Preferred Clinician Communication About Stopping Cancer Screening Among Older US Adults: Results From a National Survey

Tackling Guideline Non-concordance: Primary Care Barriers to Incorporating Life Expectancy into Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making-A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers (PCPs) are often the first point of contact for discussing lung cancer screening (LCS) with patients. While guidelines recommend against screening people with limited life expectancy (LLE) who are less likely to benefit, these patients are regularly referred for LCS.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand barriers PCPs face to incorporating life expectancy into LCS decision-making for patients who otherwise meet eligibility criteria, and how a hypothetical point-of-care tool could support patient selection.

DESIGN

Qualitative study based on semi-structured telephone interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-one PCPs who refer patients for LCS, from six Veterans Health Administration facilities.

APPROACH

We thematically analyzed interviews to understand how PCPs incorporated life expectancy into LCS decision-making and PCPs' receptivity to a point-of-care tool to support patient selection. Final themes were organized according to the Cabana et al. framework Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines, capturing the influence of clinician knowledge, attitudes, and behavior on LCS appropriateness determinations.

KEY RESULTS

PCP referrals to LCS for patients with LLE were influenced by limited knowledge of the life expectancy threshold at which patients are less likely to benefit from LCS, discomfort estimating life expectancy, fear of missing cancer at the point of early detection, and prioritization of factors such as quality of life, patient values, clinician-patient relationship, and family support. PCPs were receptive to a decision support tool to inform and communicate LCS appropriateness decisions if easy to use and integrated into clinical workflows.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests knowledge gaps and attitudes may drive decisions to offer screening despite LLE, a behavior counter to guideline recommendations. Integrating a LCS decision support tool that incorporates life expectancy within the electronic medical record and existing clinical workflows may be one acceptable solution to improve guideline concordance and increase confidence in selecting high benefit patients for LCS.

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.

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.

"It Can't Hurt!": Why Many Patients With Limited Life Expectancy Decide to Accept Lung Cancer Screening

PURPOSE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) has less benefit and greater potential for iatrogenic harm among people with multiple comorbidities and limited life expectancy. Yet, such individuals are more likely to undergo screening than healthier LCS-eligible people. We sought to understand how patients with marginal LCS benefit conceptualize their health and make decisions regarding LCS.

METHODS

We interviewed 40 people with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy, as determined by high Care Assessment Need scores, which predict 1-year risk of hospitalization or death. Patients were recruited from 6 Veterans Health Administration facilities after discussing LCS with their clinician. We conducted a thematic analysis using constant comparison to explore factors that influence LCS decision making.

RESULTS

Patients commonly held positive beliefs about screening and perceived LCS to be noninvasive. When posed with hypothetical scenarios of limited benefit, patients emphasized the nonlongevity benefits of LCS (eg, peace of mind, planning for the future) and generally did not consider their health status or life expectancy when making decisions regarding LCS. Most patients were unaware of possible additional evaluations or treatment of screen-detected findings, but when probed further, many expressed concerns about the potential need for multiple evaluations, referrals, or invasive procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in this study with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy were unaware of their greater risk of potential harm when accepting LCS. Given patient trust in clinician recommendations, it is important that clinicians engage patients with marginal LCS benefit in shared decision making, ensuring that their values of desiring more information about their health are weighed against potential harms from further evaluations.

Breast cancer screening motivation and behaviours of women aged over 75 years

OBJECTIVE

In Australia, breast screening is offered free every two years to women aged 50-74 years. Women aged ≥75 are eligible to receive a free mammogram but do not receive an invitation. This study aimed to explore the motivations and behaviours of women living in Australia aged ≥75 years regarding ongoing breast cancer screening given the public health guidance.

METHODS

Sixty women aged ≥75 were recruited from metropolitan, regional, and rural areas across Australia to participate in a descriptive qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews were used to seek reflection on women's experience of screening, any advice they had received about screening beyond 75, their understanding of the value of screening and their intention to participate in the future. Thematic analysis of transcripts led to the development of themes.

RESULTS

Themes resulting from the study included: reasons to continue and discontinue screening, importance of inclusivity in the health system and availability of information. Regular screeners overwhelmingly wished to continue screening and had strong beliefs in the benefits of screening. Women received limited information about the benefits or harms of screening beyond age 75 and very few had discussed screening with their Primary Healthcare Provider. No longer receiving an invitation to attend screening impacted many women's decision-making.

CONCLUSION

More information via structured discussion with health professionals is required to inform women about the risks and benefits of ongoing screening. No longer being invited to attend screening left many women feeling confused and for some this led to feelings of discrimination.

