Clinician Perspectives on Overscreening for Cancer in Older Adults With Limited Life Expectancy

Non-use and inadequate use of cervical cancer screening among a representative sample of women in the United States

Introduction

Women's adherence to the United States (U.S.) Preventive Services Task Force guidelines for cervical cancer screening was determined by examining predisposing, enabling, and needs factors from Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use conceptual framework.

Methods

The outcome was operationalized as cervical cancer screening use, non-use, and inadequate-use. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted on data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey of 7,331 eligible women aged 21-65.

Results

Compared with women who used cervical cancer screening services, women aged 30-65 were less likely to be Non-Users than those aged 21-29. Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) women were more likely to be Non-Users than White women. More educated women were less likely to be Non-Users. Foreign-born women <10 years in the U.S. were more likely to be Non-Users than U.S.-born women. Women with financial hardship were less likely to be Non-Users. Poorer women and uninsured women were more likely to be Non-Users. Women with children in their household were less likely to be Non-Users than those without children. Women who had a well-visit in the past year were less likely to be Non-Users. Women with a history of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination were less likely to be Non-Users. Compared with women who used cervical cancer screening services, women aged 30-65 were less likely to be Inadequate-Users. AIAN women were more likely to be Inadequate-Users. Women of other races were less likely to be Inadequate-Users. Employed women were less likely to be Inadequate-Users. Uninsured women were more likely to be Inadequate-Users. Women who had a well-visit within a year were less likely to be Inadequate-Users. Women with past HPV vaccination were more likely to be Inadequate-Users. Smokers were less likely to be Inadequate-Users.

Discussion

Predisposing, enabling, and needs factors are differently associated with non-use and inadequate use of cervical cancer screening. Understanding factors associated with the use, non-use, and inadequate use of cervical cancer screening is crucial to avoid or curb unnecessary tests, increased costs to both society and individuals, and the ill-allocation of limited resources.

"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.

Clinician and patient perspectives on screening mammography among women age 75 and older: A pilot study of a novel decision aid

Objective

Supporting patient-clinician communication is key to implementing tailored, risk-based screening for older adults. Objectives of this multiphase mixed methods study were to identify factors that primary care clinicians consider influential when making screening mammography recommendations for women ≥ 75 years, develop a patient decision aid that incorporates these factors, and gather feasibility and acceptability from the patients' perspective.

Methods

Clinicians from a Mid-Atlantic practice network completed online surveys. Women in the same network completed surveys before and after receiving a tailored booklet that included information about the benefits and harms of screening for women ≥ 75 years, a breast cancer risk-estimate, and a question prompt list to support patient-clinician communication.

Results

Clinicians (N = 21) were primarily women [57.1%] and practiced family medicine [81.0%]. They cited patients' age ≥ 75 years [95.4%], comorbidity [86.4%], functional status [77.3%], cancer family history [63.6%], U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines [81.8%] and new research [77.3%] as factors influencing their recommendations. Fourteen women completed baseline surveys and received personalized decision aids (Mean age = 79.1 years). Eleven completed the post-intervention survey. All were satisfied with the booklet length, 81.8% found the booklet easy to understand and 72.7% helpful in decision-making Perceived lifetime breast cancer risk decreased significantly from pre- to post-intervention (p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Results suggest this decision aid, which incorporates key decisional factors from the clinician's perspective, is feasible and acceptable to patients.

Innovation

A tailored decision aid booklet is innovative as it provides information on personalized risk and potential benefits and harms to older women considering screening.

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.

Perceived Barriers Among Clinicians and Older Adults Aged 65 and Older Regarding Use of Life Expectancy to Inform Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review and Comparison

While cancer screening guidelines increasingly recommend incorporating life expectancy estimates to inform screening decisions for older adults, little is known about how this happens in practice. This review summarizes current knowledge about primary care clinician and older adult (65+) perspectives about use of life expectancy to guide cancer screening decisions. Clinicians report operational barriers, uncertainty, and hesitation around use of life expectancy in screening decisions. They recognize it may help them more accurately weigh benefits and harms but are unsure how to estimate life expectancy for individual patients. Older adults face conceptual barriers and are generally unconvinced of the benefits of considering their life expectancy when making screening decisions. Life expectancy will always be a difficult topic for clinicians and patients, but there are advantages to incorporating it in cancer screening decisions. We highlight key takeaways from both clinician and older adult perspectives to guide future research.

A scoping review of ageism towards older adults in cancer care

INTRODUCTION

Ageism towards older adults with cancer may impact treatment decisions, healthcare interactions, and shape health/psychosocial outcomes. The purpose of this review is twofold: (1) To synthesize the literature on ageism towards older adults with cancer in oncology and (2) To identify interventions that address ageism in the healthcare context applicable to oncology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley and Levac methods and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We conducted an exhaustive multi-database search, screening 30,926 titles/abstracts. Following data abstraction, we conducted tabular, narrative, and textual synthesis.

RESULTS

We extracted data on 133 papers. Most (n = 44) were expert opinions, reviews, and letters to editors highlighting the negative impacts of ageism, expressing the need for approaches addressing heterogeneity of older adults, and calling for increased clinical trial inclusion for older adults. Qualitative studies (n = 3) described healthcare professionals' perceived influence of age on treatment recommendations, whereas quantitative studies (n = 32) were inconclusive as to whether age-related bias impacted treatment recommendations/outcomes or survival. Intervention studies (n = 54) targeted ageism in pre/post-licensure healthcare professionals and reported participants' improvement in knowledge and/or attitudes towards older adults. No interventions were found that had been implemented in oncology.

