varied widely across states. LCS rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden across states, except for Kentucky, which has supported comprehensive efforts to implement LCS.

Self-reported reasons for colonoscopy among adults aged 45-49 versus 50 years and older from 2010-2018

BACKGROUND

In May of 2018, the American Cancer Society lowered the age of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening initiation from 50 to 45 years and in October 2020, United States Preventive Services Task Force published draft guidelines also lowering age of screening initiation to 45 years. Evaluating guideline adherence is needed; however, the majority of prior research on cancer screening do not distinguish whether colonoscopy was performed for true screening purposes or for post-symptomatic diagnosis.

METHODS

Using data from the National Health Interview Survey between 2010 to mid-2018, we assessed response to the question "What was the MAIN reason you had [last] colonoscopy?" stratified by age (45-49 versus 50+ years). Multivariable logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios of receiving last colonoscopy for screening controlling for relevant demographic characteristics. To estimate the cost burden of colonoscopy, the proportion of respondents reporting paying out of pocket for their last colonoscopy was assessed.

RESULTS

Among 29,074 participants who had undergone a colonoscopy, 44.4 % of those aged 45-50 reported routine procedure as the reason for their most recent colonoscopy, as compared to 82.4 % in the 50+ age group (p < 0.001). Characteristics associated with undergoing colonoscopy as a routine procedure included Black race and male sex for both age cohorts (p < 0.01 for all). Notably, almost half (46.9 %) of participants younger than 50 years paid part of or the full cost of their colonoscopy, as compared to 30.7 % over the age of 50 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of adults aged 45-49 self-report that last colonoscopy was not performed for screening, which is unsurprising given guidelines for screening for individuals under 50. As guidelines change, continued surveillance of colonoscopy patterns across age cohorts is needed, and studies should also incorporate reasons for testing.

Use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test in the United States for men age ≥65, 1999-2015: Implications for practice interventions

BACKGROUND

Various professional organizations have issued recommendations on use of the PSA test to screen for prostate cancer in different age groups.

AIMS

Using Medicare claims databases, we aimed to determine rates of PSA testing in the context of screening recommendations during 1999-2015 for US men age ≥65, stratified by age group and census regions, after excluding claims relating to all prostate-related conditions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Medicare claims databases encompassed 9.71-11.12 million men for the years under study. PSA testing rate was the proportion of men with ≥1 test(s) per 12 months of continuous enrollment. Men diagnosed with any prostate-related condition were excluded. Annual percent change (APC) in PSA test use was estimated using joinpoint regression analysis. In 1999-2015, annual testing rate was 10.1%-23.1%, age ≥85; 16.6%-31.0%, age 80-84; 23.8%-35.8%, age 75-79; 28.3%-36.9%, age 70-74; and 26.4%-33.6%, age 65-69. From 1999 to 2015, PSA testing rate decreased 40.7%, 29.9%, 13.9%, and 2.9%, respectively, for men age ≥85, 80-84, 75-79, and 70-74. For men age 65-69, test use increased by 0.3%. Significant APC trends were: APC_1999-2002  = +8.1%, P = .029 and APC_2008-2015  = -9.0%, P < .001 for men age ≥85; APC_2008-2015  = -7.1%, P = .001 for men age 80-84; APC_2001-2015  = -2.5%, P < .001 for men age 75-79; APC_2008-2015  = -3.3%, P = .007 for men age 70-74; and APC_2010-2015  = -5.2%, P = .014 for men age 65-69.

COCLUSION

Although decreased from 1999 to 2015, PSA testing rates remained high for men age ≥70. Further research could help understand why PSA testing continues inconsistent with recommendations.

Systematic Review of Treatments for Colorectal Metastases in Elderly Patients to Guide Surveillance Cessation Following Hepatic Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases

BACKGROUND

Although included in surveillance programmes for colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases, elderly patients are susceptible to declines in health and quality of life that may render them unsuitable for further surveillance. Deciding when to cease surveillance is challenging.