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.

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.

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.

Variation in Communication of Competing Risks of Mortality in Prostate Cancer Treatment Consultations

PURPOSE

Men with prostate cancer prefer patient-specific, quantitative assessments of longevity in shared decision making. We sought to characterize how physicians communicate the 3 components of competing risks-life expectancy (LE), cancer prognosis and treatment-related survival benefit-in treatment consultations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Conversation related to LE, cancer prognosis and treatment-related survival benefit was identified in transcripts from treatment consultations of 42 men with low- and intermediate-risk disease across 10 multidisciplinary providers. Consensus of qualitative coding by multiple reviewers noted the most detailed mode of communication used to describe each throughout the consultation.

RESULTS

Physicians frequently failed to provide patient-specific, quantitative estimates of LE and cancer mortality. LE was omitted in 17% of consultations, expressed as a generalization (eg "long"/"short") in 17%, rough number of years in 31%, probability of mortality/survival at an arbitrary timepoint in 17% and in only 19% as a specific number of years. Cancer mortality was omitted in 24% of consultations, expressed as a generalization in 7%, years of expected life in 2%, probability at no/arbitrary timepoint in 40% and in only 26% as the probability at LE. Treatment-related survival benefit was often omitted; cancer mortality was reported without treatment in 38%, with treatment in 10% and in only 29% both with and without treatment. Physicians achieved "trifecta"-1) quantifying probability of cancer mortality 2) with and without treatment 3) at the patient's LE-in only 14% of consultations.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians often fail to adequately quantify competing risks. We recommend the "trifecta" approach, reporting 1) probability of cancer mortality 2) with and without treatment 3) at the patient's LE.

Factors Associated With Clinician Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Average-Risk Patients: Data From a National Survey

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among average-risk patients is underused in the US. Clinician recommendation is strongly associated with CRC screening completion. To inform interventions that improve CRC screening uptake among average-risk patients, we examined clinicians’ routine recommendations of 7 guideline-recommended screening methods and factors associated with these recommendations.

Methods

We conducted an online survey in November and December 2019 among a sample of primary care clinicians (PCCs) and gastroenterologists (GIs) from a panel of US clinicians. Clinicians reported whether they routinely recommend each screening method, screening method intervals, and patient age at which they stop recommending screening. We also measured the influence of various factors on screening recommendations.

Results

Nearly all 814 PCCs (99%) and all 159 GIs (100%) reported that they routinely recommend colonoscopy for average-risk patients, followed by stool-based tests (more than two-thirds of PCCs and GIs). Recommendation of other visualization-based methods was less frequent (PCCs, 26%–35%; GIs, 30%–41%). A sizable proportion of clinicians reported guideline-discordant screening intervals and age to stop screening. Guidelines and clinical evidence were most frequently reported as very influential to clinician recommendations. Factors associated with routine recommendation of each screening method included clinician-perceived effectiveness of the method, clinician familiarity with the method, Medicare coverage, clinical capacity, and patient adherence.

Conclusion

Clinician education is needed to improve knowledge, familiarity, and experience with guideline-recommended screening methods with the goal of effectively engaging patients in informed decision making for CRC screening.

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.

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.

Cancer Screening in Older Adults: Individualized Decision-Making and Communication Strategies

Cancer screening decisions in older adults can be complex due to the unclear cancer-specific mortality benefits of screening and several known harms including false positives, overdiagnosis, and procedural complications from downstream diagnostic interventions. In this review, we provide a framework for individualized cancer screening decisions among older adults, involving accounting for overall health and life expectancy, individual values, and the risks and benefits of specific cancer screening tests. We then discuss strategies for effective communication of recommendations during clinical visits that are considered more effective, easy to understand, and acceptable by older adults and clinicians.

Three-dimensional facial-image analysis to predict heterogeneity of the human ageing rate and the impact of lifestyle

Not all individuals age at the same rate. Methods such as the 'methylation clock' are invasive, rely on expensive assays of tissue samples and infer the ageing rate by training on chronological age, which is used as a reference for prediction errors. Here, we develop models based on convoluted neural networks through training on non-invasive three-dimensional (3D) facial images of approximately 5,000 Han Chinese individuals that achieve an average difference between chronological or perceived age and predicted age of ±2.8 and 2.9 yr, respectively. We further profile blood transcriptomes from 280 individuals and infer the molecular regulators mediating the impact of lifestyle on the facial-ageing rate through a causal-inference model. These relationships have been deposited and visualized in the Human Blood Gene Expression-3D Facial Image (HuB-Fi) database. Overall, we find that humans age at different rates both in the blood and in the face, but do so coherently and with heterogeneity peaking at middle age. Our study provides an example of how artificial intelligence can be leveraged to determine the perceived age of humans as a marker of biological age, while no longer relying on prediction errors of chronological age, and to estimate the heterogeneity of ageing rates within a population.

