Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in the elderly patient

Surveillance colonoscopy findings in asymptomatic participants over 75 years of age

Background and Aim

Surveillance colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) is generally not recommended beyond 75 years of age. The study determined incidence and predictors of advanced adenoma and CRC in older individuals undergoing surveillance colonoscopy.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of asymptomatic older participants (≥75 years), enrolled in a South Australian CRC surveillance program who underwent colonoscopy (2015-2020). Clinical records were extracted for demographics, personal or family history of CRC, comorbidities, polypharmacy, and colonoscopy findings. The associations between clinical variables and advanced adenoma or CRC at surveillance were assessed with multivariable Poisson regression analysis.

Results

Totally 698 surveillance colonoscopies were analyzed from 574 participants aged 75-91 years (55.6% male). The incidence of CRC was 1.6% (11/698), while 37.9% (260/698) of procedures had advanced adenoma detected. Previous CRC (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 5.9, 95% CI 1.5-22.5), age ≥85 years (IRR 5.8, 95% CI 1.6-20.1) and active smoking (IRR 4.9, 95% CI 1.0-24.4) were independently associated with CRC diagnosis, while advanced adenoma at immediately preceding colonoscopy (IRR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-2.0) and polypharmacy (IRR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.5) were associated with advanced adenoma at surveillance colonoscopy in asymptomatic older participants (≥75 years).

Conclusion

Advanced neoplasia was found in more than one third of the surveillance procedures completed in this cohort. Continuation of surveillance beyond age 75 yeasrs may be considered in participants who have previous CRC or are active smokers (provided they are fit to undergo colonoscopy). In other cases, such as past advanced adenoma only, the need for ongoing surveillance should be considered alongside participant preference and health status.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Post-Polypectomy Surveillance: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

Since the early 2000s, there has been a rapid decline in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, due in large part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps. Despite these improvements, CRC remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, with approximately 53,000 deaths projected in 2023. The aim of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update Expert Review was to describe how individuals should be risk-stratified for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance and to highlight opportunities for future research to fill gaps in the existing literature.

METHODS

This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: All individuals with a first-degree relative (defined as a parent, sibling, or child) who was diagnosed with CRC, particularly before the age of 50 years, should be considered at increased risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: All individuals without a personal history of CRC, inflammatory bowel disease, hereditary CRC syndromes, other CRC predisposing conditions, or a family history of CRC should be considered at average risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Individuals at average risk for CRC should initiate screening at age 45 years and individuals at increased risk for CRC due to having a first-degree relative with CRC should initiate screening 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40 years, whichever is earlier. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Risk stratification for initiation of CRC screening should be based on an individual's age, a known or suspected predisposing hereditary CRC syndrome, and/or a family history of CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: The decision to continue CRC screening in individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, screening history, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Screening options for individuals at average risk for CRC should include colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus fecal immunochemical test, multitarget stool DNA fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography, based on availability and individual preference. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Colonoscopy should be the screening strategy used for individuals at increased CRC risk. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: The decision to continue post-polypectomy surveillance for individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Risk-stratification tools for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance that emerge from research should be examined for real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in diverse populations (eg, by race, ethnicity, sex, and other sociodemographic factors associated with disparities in CRC outcomes) before widespread implementation.

Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance in the Geriatric Population

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Our national guidelines regarding screening and surveillance for colorectal cancer recommend individualized discussions with patients 75-85 years of age. This review explores the complex decision-making that surrounds these discussions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite updated guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance, the guidance for patients 75 years of age or older remains unchanged. Studies exploring the risks to colonoscopy in this population, patient preferences, life expectancy calculators and additional studies in the subpopulation of inflammatory bowel disease patients provide points of consideration to aid in individualized discussions. The benefit-risk discussion for colorectal cancer screening in patients over 75 years old warrants further guidance to develop best practice. To craft more comprehensive recommendations, additional research with inclusion of such patients is needed.

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.

Examining colorectal cancer screening uptake and health provider recommendations among underserved middle aged and older African Americans

Background: The purpose of this study is to determine whether underserved middle-aged and older African Americans are receiving a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test (sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy) and if recommended by their provider. Additionally, we examined correlates of both provider recommendation and uptake of CRC screening. Methods: Seven hundred forty African American individuals, aged 55 and older, participated in this local community cross-sectional survey. We used a multivariate technique of logistic regression. Results: One out of three participants reported that they never received a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy for CRC screening. More than 31% indicted that their providers never suggested CRC testing. However, participants who indicated that their providers recommended sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy were almost 49 times (odds ratio [OR]: 48.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.5-81.2) more likely to obtain it compared to their counterparts who were not advised to have these procedures. Our data suggest that African American men were significantly less likely than women to receive recommendations from their providers (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.50-0.91). Furthermore, controlling for other variables, the following factors: 1) living arrangement (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.02-2.04), 2) health maintenance organization (HMO) membership (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.28-2.67), 3) number of providers (OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01-1.32), 4) satisfaction with access to and quality of care (OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.03-1.51), 5) depressive symptoms (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.86-0.98), and 6) gastrointestinal conditions (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.16-2.58) were associated with obtaining a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy test. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the absence of a provider recommendation is the primary barrier preventing underserved older African Americans from obtaining CRC screening. In addition, our data revealed significant association between obtaining CRC screening and some of the predisposing characteristics of participants, satisfaction with access to and quality of care, and physical and mental health. These findings are consistent with this notion that disparities in health care for African Americans can be traced back to four primary factors: patients, healthcare providers, the healthcare system, and society as a whole, and emphasize the need for establishing theory-driven, culturally-sensitive, and cost-effective CRC screening interventions that recognize and address the constraints to cancer screening experienced by this segment of population.