METHODS

There are no publications focused on surveillance of elderly patients for CRC metastases. A systematic review of studies reporting treatment outcomes for CRC metastases in elderly patients was performed to assess the risk-benefit balance of the key objectives of surveillance; detecting and treating CRC metastases.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight eligible studies reported outcomes for surgery and chemotherapy in the elderly. Liver resections and use of chemotherapy, including biologics, are more conservative and have poorer outcomes in the elderly compared with younger patients. Selected studies demonstrated poorer quality-of-life (QoL) following surgery and chemotherapy. Studies of ablation in elderly patients are limited.

DISCUSSION

The survival benefit of treating CRC metastases with surgery or chemotherapy decreases with advancing age and QoL may decline in the elderly. The relatively lower efficacy and detrimental QoL impact of multimodal therapy options for detected CRC metastases in the elderly questions the benefit of surveillance in some elderly patients. Care of elderly patients should thus be customized based on their preference, formal geriatric assessment, natural life-expectancy, and the perceived risk-benefit balance of treating recurrent CRC metastases. Clinicians may consider surveillance cessation in patients aged 75 years and above if geriatric assessment is unsatisfactory, patients decline surveillance, or patient fitness deteriorates catastrophically.

Five-alpha reductase inhibitors in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer: impact on treatment and reclassification after 6 years follow-up

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) on definitive treatment (DT) and pathological progression (PP) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer.

METHODS

We identified 361 consecutive patients, from an IRB-approved database, on AS for prostate cancer with minimum 2 years follow-up. Patients were grouped into two cohorts, those using 5-ARIs (5-ARI; n = 119) or not using 5-ARIs (no 5-ARI; n = 242). Primary and secondary endpoints were treatment-free survival (TFS) and PP-free survival (PPFS), which were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Univariate and multivariable cox regression analysis were used to identify predictors for PP and DT. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics and the prostate biopsy rate were similar between the two groups. Median (range) follow-up was 5.7 (2.0-17.2) years. Five-year and 10-year TFS was 92% and 59% for the 5-ARI group versus 80% and 51% for the no 5-ARI group (p = 0.005), respectively. Five-year and 10-year PPFS was 77% and 41% for the 5-ARI group versus 70% and 32% for the no 5-ARI group (p = 0.04), respectively. Independent predictors for treatment and PP were not taking 5-ARIs (p = 0.005; p = 0.02), entry PSA > 2.5 ng/mL (p = 0.03; p = 0.01) and Gleason pattern 4 on initial biopsy (p < 0.001; p < 0.001), respectively. The main limitation is the retrospective study design.

CONCLUSIONS

5-ARIs reduces reclassification and cross-over to treatment in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Further, taking 5-ARIs was an independent predictor for prostate cancer progression and definitive treatment.

Prostate-specific antigen testing among young men: an opportunity to improve value

Introduction

Prostate cancer screening using prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) testing remains widespread. The prevalence of PSA testing in young men is unknown and may be an appropriate target for improving health care by decreasing low‐value testing in this age group. The purpose of this study was to determine PSA testing rates in men younger than current guidelines support.

Materials and Methods

Health Informational National Trends Surveys (HINTS) from 2011 to 2014 and 2017 were analyzed to establish the prevalence of PSA testing in young men and to evaluate the differences in testing rates based on race.

Results

The combined survey data included 5178 men, with 2393 reporting previous PSA screening. Of men ages 18–39, 7% recalled receipt of PSA testing. Twenty‐two percent of men between the ages of 40 and 44 had been tested. Among men under age 40, PSA testing was more common among black men (14%) compared to white men (7%), Hispanics (6%), and men of Asian descent (8%). Logistic regression modeling demonstrates that black men under the age of 40 were more likely to undergo PSA testing than other racial or ethnic groups (odds ratio 2.14; 95% CI 1.17, 3.93).

Conclusions

Current guidelines do not recommend routine PSA testing in average‐risk men under the age of 40. This study found that a significant number of young men are exposed to testing, with the greatest risk among black men. This suggests that there is an opportunity to improve the value of PSA testing by decreasing testing in young men.

Screening Mammography Outcomes: Risk of Breast Cancer and Mortality by Comorbidity Score and Age

BACKGROUND

Potential benefits of screening mammography among women ages 75 years and older remain unclear.