Cancer Screening Among Older Adults: a Geriatrician's Perspective on Breast, Cervical, Colon, Prostate, and Lung Cancer Screening

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We summarize the evidence of benefits, harms, and tools to assist in individualized decisions among older adults in screening for breast, prostate, colon, lung, and cervical cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

The benefits of cancer screening in older adults remain unclear due to minimal inclusion of adults > 75 years old in most randomized controlled trials. Indirect evidence suggests that the benefits of screening seen in younger adults (< 70 years old) can be extrapolated to older adults when they have an estimated life expectancy of at least 10 years. However, older adults, especially those with limited life expectancy, may be at increased risk for experiencing harms of screening, including overdiagnosis of clinically unimportant diseases, complications from diagnostic procedures, and distress after false positive test results. We provide a framework to integrate key factors such as health status, risks and benefits of specific tests, and patient preferences to guide clinicians in cancer screening decisions in older adults.

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).

Examining Generalizability of Older Adults' Preferences for Discussing Cessation of Screening Colonoscopies in Older Adults with Low Health Literacy

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Many older adults receive unnecessary screening colonoscopies. We previously conducted a survey using a national online panel to assess older adults' preferences for how clinicians can discuss stopping screening colonoscopies. We sought to assess the generalizability of those results by comparing them to a sample of older adults with low health literacy.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Baltimore metropolitan area (low health literacy sample) and a national, probability-based online panel-KnowledgePanel (national sample).

PARTICIPANTS

Adults 65+ with low health literacy measured using a single-question screen (low health literacy sample, n = 113) and KnowledgePanel members 65+ who completed survey about colorectal cancer screening (national sample, n = 441).

MEASUREMENTS

The same survey was administered to both groups. Using the best-worst scaling method, we assessed relative preferences for 13 different ways to explain stopping screening colonoscopies. We used conditional logistic regression to quantify the relative preference for each explanation, where a higher preference weight indicates stronger preference. We analyzed each sample separately, then compared the two samples using Spearman's correlation coefficient, the likelihood ratio test to assess for overall differences between the two sets of preference weights, and the Wald test to assess differences in preference weights for each individual phrases.

RESULTS

The responses from the two samples were highly correlated (Spearman's coefficient 0.92, p < 0.0001). The most preferred phrase to explain stopping screening colonoscopy was "Your other health issues should take priority" in both groups. The three least preferred options were also the same for both groups, with the least preferred being "The doctor does not give an explanation." The explanation that referred to "quality of life" was more preferred by the low health literacy group whereas explanations that mentioned "unlikely to benefit" and "high risk for harms" were more preferred by the national survey group (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Among two different populations of older adults with different health literacy levels, the preferred strategies for clinicians to discuss stopping screening colonoscopies were highly correlated. Our results can inform effective communication about stopping screening colonoscopies in older adults across different health literacy levels.

Cancer statistics for adults aged 85 years and older, 2019

Adults aged 85 years and older, the "oldest old," are the fastest-growing age group in the United States, yet relatively little is known about their cancer burden. Combining data from the National Cancer Institute, the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, and the National Center for Health Statistics, the authors provide comprehensive information on cancer occurrence in adults aged 85 years and older. In 2019, there will be approximately 140,690 cancer cases diagnosed and 103,250 cancer deaths among the oldest old in the United States. The most common cancers in these individuals (lung, breast, prostate, and colorectum) are the same as those in the general population. Overall cancer incidence rates peaked in the oldest men and women around 1990 and have subsequently declined, with the pace accelerating during the past decade. These trends largely reflect declines in cancers of the prostate and colorectum and, more recently, cancers of the lung among men and the breast among women. We note differences in trends for some cancers in the oldest age group (eg, lung cancer and melanoma) compared with adults aged 65 to 84 years, which reflect elevated risks in the oldest generations. In addition, cancers in the oldest old are often more advanced at diagnosis. For example, breast and colorectal cancers diagnosed in patients aged 85 years and older are about 10% less likely to be diagnosed at a local stage compared with those diagnosed in patients aged 65 to 84 years. Patients with cancer who are aged 85 years and older have the lowest relative survival of any age group, with the largest disparities noted when cancer is diagnosed at advanced stages. They are also less likely to receive surgical treatment for their cancers; only 65% of breast cancer patients aged 85 years and older received surgery compared with 89% of those aged 65 to 84 years. This difference may reflect the complexities of treating older patients, including the presence of multiple comorbidities, functional declines, and cognitive impairment, as well as competing mortality risks and undertreatment. More research on cancer in the oldest Americans is needed to improve outcomes and anticipate the complex health care needs of this rapidly growing population.