Systematic review of shared decision-making in guidelines about colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to systematically evaluate quality of shared decision-making (SDM) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs).

METHODS

Search for CRC screening guidances was from 2010 to November 2021 in EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus and CDSR, and the World Wide Web. Three independent reviewers and an arbitrator rated the quality of each guidance using a SDM quality assessment tool (maximum score: 31). Reviewer agreement was 0.88.

RESULTS

SDM appeared in 41/83 (49.4%) CPGs and 9/19 (47.4%) CSs. None met all the quality criteria, and 51.0% (52/102) failed to meet any quality items. Overall compliance was low (mean 1.63, IQR 0-2). Quality was better in guidances published after 2015 (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p = 0.048) and when the term SDM was specifically reported (mean 4.5, IQR 2.5-4.5 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p < 0.001). CPGs underpinned by systematic reviews showed better SDM quality than consensus (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0, IQR 0-2, p = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

SDM quality was suboptimal and mentioned in less than half of the guidances, and recommendations were scarce. Guideline developers should incorporate evidence-based SDM recommendations in guidances to underpin the translation of evidence into practice.

Yield of Surveillance Colonoscopy in Older Adults with a History of Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefit of surveillance colonoscopy in older adults is not well described.

AIMS

To quantify the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced polyps during surveillance colonoscopy in older adults with a history of colon polyps.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase) for all published studies through May 2020 in adults age > 70 undergoing surveillance colonoscopy. The main outcome was CRC and advanced polyps detection. We performed meta-analysis to pool results by age (>70 vs. 50-70).

RESULTS

The search identified 6239 studies, of which 569 underwent full-text review and 64 data abstraction, of which 19 were included. The risk of detecting CRC (N = 11) was higher in those >70 compared to 50-70 (risk ratio 1.5 (95% CI 1.1-2.2); risk difference 0.8% (95% CI -0.2%-1.8%)). Similarly, the risk of detecting advanced polyps (N = 8) was higher in those >70 compared to 50-70 (risk ratio 1.3 (95% CI 1.2-1.3), risk difference 2.7% (95% CI 1.3%-4.0%)). Most studies did not stratify results by baseline polyp risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The detection of CRC and advanced polyps during surveillance colonoscopy in older individuals was higher than in younger controls; however, the absolute risk increase for both was small. These differences must be weighed against competing medical problems and limited life expectancy in older adults when making decisions about surveillance colonoscopy. More primary data on the risks of CRC and advanced polyps accounting for number of past colonoscopies, prior polyp risk, and duration of time since last polyp are needed.

Effect of the Weekend on Bowel Preparation Quality in Outpatient Colonoscopies

INTRODUCTION

Inadequate bowel preparation has been associated with a higher likelihood of missing adenomatous polyps. Colonoscopies immediately following a weekend may be prone to inadequate bowel preparation. This study aims to evaluate if day of the week is a predictor of bowel preparation adequacy, while assessing other patient and procedural variables and their effect on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all adult patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy between January 2015 and April 2020. Adequacy of bowel preparation was compared among all days of the week and days following federal holidays. Secondary outcomes included patient demographics, indication and timing of the procedure.

RESULTS

Of 4,279 colonoscopies, Monday had the highest rate of inadequate preparation (BBPS < 6) (16.5%) compared to other days of the week (p < .001). Post-holiday procedures were not associated with poor bowel preparation (p = .901). Similarly, on multivariate analysis, we found that procedures on Monday (OR 1.67 95%CI 1.33-2.10, p < .001) and African-American race (OR 1.34 95%CI 1.11-1.62, p = .003) were associated with inadequate bowel preparation. Females were more likely to have adequate bowel preparation (OR 0.71 95%CI 0.59-0.86, p < .001).

DISCUSSION

Bowel preparation on Mondays is more likely to be inadequate than other days of the week. Additionally, gender and ethnicity appear to be associated with quality of bowel preparation. A better characterization of procedural and patient variables can lead to a more personalized approach to bowel preparation.

Safety and importance of colonoscopy in nonagenarians

BACKGROUND

With the growth of the aging population, the need for colonoscopies in nonagenarians is rising. However, few data on colonoscopies in extremely elderly individuals are available. To better acknowledge the role of colonoscopies in this specific group of patients, we conducted this study to evaluate the safety and clinical impact of colonoscopy in nonagenarian patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study comparing nonagenarians who received colonoscopy in a tertiary medical center in Taiwan in 2016 with 76- to 80-year-old patients (relatively elderly patients) who were 1:1 propensity score matched by sex as the control subjects. The postcolonoscopy 30-day adverse events, mortality, and long-term survival were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 137 nonagenarians and 137 relatively elderly patients were included. The nonagenarians receiving colonoscopy were more likely to be hospitalized (40.1% vs 19.7%, p < 0.001), and the adjusted colonoscopy completion rates were comparable in both groups (92.0% vs 97.1%, p = 0.063). The overall adverse event rate and postcolonoscopy 30-day mortality rates were low in both groups (2.9% vs 1.5%, p = 0.409 and 2.2% vs 1.5%, p = 0.652, respectively). A total of 18.2% of the nonagenarians were diagnosed with advanced neoplasia. Among the nonagenarians diagnosed with colorectal cancer, the patients receiving surgery had a significantly lower risk of death than the patients receiving conservative management (hazards ratio 0.1044, 0.01275-0.8529, p = 0.0352).

