Influence of Age, Health, and Function on Cancer Screening in Older Adults with Limited Life Expectancy

Survey of awareness and beliefs about cancer (ABC) in Tehran Province, Iran

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices are essential measures for planning and evaluating cancer control programs. Little is known about these in Iran.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based interview survey of adults aged 30-70 using the Farsi version of the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer questionnaire in the capital province of Tehran, Iran, 2019. We calculated weighted estimates of levels of cancer knowledge, attitudes, and practices to allow for different selection probabilities and nonresponse. We used multivariate logistic regression to understand demographic factors associated with bowel, cervix, and breast screening practices.

RESULTS

We interviewed 736 men and 744 women. The mean number of recalled cancer warning signs was less than one; 57.7% could not recall any cancer warning signs. Participants recognized 5.6 out of 11 early cancer warning signs and 8.8 of 13 cancer risk factors. Most (82.7%) did not know that HPV infection was a cancer risk factor. Approximately, half had negative attitudes towards cancer treatment, but over 80% had positive attitudes towards the effectiveness of screening for improving survival. Colorectal, breast, and cervical screening rates were 24%, 42%, and 49%, respectively. Higher socioeconomic status increased the odds of taking up screening for cancer. Women aged 60-70 were less likely to report taking up breast and cervical screening than younger women.

DISCUSSION

The Iranian population has poor awareness and negative attitudes about cancer, and participation in screening programs is low. Public awareness and early detection of cancer should be promoted in Iran.

Breast cancer screening among Medicare Advantage enrollees with dementia

BACKGROUND

The decision to screen for breast cancer among older adults with dementia is complex and must often be individualized, as these individuals have an elevated risk of harm from over-screening. Medicare beneficiaries with dementia are increasingly enrolling in Medicare Advantage plans, which typically promote receipt of preventive cancer screening among their enrollees. This study examined the utilization of breast cancer screening among Medicare enrollees with dementia, in Medicare Advantage and in fee-for-service Medicare.

METHODS

We conducted a pooled cross-sectional study of women with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias or cognitive impairment who were eligible for mammogram screening. We used Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data to identify utilization of biennial mammogram screening between 2012 and 2019. Poisson regression models were used to estimate prevalence ratios of mammogram utilization and to calculate adjusted mammogram rates for Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service Medicare enrollees with dementia, and further stratified by rurality and by dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid.

RESULTS

Mammogram utilization was 16% higher (Prevalence Ratio [PR] 1.16; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.29) among Medicare Advantage enrollees with dementia, compared to their counterparts in fee-for-service Medicare. Rural enrollees experienced no significant difference (PR 0.99; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.37) in mammogram use between Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service Medicare enrollees. Among urban enrollees, Medicare Advantage enrollment was associated with a 21% higher mammogram rate (PR 1.21; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.35). Dual-eligible Medicare Advantage enrollees had a 34% higher mammogram rate (PR 1.34; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.63) than dual-eligible fee-for-service Medicare enrollees. Among non-dual-eligible enrollees, adjusted mammogram rates were not significantly different (PR 1.11; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.24) between Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service Medicare enrollees.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare beneficiaries age 65-74 with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias or cognitive impairment had a higher mammogram use rate when they were enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans compared to fee-for-service Medicare, especially when they were dual-eligible or lived in urban areas. However, some Medicare Advantage enrollees with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias or cognitive impairment may have experienced over-screening for breast cancer.

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.

Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening in 75 + Women to Inform Shared Decision-making: a Simulation Modeling Study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) around mammography screening for women ≥ 75 years old.