METHODS

We evaluated 10-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer and death from breast cancer and other causes by Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and age in the Medicare-linked Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (1999-2010) cohort of 222 088 women with no less than 1 screening mammogram between ages 66 and 94 years.

RESULTS

During median follow-up of 107 months, 7583 were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and 1742 with ductal carcinoma in situ; 471 died from breast cancer and 42 229 from other causes. The 10-year cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer did not change with increasing CCI but decreased slightly with age: ages 66-74 years (CCI0 = 4.0% [95% CI = 3.9% to 4.2%] vs CCI  ≥ 2 = 3.9% [95% CI = 3.5% to 4.3%]); ages 75-84 years (CCI0 = 3.7% [95% CI = 3.5% to 3.9%] vs CCI  ≥ 2 = 3.4% [95% CI = 2.9% to 3.9%]); and ages 85-94 years (CCI0 = 2.7% [95% CI = 2.3% to 3.1%] vs CCI  ≥ 2 = 2.1% [95% CI = 1.3% to 3.0%]). The 10-year cumulative incidence of other-cause death increased with increasing CCI and age: ages 66-74 years (CCI0 = 10.4% [95% CI = 10.3 to 10.7%] vs CCI ≥ 2 = 43.4% [95% CI = 42.2% to 44.4%]), ages 75-84 years (CCI0 = 29.8% [95% CI = 29.3% to 30.2%] vs CCI ≥ 2 = 61.7% [95% CI = 60.2% to 63.3%]), and ages 85 to 94 years (CCI0 = 60.3% [95% CI = 59.1% to 61.5%] vs CCI  ≥ 2 = 84.8% [95% CI = 82.5% to 86.9%]). The 10-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer death was small and did not vary by age: ages 66-74 years = 0.2% (95% CI = 0.2% to 0.3%), ages 75-84 years = 0.29% (95% CI = 0.25% to 0.34%), and ages 85 to 94 years = 0.3% (95% CI = 0.2% to 0.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Cumulative incidence of other-cause death was many times higher than breast cancer incidence and death, depending on comorbidity and age. Hence, older women with increased comorbidity may experience diminished benefit from continued screening.

Temporal trends and regional disparities in cancer screening utilization: an observational Swiss claims-based study

Background

We examined colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer screening utilization in eligible populations within three data cross-sections, and identified factors potentially modifying cancer screening utilization in Swiss adults.

Methods

The study is based on health insurance claims data of the Helsana Group. The Helsana Group is one of the largest health insurers in Switzerland, insuring approximately 15% of the entire Swiss population across all regions and age groups. We assessed proportions of the eligible populations receiving colonoscopy/fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), mammography, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in the years 2014, 2016, and 2018, and calculated average marginal effects of individual, temporal, regional, insurance-, supply-, and system-related variables on testing utilization using logistic regression.

Results

Overall, 8.3% of the eligible population received colonoscopy/FOBT in 2014, 8.9% in 2016, and 9.2% in 2018. In these years, 20.9, 21.2, and 20.4% of the eligible female population received mammography, and 30.5, 31.1, and 31.8% of the eligible male population had PSA testing. Adjusted testing utilization varied little between 2014 and 2018; there was an increasing trend of 0.8% (0.6–1.0%) for colonoscopy/FOBT and of 0.5% (0.2–0.8%) for PSA testing, while mammography use decreased by 1.5% (1.2–1.7%). Generally, testing utilization was higher in French-speaking and Italian-speaking compared to German-speaking region for all screening types. Cantonal programs for breast cancer screening were associated with an increase of 7.1% in mammography utilization. In contrast, a high density of relevant specialist physicians showed null or even negative associations with screening utilization.

Conclusions

Variation in cancer screening utilization was modest over time, but considerable between regions. Regional variation was highest for mammography use where recommendations are debated most controversially, and the implementation of programs differed the most.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-020-10079-8.