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy in patients older than 90 years is generally safe. Colonoscopy findings that led to surgery in nonagenarians diagnosed with colorectal cancer were associated with survival benefits.

Primary care clinicians' perceptions of colorectal cancer screening tests for older adults

•

How clinicians use stool tests for older adults (65+) is not well understood.

•

Preferred in patients who are sicker and for whom guidelines do not recommend.

•

Clinicians must better individualize the use of colorectal tests in older adults.

Colonoscopy is an effective screening test for colorectal cancer but is associated with significant risks and burdens, especially in older adults. Stool tests, which are more convenient, more accessible, and less invasive, can be important tools to improve screening. How clinicians make decisions about colonoscopy versus stool tests in older patients is not well-understood.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care clinicians throughout Maryland in 2018–2019 to examine how clinicians considered the use of stool tests for colorectal cancer screening in their older patients. Thirty clinicians from 21 clinics participated. The mean clinician age was 48.2 years. The majority were physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Four major themes were identified using qualitative content analysis: (1) Stool test equivalency - although many clinicians still considered colonoscopy as the test of choice, some clinicians considered stool tests equivalent options for screening. (2) Reasons for recommending stool tests – clinicians reported preferentially using stool tests in sicker/older patients or patients who declined colonoscopy. (3) Stool test overuse – some clinicians reported recommending stool tests for patients for whom guidelines do not recommend any screening. (4) Barriers to use – perceived barriers to using stool tests included lack of familiarity, un-returned stool test kits, concern for accuracy, and concern about cost.

In summary, clinicians reported preferentially using stool tests in sicker and older patients and mentioned examples of potential overuse. Additional studies are needed on how to better individualize the use of different colorectal screening tests in older patients.

Association Between Age and Complications After Outpatient Colonoscopy

Importance

There are insufficient data describing the incidence and risk factors of postcolonoscopy complications in older individuals.

Objective

To assess the association between older age (≥75 years) and the risk of postcolonoscopy complications.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based retrospective cohort study included adults (≥50 years) undergoing outpatient colonoscopy between April 2008 and September 2017, identified from Ontario administrative databases. Individuals with inflammatory bowel disease and hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes were excluded. The study population was subdivided into a colorectal cancer screening-eligible cohort (patients aged 50-74 years) and an older cohort (patients aged ≥75 years). The statistical analysis was conducted from December 2018 to September 2019.

Exposures

Older age (≥75 years).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was postcolonoscopy complications, defined as the composite of hospitalization or emergency department visits in the 30-day period after the outpatient colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included incidence of surgically treated colorectal cancer and all-cause mortality at 30 days. Independent variables associated with postcolonoscopy complications were also assessed.

Results

The study sample included 38 069 patients; the mean (SD) age was 65.2 (10.1) years, there were 19 037 women (50.0%), and 27 831 patients (73.1%) underwent a first colonoscopy. The cumulative incidence of complications was 3.4% (1310 patients) in the overall population, and it was higher in individuals aged 75 years or older (515 of 7627 patients [6.8%]) than in screening-eligible cohort (795 of 30 443 patients [2.6%]) (P < .001). Independent risk factors for postcolonoscopy complications were age 75 years or older (odds ratio [OR], 2.3; 95% CI, 2.0-2.6), anemia (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7), cardiac arrhythmia (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2), congestive heart failure (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.5-4.6), hypertension (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5), chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), liver disease (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.5-6.5), smoking history (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.4-4.3), and obesity (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2). The number of previous colonoscopies was associated with a lower risk of complications (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7-1.0). The incidence of surgically treated colorectal cancer was higher in the older cohort than the screening-eligible cohort (119 patients [1.6%] vs 144 patients [0.5%]; P < .001). All-cause mortality rates were 0.1% overall (39 patients) and 0.1% (19 patients) for individuals aged 50 to 74 years and 0.2% (20 patients) for those aged 75 years and older (P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this population-based cohort study of individuals living in southern Ontario, age of 75 years and older was associated with a higher risk of 30-day postprocedure complications after outpatient colonoscopy. These findings suggest that the decision to perform a colonoscopy should be carefully considered in patients older than 75 years, especially in the presence of comorbidities. Further studies are needed to better understand the benefits of invasive procedures as opposed to less invasive approaches for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance among older patients.

Colorectal cancer fecal screening test completion after age 74, sources and outcomes in French program

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients aged at least 75 years old (Elderly_75), represent 45% of colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence. As others, the French Colorectal Cancer Screening Program (CRCSP) does not include Elderly_75. To date, there is little evidence to justify stopping screening at 74 years of age.

AIM

To describe CRC fecal screening test completion after age 74, source (CRCSP/Provider ordered) and outcomes of these tests.