How Do Older Adults Consider Age, Life Expectancy, Quality of Life, and Physician Recommendations When Making Cancer Screening Decisions? Results from a National Survey Using a Discrete Choice Experiment

Background. Older adults with limited life expectancy frequently receive cancer screening, although on average, harms outweigh benefits. We examined the influence of life expectancy on older adults' cancer screening decisions relative to three other factors. Methods. Adults aged 65+ years (N = 1272) were recruited from a national online survey panel. Using a discrete choice experiment, we systematically varied a hypothetical patient's life expectancy, age, quality of life, and physician's recommendation and asked whether the participant would choose screening. Participants were randomized to questions about colonoscopy or prostate-specific antigen/mammography screenings. Logistic regression produced preference weights that quantified the relative influence of the 4 factors on screening decisions. Results. 879 older adults completed the survey, 660 of whom varied their screening choices in response to the 4 factors we tested. The age of the hypothetical patient had the largest influence on choosing screening: the effect of age being 65 versus 85 years had a preference weight of 2.44 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.22, 2.65). Life expectancy (10 versus 1 year) had the second largest influence (preference weight: 1.64, CI: 1.41, 1.87). Physician recommendation (screen versus do not screen) and quality of life (good versus poor) were less influential, with preference weights of 0.90 (CI: 0.72, 1.08) and 0.68 (CI: 0.52, 0.83), respectively. Conclusions. While clinical practice guidelines increasingly use life expectancy in addition to age to guide screening decisions, we find that age is the most influential factor, independent of life expectancy, quality of life, and physician recommendation, in older adults' cancer screening choices. Strategies to reduce overscreening should consider the importance patients give to continuing screening at younger ages, even when life expectancy is limited.

Complex Multimorbidity and Breast Cancer Screening Among Midlife and Older Women: The Role of Perceived Need

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is minimal survival benefit to cancer screening for those with poor clinical presentation (complex multimorbidity) or at advanced ages. The current screening mammography guidelines consider these objective indicators. There has been less attention, however, to women's subjective assessment of screening need. This study examines the interplay between complex multimorbidity, age, and subjective assessments of health and longevity for screening mammography receipt.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD

This cross-sectional study uses self-reported data from 8,938 women over the age of 52 in the 2012 Health and Retirement Study. Logistic regression models estimated the association between women's complex multimorbidity (co-occurrence of chronic conditions, functional limitations, and/or geriatric syndromes), subjective health and longevity assessments, age, and screening mammography in the 2 years before the interview. These associations were evaluated adjusting for sociodemographic and behavioral factors.

RESULTS

Both age and complex multimorbidity were negatively associated with screening mammography. However, women's perceived need for screening moderated these effects. Most significantly, women optimistic about their chances of living another 10-15 years were more likely to have had screening mammography regardless of their health conditions or advanced age.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Women with more favorable self-assessed health and perceived life expectancy were more likely to receive screening mammography even if they have poor clinical presentation or advanced age. This is contrary to current cancer screening guidelines and suggests an opportunity to engage women's subjective health and longevity assessments for cancer screening decision making in both for screening policy and in individual clinician recommendations.

The evolving role of patient preference studies in health-care decision-making, from clinical drug development to clinical care management

Introduction: There is a growing trend of using patient preference studies to help incorporate the patient perspective into clinical drug development, care management, and health-care decision-making. Collecting and interpreting patient preference data is integral to multi-stakeholder engagement, patient-centric drug development, and clinical care management. Operationally, challenges exist in understanding 'when' and 'how' to embark on patient preference studies. This review will provide a brief overview of stated-preference methods, discuss applications throughout the clinical drug development and care management, and highlight how preference studies serve as a powerful tool for quantifying patient experiences for better outcomes. Areas covered: We present case studies to complement the different applications of stated-preference methods in clinical drug development and care management. We discuss the applications of preference data to help inform evidence-based patient advocacy, clinical development strategy, operational feasibility, regulator benefit-risk assessments, health technology assessments, and clinical decision-making. Expert commentary: Patient preference studies can serve as a powerful tool to engage patients and their communities as well as quantify the patient voice across different stages of clinical drug development and care management to support patient-centric health-care decision-making. It is expected that the application of these strategies will quickly advance in the coming years.