Using an Agent-based Model to Examine Deimplementation of Breast Cancer Screening

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine the potential impact of provider social networks and experiences with patients on deimplementation of breast cancer screening.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We constructed the Breast Cancer-Social network Agent-based Model (BC-SAM), which depicts breast cancer screening decisions, incidence, and progression among 10,000 women ages 40 and over and the screening recommendations of their providers over a 30-year period. The model has patient and provider modules that each incorporate social network influences. Patients and providers were connected in a network, which represented patient-patient peer connections, provider-provider peer connections, connections between providers and patients they treat, and friend/family relationships between patients and providers. We calibrated provider decisions in the model using data from the CanSNET national survey of primary care physicians in the United States, which we fielded in 2016.

RESULTS

First, assuming that providers' screening recommendations for women ages 50-74 remain unchanged but their recommendations for screening among younger (below 50 y old) and older (75+ y old) women decrease, we observed a decline in predicted screening rates for women ages 50-74 due to spillover effects. Second, screening rates for younger and older women were slow to respond to changes in provider recommendations; a 78% decline in provider recommendations to older women over 30 years resulted in an estimated 23% decline in patient screening in that group. Third, providers' experiences with unscreened patients, friends, and family members modestly increased screening recommendations over time (7 percentage points). Finally, we found that provider peer effects can have a substantial impact on population screening rates and can entrench existing practices.

CONCLUSION

Modeling cancer screening as a complex social system demonstrates a range of potential effects and may help target future interventions designed to reduce overscreening.

Derivation and validation of 10-year all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality prediction model for middle-aged and elderly community-dwelling adults in Taiwan

Prediction model mainly focused on specific diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or patients with cancer, or populations of Europe and America, thereby limiting its generalization. This study aimed to develop and validate a 10-year mortality risk score by using data from a population-representative sample of adults. Data were collected from 2,221 Taichung Community Health study participants aged ≥40 years. The baseline period of the study was 2004, and all participants were followed up until death or in 2016. Cox’s proportional hazards regression analyses were used to develop the prediction model. A total of 262 deaths were ascertained during the 10-year follow-up. The all-cause mortality prediction model calculated the significant risk factors, namely, age, sex, marital status, physical activity, tobacco use, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and albumin-to-creatinine ratio, among the baseline risk factors. The expanded cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality prediction model consisted of six variables: age, sex, body mass index, heart disease plus heart disease medication use, stroke plus medication use, and ankle–brachial index. The areas under receiver operating curves of the 3-, 5- and 10-year predictive models varied between 0.97, 0.96, and 0.88 for all-cause mortality, and between 0.97, 0.98, and 0.84 for expanded CVD mortality. These mortality prediction models are valid and can be used as tools to identify the increased risk for mortality.

A Strategy to Prepare Primary Care Clinicians for Discussing Stopping Cancer Screening With Adults Older Than 75 Years

Background and Objectives

Adults older than 75 years are overscreened for cancer, especially those with less than 10-year life expectancy. This study aimed to learn the effects of providing primary care providers (PCPs) with scripts for discussing stopping mammography and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and with information on patient’s 10-year life expectancy on their patients’ intentions to be screened for these cancers.

Research Design and Methods

Patient participants, identified via PCP appointment logs, completed a questionnaire pre- and postvisit. Primary care providers were given scripts for discussing stopping screening and information on patient’s 10-year life expectancy before these visits. Primary care providers completed a questionnaire at the end of the study. Patients and PCPs were asked about discussing stopping cancer screening and patient life expectancy. Patient screening intentions (1–15 Likert scale; lower scores suggest lower intentions) were compared pre- and postvisit using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

Ninety patients older than 75 years (47% of eligible patients reached by phone) from 45 PCPs participated. Patient mean age was 80.0 years (SD = 2.9), 43 (48%) were female, and mean life expectancy was 9.7 years (SD = 2.4). Thirty-seven PCPs (12 community-based) completed a questionnaire. Primary care providers found the scripts helpful (32 [89%]) and thought they would use them frequently (29 [81%]). Primary care providers also found patient life expectancy information helpful (35 [97%]). However, only 8 PCPs (22%) reported feeling comfortable discussing patient life expectancy. Patients’ intentions to undergo CRC screening (9.0 [SD = 5.3] to 6.5 [SD = 6.0], p < .0001) and mammography screening (12.9 [SD = 3.0] to 11.7 [SD = 4.9], p = .08) decreased from pre- to postvisit (significantly for CRC). Sixty-three percent of patients (54/86) were interested in discussing life expectancy with their PCP previsit and 56% (47/84) postvisit.