METHODS

The study concerned 18704 Elderly_75 residing in eleven French districts (Ain, Doubs, Essonne, Haute-Saone, Hauts-de-Seine, Jura, Seine-Saint-Denis, Territoire-de-Belfort, Val-de-Marne, Val-d’Oise, Yonne), having performed a CRC screening test between January 2008 and December 2017. The tests performed in a circumstance of delayed response to a solicitation (DRS) from the local cancer screening managing center (Managing-Center) were distinguished from the tests non-solicited by the Managing-Center, performed after a recommendation by a General Practitioner (GP) or other provider ordered (RGP). DRS was any test realized by an Elderly_75 following an initial invitation from the Managing-Center with a maximum 24 mo after this invitation. Any Non-DRS test was considered RGP. The outcomes of these tests were described according to the circumstances of test completion.

RESULTS

Of 18995 screening-tests were performed at ages: 75 (83.5%), 76-80 (13.4%) and > 80 (3.1%) years old. Elderly_75 performed the screening test in a circumstance of DRS (71.9%) or RGP (28.1%). The proportion of the tests that could not be analyzed and not restarted was 13.2%. For these unanalyzed tests, the reason was age-related in 78.0% of cases, related to the laboratory’s refusal to analyze the test of people aged ≥ 77. Reported colonoscopy completion rate was 81.3%. For those 575 people with reported colonoscopy, no complication was listed. 18.0% of the 366 Elderly_75 with lesions had no anteriority in the CRCSP. The neoplasia (124 Low-risk-polyps, 159 High-risk-polyps, 13 Unspecified-polyps and 70 CRCs) detection rate was 19.3/1000 Elderly_75 screened and the CRC detection rate was 3.7/1000 Elderly_75 screened.

CONCLUSION

The high rate of colonoscopy completion after a positive test and the high proportion of screened lesions observed suggest that the lengthening of the screening period could allow significant detection of CRC and polyps that occur in Elderly_75 excluded from CRCSP.

Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy in Older Adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to highlight current recommendations regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and to review the available literature in order to help inform decision-making in this age group.

RECENT FINDINGS

Age is a risk factor for CRC; however, older adults with a history of prior screening are at lower risk for CRC compared to those who have never been screened. Decision-making for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy in older adults is complex and several factors including age, screening history, comorbidities, functional status, bowel preparation, prior experiences, preferences, and barriers need to be considered when weighing risks and benefits. Recent guidelines have started to incorporate life expectancy and prior screening history into their recommendations; however, how to incorporate these factors into actual clinical practice is less clear. There are limited data on the relative benefits of screening and surveillance in older adults and therefore, at this time, decision-making should be individualized and incorporate patient preferences in addition to medical factors.

Communicating About Stopping Cancer Screening: Comparing Clinicians' and Older Adults' Perspectives

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Older adults with limited life expectancy frequently receive cancer screening. We sought to compare the perspectives of clinicians and older adults on how to communicate about stopping cancer screening.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used data from two studies involving semistructured in-person individual interviews, in which we asked about perspectives on communication about stopping cancer screening, with 28 primary care clinicians and 40 community-dwelling older adults, respectively.

RESULTS

We identified three major themes: (a) Consensus among primary care clinicians and older adults regarding communication around stopping cancer screening. Both groups considered discussing the benefits/risks of cancer screening and involving patients in the decision as important and mentioned framing screening cessation as shift in health priorities. (b) Differences in perceived reactions to stopping cancer screening. Primary care clinicians were concerned about patient reaction to stopping cancer screening, whereas older adults reported no negative reactions in the context of a trusting relationship. (c) Differences in views around whether to discuss life expectancy in the context of stopping cancer screening. Clinicians rarely discussed life expectancy in this context, whereas older adults were divided on whether life expectancy should be discussed.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Given the heterogeneity in older adults' preferences, it is important to assess whether patients want to discuss life expectancy when discussing stopping cancer screening, though use of the specific term "life expectancy" may not be necessary. Instead, focusing discussion on the benefits/risks of cancer screening and mentioning shift in health priorities are acceptable communication strategies for both clinicians and older adults.

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

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

We examined the relationship between cancer screening and life expectancy predictors, focusing on the influence of age versus health and function, in older adults with limited life expectancy.

DESIGN

Longitudinal cohort study SETTING: National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) with linked Medicare claims.

PARTICIPANTS

Three cohorts of adults 65+ enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare were constructed: women eligible for breast cancer screening (n = 2043); men eligible for prostate cancer screening (n = 1287); men and women eligible for colorectal cancer screening (n = 3759).

MEASUREMENTS

We assessed 10-year mortality risk using 2011 NHATS data, then used claims data to assess 2-year prostate and breast cancer screening rates and 3-year colorectal cancer screening rates. Among those with limited life expectancy (10-year mortality risk > 50%), we stratified participants at each level of predicted mortality risk and split participants in each risk stratum by the median age. We assembled two sub-groups from these strata that were matched on predicted life expectancy: a "younger sub-group" with relatively poorer health/functional status and an "older sub-group" with relatively better health/functional status. We compared screening rates between sub-groups.