OBJECTIVE

To use microsimulation modeling to estimate the lifetime benefits and harms of screening women aged 75, 80, and 85 years based on their individual risk factors (family history, breast density, prior biopsy) and comorbidity level to support SDM in clinical practice.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We adapted two established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models to evaluate the remaining lifetime benefits and harms of screening U.S. women born in 1940, at decision ages 75, 80, and 85 years considering their individual risk factors and comorbidity levels. Results were summarized for average- and higher-risk women (defined as having breast cancer family history, heterogeneously dense breasts, and no prior biopsy, 5% of the population).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Remaining lifetime breast cancers detected, deaths (breast cancer/other causes), false positives, and overdiagnoses for average- and higher-risk women by age and comorbidity level for screening (one or five screens) vs. no screening per 1000 women.

RESULTS

Compared to stopping, one additional screen at 75 years old resulted in six and eight more breast cancers detected (10% overdiagnoses), one and two fewer breast cancer deaths, and 52 and 59 false positives per 1000 average- and higher-risk women without comorbidities, respectively. Five additional screens over 10 years led to 23 and 31 additional breast cancer cases (29-31% overdiagnoses), four and 15 breast cancer deaths avoided, and 238 and 268 false positives per 1000 average- and higher-risk screened women without comorbidities, respectively. Screening women at older ages (80 and 85 years old) and high comorbidity levels led to fewer breast cancer deaths and a higher percentage of overdiagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

Simulation models show that continuing screening in women ≥ 75 years old results in fewer breast cancer deaths but more false positive tests and overdiagnoses. Together, clinicians and 75 + women may use model output to weigh the benefits and harms of continued screening.

Validating a model for predicting breast cancer and nonbreast cancer death in women aged 55 years and older

BACKGROUND

To support mammography screening decision making, we developed a competing-risk model to estimate 5-year breast cancer risk and 10-year nonbreast cancer death for women aged 55 years and older using Nurses' Health Study data and examined model performance in the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS). Here, we examine model performance in predicting 10-year outcomes in the BWHS, Women's Health Initiative-Extension Study (WHI-ES), and Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) and compare model performance to existing breast cancer prediction models.

METHODS

We used competing-risk regression and Royston and Altman methods for validating survival models to calculate our model's calibration and discrimination (C index) in BWHS (n = 17 380), WHI-ES (n = 106 894), and MEC (n = 49 668). The Nurses' Health Study development cohort (n = 48 102) regression coefficients were applied to the validation cohorts. We compared our model's performance with breast cancer risk assessment tool (Gail) and International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models by computing breast cancer risk estimates and C statistics.

RESULTS

When predicting 10-year breast cancer risk, our model's C index was 0.569 in BWHS, 0.572 in WHI-ES, and 0.576 in MEC. The Gail model's C statistic was 0.554 in BWHS, 0.564 in WHI-ES, and 0.551 in MEC; IBIS's C statistic was 0.547 in BWHS, 0.552 in WHI-ES, and 0.562 in MEC. The Gail model underpredicted breast cancer risk in WHI-ES; IBIS underpredicted breast cancer risk in WHI-ES and in MEC but overpredicted breast cancer risk in BWHS. Our model calibrated well. Our model's C index for predicting 10-year nonbreast cancer death was 0.760 in WHI-ES and 0.763 in MEC.

CONCLUSIONS

Our competing-risk model performs as well as existing breast cancer prediction models in diverse cohorts and predicts nonbreast cancer death. We are developing a website to disseminate our model.

Adaption and National Validation of a Tool for Predicting Mortality from Other Causes Among Men with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