DISCUSSION

Concerns relating to ageism in cancer care are consistently described in the literature. Interventions exist to address ageism; however, none have been developed or tested in oncology settings. Addressing ageism in oncology will require integration of geriatric knowledge/interventions to address conscious and unconscious ageist attitudes impacting care and outcomes. Interventions hold promise if tailored for cancer care settings. 249/250.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

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

KEY RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Competing Causes of Death in Older Adults with Thyroid Cancer

Background: Understanding the impact of comorbidities and competing risks of death when caring for older adults with thyroid cancer is key for personalized management. The objective of this study was to determine whether older adults with thyroid cancer are more likely to die from thyroid cancer or other etiologies, and determine patient factors associated with each. Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database was used to identify patients aged ≥66 years diagnosed with thyroid cancer (papillary, follicular, Hürthle cell, medullary, anaplastic, and other) between 2000 and 2015 (median follow-up, 50 months). We analyzed time to event (i.e., death from other causes or death from thyroid cancer) using cumulative incidence functions. Competing risk hazards regression was used to determine the association between patient (e.g., age at diagnosis and specific comorbidities) and tumor characteristics (e.g., SEER stage) with two competing mortality outcomes: death from other causes and death from thyroid cancer. Results: Of 21,509 patients with a median age of 72 years (range 66-106), 4168 (19.4%) died of other causes and 2644 (12.3%) died of thyroid cancer during the study period. For differentiated thyroid cancer patients, likelihood of dying from other causes exceeds likelihood of dying from thyroid cancer, whereas the opposite is true for anaplastic thyroid cancer. For medullary thyroid cancer, after 6.25 years patients are more likely to die from other etiologies than thyroid cancer. Using competing risks hazards regression, male sex (hazards ratio [HR] 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI 1.37-1.57]), black race (HR 1.30; CI [1.16-1.46]), and comorbidities (e.g., heart disease, HR 1.34; CI [1.25-1.44]; chronic lower respiratory disease, HR 1.25; CI [1.17-1.34]) were associated with death from other causes. Tumor characteristics such as histology, tumor size, and stage correlated with death from thyroid cancer (e.g., distant SEER stage compared with localized, HR 12.65; CI [10.91-14.66]). Conclusions: The clinical context, including patients' specific comorbidities, should be considered when diagnosing and managing thyroid cancer. Our findings can be used to develop decision models that account for competing causes of death, as an aid for clinical decision making.

Examining primary care physician rationale for not following geriatric choosing wisely recommendations

Background

The objective is to understand why physicians order tests or treatments in older adults contrary to published recommendations.

Methods

Participants: Physicians above the median for ≥ 1 measures of overuse representing 3 Choosing Wisely topics. Measurements: Participants evaluated decisions in a semi-structured interview regarding: 1) Screening men aged ≥ 76 with prostate specific antigen 2) Ordering urine studies in women ≥ 65 without symptoms 3) Overtreating adults aged ≥ 75 with insulin or oral hypoglycemic medications. Two investigators independently coded transcripts using qualitative analysis.

Results

Nineteen interviews were conducted across the three topics resulting in four themes. First, physicians were aware and knowledgeable of guidelines. Second, perceived patient preference towards overuse influenced physician action even when physicians felt strongly that testing was not indicated. Third, physicians overestimated benefits of a test and underemphasized potential harms. Fourth, physicians were resistant to change when patients appeared to be doing well.

Conclusions

Though physicians expressed awareness to avoid overuse, deference to patient preferences and the tendency to distort the chance of benefit over harm influenced decisions to order testing. Approaches for decreasing unnecessary testing must account for perceived patient preferences, make the potential harms of overtesting salient, and address clinical inertia among patients who appear to be doing well.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01440-w.

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.

Cancer Prevention and Screening for Older Adults: Part 1. Lung, Colorectal, Bladder, and Kidney Cancer

The incidence of most cancers increases with age. Cancer is the second most common cause of death in older adults after cardiovascular disease. Many common cancers in older adults can be prevented from occurring or can be identified at an early stage and treated effectively. The prevention and identification of cancer in its early stages, in an attempt to reduce discomfort and disability associated with advanced cancer and cancer treatment, is also a priority. Overscreening for cancer in older adults can lead to unnecessary diagnostic testing and unnecessary treatment. Both older adults and their healthcare providers need guidance on the appropriate use of cancer prevention and screening interventions. This first of a two-part review addresses special considerations regarding cancer prevention for adults aged 65 and older. Screening decisions and the impact of limited life expectancy and an older adult's ability to tolerate cancer treatment are also addressed. Guidance is provided regarding the prevention and early identification of lung, colorectal, bladder, and kidney cancer in older adults. The prevention of breast, prostate, and female urogenital cancers are addressed in Part 2. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:2399-2406, 2020.

Cancer Prevention and Screening for Older Adults: Part 2. Interventions to Prevent and Screen for Breast, Prostate, Cervical, Ovarian, and Endometrial Cancer

The incidence of most cancers increase with age. Cancer is the second most common cause of death in older adults after cardiovascular disease. Many common cancers in older adults can be prevented from occurring or can be identified at an early stage and treated effectively. Although cancer is feared primarily because of premature mortality, for many older adults, preventing and identifying cancer in its early stages, in an attempt to reduce discomfort and disability associated with advanced cancer and cancer treatment, is also a priority. Overscreening for cancer in older adults can lead to unnecessary diagnostic testing and unnecessary treatment. Both older adults and their healthcare providers need guidance on the appropriate use of cancer prevention and screening interventions. This is the second part of a two-part clinical review on cancer prevention and screening for adults aged 65 and older. Guidance is provided regarding the prevention and early identification of breast, prostate, cervical, ovarian, and endometrial cancer. The prevention of lung, colorectal, bladder, and kidney cancer is addressed in Part 1.