RESULTS

For all three cancer screenings, the younger sub-groups (average ages 73.4-76.1) had higher screening rates than the older sub-groups (average ages 83.6-86.9); screening rates were 42.9% versus 34.2% for prostate cancer screening (p = 0.02), 33.6% versus 20.6% for breast cancer screening (p < 0.001), 13.1% versus 6.7% for colorectal cancer screening in women (p = 0.006), and 20.5% versus 12.1% for colorectal cancer screening in men (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Among older adults with limited life expectancy, those who are relatively younger with poorer health and functional status are over-screened for cancer at higher rates than those who are older with the same predicted life expectancy.

Endoscopist Specialty Predicts the Likelihood of Recommending Cessation of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults

OBJECTIVES

Although the 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines recommend against routine colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for adults aged 76-85, it is unclear what endoscopists recommend in practice. Our goal was to examine current practice around cessation of CRC screening in older adults.

METHODS

We included normal screening colonoscopy exams in adults ≥ 50 years old within the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry between 2009 and 2014. The primary outcome was endoscopists' recommendation against further screening. The main exposure variables included patient age, family history of CRC, and endoscopist characteristics. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used.

RESULTS

Of 13,364 normal screening colonoscopy exams, 2914 (21.8%) were in adults aged ≥ 65 and were performed by 74 endoscopists. Nearly 100% of adults aged 65-69 undergoing screening colonoscopy were given the recommendation to return for screening colonoscopy in the future. Only 15% of average-risk patients aged 70-74 were told to stop receiving screening, while 85% were told to return at a future interval, most frequently in 10 years when they would be 80-84. In the multivariable model, advancing patient age and the absence of family history of CRC were significantly associated with a recommendation to stop colonoscopy. Gastroenterologists were more likely to recommend stopping colonoscopy in accordance with guidelines than other non-gastroenterology endoscopists (adjusted OR (95% CI) 2.3 (1.6-3.4)).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large statewide colonoscopy registry, the majority of older adults are told to return for future screening colonoscopy. Having a family history of CRC or a non-gastroenterology endoscopist increases the likelihood of being told to return for screening at advanced ages.

Colonoscopy in Patients Aged 85 Years or Older: An Observational Study

OBJECTIVES

Colonoscopy is the first-line modality to examine the colon even in the very elderly but may have an increased risk of complications. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of colonoscopy in the very elderly.

METHODS

Patients ≥85y old, who underwent colonoscopy between September 2010 and August 2012 in two tertiary-care hospitals in Japan were enrolled. Main outcome measures were cecal intubation rate, detection rate of adenomas and cancers, treatment, adverse events, and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 207 colonoscopies were performed in 177 patients (females 72, males 105; maximum age 95 years). Of these, 202 attempted to reach the cecum, with success in 92%. Excluding patients with known colorectal neoplasms, invasive cancers were detected in 12%, including T1 lesions in 2% and T2 or deeper in 9%. No cancers were detected in patients referred for surveillance or mild abdominal symptoms. Cancers were found in 25% of patients with positive fecal immunochemical tests, 22% with altered bowel habits, 21% with anemia, and 18% with hematochezia. Treatment of 29 patients with cancer included surgery in 22, endoscopic resection in two and no treatment (due to comorbidities) in five. There were no complications. During 730 days (mean) of follow up, 27 patients died but only three died from recurrent colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy for patients aged ≥85 years is safe. A relatively high detection rate of cancers was found, and most were treatable and even curable. (UMIN000018575).

Predictors of Intention to Obtain Colorectal Cancer Screening Among African American Men in a State Fair Setting

Racial disparities in health among African American men in the United States are appalling. African American men have the highest mortality and incidence rates from colorectal cancer compared with all other ethnic, racial, and gender groups. Juxtaposed to their white counterparts, African American men have colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates 27% and 52% higher, respectively. Colorectal cancer is a treatable and preventable condition when detected early, yet the intricate factors influencing African American men's intention to screen remain understudied. Employing a nonexperimental, online survey research design at the Minnesota State Fair, the purpose of this study was to explore whether male role norms, knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions influence intention to screen for colorectal cancer among 297 African American men. As hypothesized, these Minnesota men (ages 18 to 65) lacked appropriate colorectal cancer knowledge: only 33% of the sample received a "passing" knowledge score (85% or better). In a logistic regression model, the three factors significantly associated with a higher probability of obtaining colorectal cancer screening were age, perceived barriers, and perceived subjective norms. Findings from this study provide a solid basis for informing health policy and designing health promotion and early-intervention colorectal cancer prevention programs that are responsive to the needs of African American men in Minnesota and beyond.

Colorectal cancer care in elderly patients: Unsolved issues

Colorectal cancers are common in elderly patients. However, cancer screening is poorly used after 75. Elderly patients form a heterogeneous population with specific characteristics. Standards of care cannot therefore be transposed from young to elderly patients. Tumour resection is frequently performed but adjuvant chemotherapy is rarely prescribed as there are no clearly established standards of care. In a metastatic setting, recent phase III studies have demonstrated that doublet front-line chemotherapy provided no survival benefit. Moreover, several studies have established the benefit of bevacizumab in association with chemotherapy. There is a lack of evidence for the efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor antibodies in elderly patients. Geriatric assessments could help to select the adequate treatment strategy for individual patients. Geriatric oncology is now the challenge we have to face, and more specific trials are needed.