An electronic health record-based tool could improve accuracy and eliminate bias in provider estimation of the risk of death from other causes among men with nonmetastatic cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To recalibrate and validate the Veterans Aging Cohort Study Charlson Comorbidity Index (VACS-CCI) to predict non-prostate cancer mortality (non-PCM) and to compare it with a tool predicting prostate cancer mortality (PCM).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An observational cohort of men with biopsy-confirmed nonmetastatic prostate cancer, enrolled from 2001 to 2018 in the national US Veterans Health Administration (VA), was divided by the year of diagnosis into the development (2001-2006 and 2008-2018) and validation (2007) sets.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Mortality (all cause, non-PCM, and PCM) was evaluated. Accuracy was assessed using calibration curves and C statistic in the development, validation, and combined sets; overall; and by age (<65 and 65+ yr), race (White and Black), Hispanic ethnicity, and treatment groups.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among 107 370 individuals, we observed 24 977 deaths (86% non-PCM). The median age was 65 yr, 4947 were Black, and 5010 were Hispanic. Compared with CCI and age alone (C statistic 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.68), VACS-CCI demonstrated improved validated discrimination (C statistic 0.75, 95% CI 0.74-0.75 for non-PCM). The prostate cancer mortality tool also discriminated well in validation (C statistic 0.81, 95% CI 0.78-0.83). Both were well calibrated overall and within subgroups. Owing to missing data, 18 009/125 379 (14%) were excluded, and VACS-CCI should be validated outside the VA prior to outside application.

CONCLUSIONS

VACS-CCI is ready for implementation within the VA. Electronic health record-assisted calculation is feasible, improves accuracy over age and CCI alone, and could mitigate inaccuracy and bias in provider estimation.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Veterans Aging Cohort Study Charlson Comorbidity Index is ready for application within the Veterans Health Administration. Electronic health record-assisted calculation is feasible, improves accuracy over age and Charlson Comorbidity Index alone, and might help mitigate inaccuracy and bias in provider estimation of the risk of non-prostate cancer mortality.

Association of Life Expectancy With Surveillance Colonoscopy Findings and Follow-up Recommendations in Older Adults

Importance

Surveillance after prior colon polyps is the most frequent indication for colonoscopy in older adults. However, to our knowledge, the current use of surveillance colonoscopy, clinical outcomes, and follow-up recommendations in association with life expectancy, factoring in both age and comorbidities, have not been studied.

Objective

To evaluate the association of estimated life expectancy with surveillance colonoscopy findings and follow-up recommendations among older adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This registry-based cohort study used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) linked with Medicare claims data and included adults in the NHCR who were older than 65 years, underwent colonoscopy for surveillance after prior polyps between April 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, and had full Medicare Parts A and B coverage and no Medicare managed care plan enrollment in the year prior to colonoscopy. Data were analyzed from December 2019 to March 2021.

Exposures

Life expectancy (<5 years, 5 to <10 years, or ≥10 years), estimated using a validated prediction model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were clinical findings of colon polyps or colorectal cancer (CRC) and recommendations for future colonoscopy.

Results

Among 9831 adults included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 73.2 (5.0) years and 5285 (53.8%) were male. A total of 5649 patients (57.5%) had an estimated life expectancy of 10 or more years, 3443 (35.0%) of 5 to less than 10 years, and 739 (7.5%) of less than 5 years. Overall, 791 patients (8.0%) had advanced polyps (768 [7.8%]) or CRC (23 [0.2%]). Among the 5281 patients with available recommendations (53.7%), 4588 (86.9%) were recommended to return for future colonoscopy. Those with longer life expectancy or more advanced clinical findings were more likely to be told to return. For example, among patients with no polyps or only small hyperplastic polyps, 132 of 227 (58.1%) with life expectancy of less than 5 years were told to return for future surveillance colonoscopy vs 940 of 1257 (74.8%) with life expectancy of 5 to less than 10 years and 2163 of 2272 (95.2%) with life expectancy of 10 years or more (P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, the likelihood of finding advanced polyps and CRC on surveillance colonoscopy was low regardless of life expectancy. Despite this observation, 58.1% of older adults with less than 5 years' life expectancy were recommended to return for future surveillance colonoscopy. These data may help refine decision-making about pursuing or stopping surveillance colonoscopy in older adults with a history of polyps.

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.

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.