Discussion and Implications

PCPs found scripts for discussing stopping cancer screening and information on patient life expectancy helpful. Possibly, as a result, their patients older than 75 years had lower intentions of being screened for CRC.

Clinical Trials Registration Number

NCT03480282

Scripts and Strategies for Discussing Stopping Cancer Screening with Adults > 75 Years: a Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Despite guidelines recommending not to continue cancer screening for adults > 75 years old, especially those with short life expectancy, primary care providers (PCPs) feel ill-prepared to discuss stopping screening with older adults.

OBJECTIVE

To develop scripts and strategies for PCPs to use to discuss stopping cancer screening with adults > 75.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semi-structured interview guides to conduct individual interviews with adults > 75 years old and focus groups and/or individual interviews with PCPs.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-five PCPs and 30 patients > 75 years old participated from six community or academic Boston-area primary care practices.

APPROACH

Participants were asked their thoughts on discussions around stopping cancer screening and to provide feedback on scripts that were iteratively revised for PCPs to use when discussing stopping mammography and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

RESULTS

Twenty-one (47%) of the 45 PCPs were community based. Nineteen (63%) of the 30 patients were female, and 13 (43%) were non-Hispanic white. PCPs reported using different approaches to discuss stopping cancer screening depending on the clinical scenario. PCPs noted it was easier to discuss stopping screening when the harms of screening clearly outweighed the benefits for a patient. In these cases, PCPs felt more comfortable being more directive. When the balance between the benefits and harms of screening was less clear, PCPs endorsed shared decision-making but found this approach more challenging because it was difficult to explain why to stop screening. While patients were generally enthusiastic about screening, they also reported not wanting to undergo tests of little value and said they would stop screening if their PCP recommended it. By the end of participant interviews, no further edits were recommended to the scripts.

CONCLUSIONS

To increase PCP comfort and capability to discuss stopping cancer screening with older adults, we developed scripts and strategies that PCPs may use for discussing stopping cancer screening.

Effect of different communication strategies about stopping cancer screening on screening intention and cancer anxiety: a randomised online trial of older adults in Australia

OBJECTIVE

To assess different strategies for communicating to older adults about stopping cancer screening.

DESIGN

4 (recommendation statement about stopping screening)×(2; time) online survey-based randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

271 English-speaking participants, aged 65-90, screened for breast/prostate cancer at least once in past decade.

INTERVENTIONS

Time 1: participants read a scenario in which their general practitioner (GP) informed them about the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening, followed by double-blinded randomisation to one of four recommendation statements to stop screening: control ('this screening test would harm you more than benefit you'), health status ('your other health issues should take priority'), life expectancy framed positively ('this test would not help you live longer') and negatively ('you may not live long enough to benefit'). Time 2: in a follow-up scenario, the GP explained why guidelines changed over time (anchoring bias intervention).

MEASURES

Primary outcomes: screening intention and cancer anxiety (10-point scale, higher=greater intention/anxiety), measured at both time points.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

trust (in their GP, the information provided, the Australian healthcare system), decisional conflict and knowledge of the information presented.

RESULTS

271 participants' responses analysed. No main effects were found. However, screening intention was lower for the negatively framed life expectancy versus health status statement (6.0 vs 7.1, mean difference (MD)=1.1, p=0.049, 95% CI 0.0 to 2.2) in post hoc analyses. Cancer anxiety was lower for the negatively versus positively framed life expectancy statement (4.8 vs 5.8, MD=1.0, p=0.025, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.9). The anchoring bias intervention reduced screening intention (MD=0.8, p=0.044, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.0) and cancer anxiety (MD=0.3, p=0.002, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4) across all conditions.

CONCLUSION

Older adults may reduce their screening intention without reporting increased cancer anxiety when clinicians use a more confronting strategy communicating they may not live long enough to benefit and add an explicit explanation why the recommendation has changed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001306202; Results).