Colorectal Cancer Screening in US Seniors Ages 76-84 Years

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends patient-physician discussions about the appropriateness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults ages 76-84 years who have never been screened. In this study, we used data from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey to examine patterns of CRC screening and provider recommendation among seniors ages 76-84 years, and made some comparisons to younger adults. Nationally-representative samples of 1379 adults ages 76-84 years and 8797 adults ages 50-75 years responded to questions about CRC screening status, receipt of provider recommendation, and discussion of test options; 22.7% (95% CI 20.1-25.3) of seniors ages 76-84 had never been tested for CRC and therefore were not up-to-date with guidelines; 3.9% (95% CI 2.0-7.6) of these individuals reported a recent provider recommendation for screening. In multivariate analyses, the likelihood of never having been tested was significantly greater for seniors of other/multiple race or Hispanic ethnicity; with high school or less education; without private health insurance coverage; who had ≤ 1 doctor visit in the past year; without recent screening for breast, cervical, or prostate cancer; with no or unknown CRC family history; or with ≤ 1 chronic disease. Among the minority of respondents ages 50-75 and 76-84 reporting a provider recommendation, 73.2% indicated that the provider recommended particular tests, which was overwhelmingly colonoscopy (≥ 89 %). Nearly one-quarter of adults 76-84 have never been screened for CRC, and rates of provider recommendation in this group are very low. Greater attention to informed CRC screening discussions with screening-eligible seniors is needed.

The Evolution of Gero-Oncology Nursing

OBJECTIVES

This article summarizes the evolution of gero-oncology nursing and highlights key educational initiatives, clinical practice issues, and research areas to enhance care of older adults with cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed literature, position statements, clinical practice guidelines, Web-based materials, and professional organizations' resources.

CONCLUSION

Globally, the older adult cancer population is rapidly growing. The care of older adults with cancer requires an understanding of their diverse needs and the intersection of cancer and aging. Despite efforts to enhance competence in gero-oncology and to develop a body of evidence, nurses and health care systems remain under-prepared to provide high-quality care for older adults with cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses must take a leadership role in integrating gerontological principles into oncology settings. Working closely with interdisciplinary team members, nurses should utilize available resources and continue to build evidence through gero-oncology nursing research.

Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in the elderly: updates and controversies

Colorectal cancer is common worldwide, and the elderly are disproportionately affected. Increasing age is a risk factor for the development of precancerous adenomas and colorectal cancer, thus raising the issue of screening and surveillance in older patients. Elderly patients are a diverse and heterogeneous group, and special considerations such as comorbid medical conditions, functional status and cognitive ability play a role in deciding on the utility of screening and surveillance. Colorectal cancer screening can be beneficial to patients, but at certain ages and under some circumstances the harm of screening outweighs the benefits. Increasing adverse events, poorer bowel preparation and more incomplete examinations are observed in older patients undergoing colonoscopy for diagnostic, screening and surveillance purposes. Decisions regarding screening, surveillance and treatment for colorectal cancer require a multidisciplinary approach that accounts not only for the patient’s age but also for their overall health, preferences and functional status. This review provides an update and examines the challenges surrounding colorectal cancer diagnosis, screening, and treatment in the elderly.

Colon cancer screening in U.S. adults aged 65 and older according to life expectancy and age

OBJECTIVES

To examine receipt of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening according to age and life expectancy (LE) in adults aged 65 and older.

DESIGN

Population-based survey.

SETTING

United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Community dwelling adults aged 65 and older who participated in the 2008 or 2010 National Health Interview Survey (N = 7,747).

MEASUREMENTS

Receipt of CRC screening (e.g., colonoscopy within 10 years) was examined according to age and LE (≥10 and <10 years), adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and survey year. Frequency of CRC screening was also examined according to age and LE at time of screening (e.g., age at colonoscopy rather than at interview). Participants screened when they were aged 75 and older or had less than a 10-year LE were considered to have received screening inconsistent with guidelines.

RESULTS

Overall, 38.5% of participants had less than a 10-year LE; 40.2% were aged 75 and older, and 56.3% had received recent CRC screening (90.1% by colonoscopy). CRC screening was higher in 2010 (58.9%) than 2008 (53.7%, P <.001) and was associated with longer LE and younger age, although 51.1% of adults aged 75 and older reported receiving CRC screening, as did 50.9% of adults with less than a 10-year LE. Based on age and LE at time of screening (rather than at interview), 28.4% of CRC screening of adults aged 65 and older was targeted to those aged 75 and older and those with less than a 10-year LE. Of adults aged 65 to 75 with a 10-year LE or more (adults recommended for screening by guidelines), 39.2% had not recently been screened.

CONCLUSION

Older adults with little chance of benefit because of limited LE commonly undergo CRC screening, whereas many adults aged 65 to 75 with a 10-year LE or greater are not screened.

Colonoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Current Aspects

Colonoscopy represents a very important diagnostic modality for screening for colorectal cancer, because it has the ability to both detect and effectively remove pro-malignant and malignant lesions. It is recommended by almost all international and national gastroenterology and cancer societies, as an initial screening modality or, following a positive fecal occult blood test, to be performed every 10 years in individuals of average risk starting from the age of 50. However, a significant problem is the so-called post-screening (interval) polyps and cancers found some years after the index colonoscopy. In order to reduce the rate of interval cancers it is extremely necessary to optimize the quality and effectiveness of colonoscopy. Bowel preparation is of paramount importance for both accurate diagnosis and subsequent treatment of lesions found on colonoscopy. The quality of bowel preparation could be significantly improved by splitting the dose regimens, a strategy that has been shown to be superior to single-dose regimen. A good endoscopic technique and optimal withdrawal time offering adequate time for inspection, would further optimize the rate of cecal intubation and the number of lesions detected. During the last years, sophisticated devices have been introduced that would further facilitate cecal intubation. The percentage of total colonoscopies is now super-passing the level of 95 % allowing the adenoma detection rate to be greater than the suggestive level of 25 % in men and 15 % in women. This review aims to provide the reader with the current knowledge concerning indications, usefulness, limitations and future perspectives of this probably most important screening technique for colorectal cancer available today.

Would you recommend screening colonoscopy for the very elderly?

Life expectancy in Korea has increased, and the number of screening colonoscopies in the elderly has also dramatically increased. The net benefit of colonoscopy in the very elderly (≥80 years of age as defined by the World Health Organization) may be reduced because of the competing risk of mortality due to other diseases. Therefore, the decision to perform screening colonoscopy may be more complex in this age group. As the potential increase in life expectancy due to screening colonoscopy is significantly reduced in the very elderly, this procedure should be limited to those among the very elderly who have substantial life expectancies. Furthermore, considering the common major complications associated with colonoscopy, poor bowel preparation, and the possibility of incomplete colonoscopies in the very elderly, the performance of screening colonoscopy in the very elderly may not be an ideal recommendation. In terms of providing the greatest benefit to the most number of people, patients with the highest potential gain in terms of life expectancy, relative to the diagnostic yield, should be targeted for colonoscopy screening. This review addresses the unique considerations regarding screening colonoscopy in the very elderly and the individualized approach, which involves the weighing of the risks and benefits for each individual with consideration of their overall health status.

Colorectal cancer of the elderly

OPINION STATEMENT

Colorectal cancer (CRC) disproportionately affects the elderly. Older age is a strong risk factor for both the development of precancerous adenomas and CRC, thus raising the issue of screening and surveillance in older patients. However, screening and surveillance decisions in the elderly can be complex and challenging. Elderly patients are a diverse and heterogeneous group and special considerations such as co-morbid medical conditions, functional status, and cognitive ability play a role in one's decisions regarding the utility of screening and surveillance. Such considerations also play a role in factors related to screening modalities, such as colonoscopy, as well as CRC treatment options and regimens. This review addresses many of the unique factors associated with CRC of the elderly and critically examines many of the controversies and challenges surrounding CRC in older patients.

Endoscopy in the elderly: risks, benefits, and yield of common endoscopic procedures

There has been limited research examining the risks, benefits, and use of common endoscopic procedures in the elderly. Furthermore, gastroenterology training programs do not routinely incorporate elderly concerns when dealing with common gastrointestinal issues. There exists a broad array of endoscopic procedures with varying inherent risks that must be weighed with each elderly patient in mind. This article discusses the benefits and drawbacks of the most common procedures and indications for endoscopy including upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, and deep enteroscopy.

What is the impact of disease prevalence upon health technology assessment?

As national budgets for health care will remain under stress for the foreseeable future, health technology assessment (HTA) aimed at offering guidance to policy-making will have an increasing role to play in optimizing resources. The emergence of new treatment paradigms and health technologies, and the prevalence studies which determine when a disease is a current or future burden for patients and the community are in the roots of the HTA process. Analysing studies on screening test strategies and health care policy, this paper revisits two key concepts in epidemiology, prevalence and incidence, in order to show their major impact upon HTA. Utilization of the predictive values of screening tests that include prevalence in their calculations, and analysing all options for screening strategies are necessary in HTA. Cost-effectiveness analyses and statistical models should include potential externalities, especially the impact of prevention and treatment on infectious disease prevalence. Beyond estimates of cost-effectiveness ratios, decision makers also need to know by how much their annual health care budget is likely to increase or decrease in the years following the emergence of new technologies: hence the importance of incidence- or prevalence-based economic evaluations. As new paradigms are occurring, especially in the field of oncology, with treatments targeted to 'small' groups of patients identified through genetic testing, prevalence data are strongly needed. Precise estimates of disease prevalence, in general populations as well as in risk or targeted groups, will therefore be necessary to improve HTA process.

Colorectal cancer and the elderly

Colorectal cancer and precancerous adenomas disproportionately affect the elderly, necessitating the need for screening and surveillance in this group. However, screening and surveillance decisions in the elderly can be challenging. Special considerations such as comorbid medical conditions, functional status, and cognitive ability play a role in one's decisions regarding the utility of screening and surveillance as well as the success and safety of various screening modalities. This article explores the evidence for screening and surveillance in the elderly, and addresses key challenges unique to this population.