How aging of the global population is changing oncology

Population aging is causing a demographic redistribution with implications for the future of healthcare. How will this affect oncology? First, there will be an overall rise in cancer affecting older adults, even though age-specific cancer incidences continue to fall due to better prevention. Second, there will be a wider spectrum of health functionality in this expanding cohort of older adults, with differences between “physiologically older” and “physiologically younger” patients becoming more important for optimal treatment selection. Third, greater teamwork with supportive care, geriatric, mental health and rehabilitation experts will come to enrich oncologic decision-making by making it less formulaic than it is at present. Success in this transition to a more nuanced professional mindset will depend in part on the development of user-friendly computational tools that can integrate a complex mix of quantitative and qualitative inputs from evidence-based medicine, functional and cognitive assessments, and the personal priorities of older adults.

Mammography use and breast cancer incidence among older U.S. women

PURPOSE

The death rate for female breast cancer increases progressively with age, but organizations differ in their mammography screening recommendations for older women. To understand current patterns of screening mammography use and breast cancer diagnoses among older women, we examined recent national data on mammography screening use and breast cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis among women aged ≥ 65 years.

METHODS

We examined breast cancer incidence using the 2016 United States Cancer Statistics dataset and analyzed screening mammography use among women aged ≥ 65 years using the 2018 National Health Interview Survey.

RESULTS

Women aged 70-74 years had the highest breast cancer incidence rate (458.3 cases per 100,000 women), and women aged ≥ 85 years had the lowest rate (295.2 per 100,000 women). The proportion of cancer diagnosed at distant stage or with unknown stage increased with age. Over half of women aged 80-84 years and 26.0% of women aged ≥ 85 years reported a screening mammogram within the last 2 years. Excellent/very good/good self-reported health status (p = .010) and no dependency in activities of daily living/instrumental activities of daily living (p < .001) were associated with recent mammography screening.

CONCLUSION

Breast cancer incidence rates and stage at diagnosis vary by age. Many women aged ≥ 75 years receive screening mammograms. The results of this study point to areas for further investigation to promote optimal mammography screening among older women.

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.

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

Rationing Limited Healthcare Resources in the COVID-19 Era and Beyond: Ethical Considerations Regarding Older Adults

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) continues to impact older adults disproportionately with respect to serious consequences ranging from severe illness and hospitalization to increased mortality risk. Concurrently, concerns about potential shortages of healthcare professionals and health supplies to address these issues have focused attention on how these resources are ultimately allocated and used. Some strategies, for example, misguidedly use age as an arbitrary criterion that disfavors older adults in resource allocation decisions. This is a companion article to the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) position statement, “Resource Allocation Strategies and Age‐Related Considerations in the COVID‐19 Era and Beyond.” It is intended to inform stakeholders including hospitals, health systems, and policymakers about ethical considerations that should be considered when developing strategies for allocation of scarce resources during an emergency involving older adults. This review presents the legal and ethical background for the position statement and discusses these issues that informed the development of the AGS positions: (1) age as a determining factor, (2) age as a tiebreaker, (3) criteria with a differential impact on older adults, (4) individual choices and advance directives, (5) racial/ethnic disparities and resource allocation, and (6) scoring systems and their impact on older adults. It also considers the role of advance directives as expressions of individual preferences in pandemics. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1143–1149, 2020.

See related paper by Farrell et al.

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.

Approaches to Risk Assessment Among Older Patients With Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A patient's prognosis and risk of adverse drug effects are important considerations for individualizing care of older patients with diabetes. This review summarizes the evidence for risk assessment and proposes approaches for clinicians in the context of current clinical guidelines.

RECENT FINDINGS

Diabetes guidelines vary in their recommendations for how life expectancy should be estimated and used to inform the selection of glycemic targets. Readily available prognostic tools may improve estimation of life expectancy but require validation among patients with diabetes. Treatment decisions based on prognosis are difficult for clinicians to communicate and for patients to understand. Determining hypoglycemia risk involves assessing major risk factors; models to synthesize these factors have been developed. Applying risk assessment to individualize diabetes care is complex and currently relies heavily on clinician judgment. More research is need to validate structured approaches to risk assessment and determine how to incorporate them into patient-centered diabetes care.