Prognostic Significance of DR-70 Levels in Dysplastic Colorectal Polyps

Background. To investigate the relationship between DR-70 serum levels and dysplastic colon polyps. Materials and Methods. A total of 130 patients with adenomatous polyps detected by colonoscopy and divided into two groups including low versus high grade polyp, along with 50 healthy blood donors were included in the study. Blood samples from each participant were analyzed for serum CEA and DR-70 levels. Results. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of age or gender. The median DR-70 level was 0.5  μ g/mL in the healthy control group and 1.1  μ g/mL in group 1b (i.e., the high grade polyp) (P < 0.001). DR-70 was higher in group 1b as compared to group 1a (P < 0.001). However, the median DR-70 values for the low grade polyp group (i.e., group 1a) and the control group were similar (P = 0.067). In order to determine independent predictors of high grade dysplasia, CEA, DR-70, polyp size, and age parameters were subjected to multiple logistical regression analyses via the Enter method; the model was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Conclusions. DR-70, a marker used to measure FDP, which is generated by all major cancers, is a potential marker to identify patients with advanced adenomatous polyps, that is, precursors of colorectal cancer.

Recommended intervals between screening and surveillance colonoscopies

Colonoscopy has become the mainstay for screening and surveillance of colorectal cancer. The guidelines for screening and surveillance colonoscopy have recently been updated, particularly in light of greater recognition of the importance of sessile serrated lesions in the role of cancer. It is important for practitioners to be aware of and understand the recommendations for screening and surveillance to optimize patient safety and to decrease health care use. We searched PubMed for articles and guidelines related to screening and surveillance of colonic polyps and serrated adenomas. The related citations feature was also used. The search was conducted from February 22, 2013, to March 2, 2013, and we included the search terms colorectal cancer screening, colonoscopy, guidelines, colorectal polyps, and colorectal surveillance. We selected the most recent guidelines and pertinent articles for this review, in which we discuss the basis of screening and surveillance colonoscopy and provide recommendations for colonoscopy intervals.

Health maintenance in older adults: combining evidence and individual preferences

There is increasing interest in maintaining health and delaying disability for older adults as this population segment expands. And instead of focusing on a traditional disease-specific approach to health maintenance, there is an ongoing shift to a patient-centered approach, and defining outcomes based on the older adults' goals. In this approach, their goals and preferences are central, and other factors such as their health status and prognosis help determine which goals may be realistic. These subjective goals and objective characteristics are then balanced with the risks, benefits, and harms of established evidence-driven health-maintenance recommendations. Hence, older adults share their goals and preferences with clinicians; while clinicians share information on risks, benefits, harms, and uncertainties of existing health-maintenance recommendations, and help guide the older adult through how existing evidence can respond to their health goals and preferences. In this article, the concept of patient-centered care in the context of health maintenance for older adults is discussed; and health maintenance recommendations for older adults are reviewed.

Endoscopy in the elderly

With increasing age, the incidence of both benign and malignant gastrointestinal (GI) disease rises. Endoscopic procedures are commonly performed in elderly and very elderly patients to diagnose and treat GI disorders. There are a number of issues to contemplate when considering performing an endoscopic procedure in an elderly patient, including the anticipated benefits of endoscopy as well as the increased risks associated with procedural sedation and some endoscopic procedures. This review will focus on the yield and safety of endoscopic procedures in older adults.

The influence of health literacy on comprehension of a colonoscopy preparation information leaflet

BACKGROUND

Successful bowel preparation is important for safe, efficacious, cost-effective colonoscopy procedures; however, poor preparation is common.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine whether there was an association between health literacy and comprehension of typical written instructions on how to prepare for a colonoscopy to enable more targeted interventions in this area.

DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional observational study.

SETTING

This study was performed at primary care clinics and federally qualified health centers in Chicago, Illinois.

PATIENTS

Seven hundred sixty-four participants (mean age, 63 years; SD, 5.42) were recruited. The sample was from a mixed sociodemographic background, and 71.9% of the participants were classified as having adequate health literacy scores.

INTERVENTION

Seven hundred sixty-four participants were presented with an information leaflet outlining the bowel preparatory instructions for colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Five questions were used to assess participants' comprehension of the instructions in an "open book" test.

RESULTS

Comprehension scores on the bowel preparation items were low. The mean number of items correctly answered was 3.2 (SD, 1.2) of a possible 5. Comprehension scores overall and for each individual item differed significantly by health literacy level (all p < 0.001). After controlling for sex, age, race, socioeconomic status, and previous colonoscopy experience in a multivariable model, health literacy was a significant predictor of comprehension (inadequate vs adequate: β = -0.2; p < 0.001; marginal vs adequate: β = -0.2; p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

The outcome represents a simulated task and not actual comprehension of preparation instructions for participants' own recommended behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehension of a written colonoscopy preparation leaflet was generally low and significantly lower among people with low health literacy. Poor comprehension has implications for the safety and economic impact of gastroenterological procedures such as colonoscopy. Therefore, future interventions should aim to improve comprehension of complex medical information by reducing literacy-related barriers.

Cancer surgery in the elderly

The proportions both of elderly patients in the world and of elderly patients with cancer are both increasing. In the evaluation of these patients, physiologic age, and not chronologic age, should be carefully considered in the decision-making process prior to both cancer screening and cancer treatment in an effort to avoid ageism. Many tools exist to help the practitioner determine the physiologic age of the patient, which allows for more appropriate and more individualized risk stratification, both in the pre- and postoperative periods as patients are evaluated for surgical treatments and monitored for surgical complications, respectively. During and after operations in the oncogeriatric populations, physiologic changes occuring that accompany aging include impaired stress response, increased senescence, and decreased immunity, all three of which impact the risk/benefit ratio associated with cancer surgery in the elderly.