Resident physicians' life expectancy estimates and colon cancer screening recommendations in elderly patients

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.

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

IMPORTANCE

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

Patient decision aid targeted to age and sex.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01575990.

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

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

Development and validation of a 5-year mortality prediction model using regularized regression and Medicare data

PURPOSE

De-implementation of low-value services among patients with limited life expectancy is challenging. Robust mortality prediction models using routinely collected health care data can enhance health care stakeholders' ability to identify populations with limited life expectancy. We developed and validated a claims-based prediction model for 5-year mortality using regularized regression methods.

METHODS

Medicare beneficiaries age 66 or older with an office visit and at least 12 months of pre-visit continuous Medicare A/B enrollment were identified in 2008. Five-year mortality was assessed through 2013. Secondary outcomes included 30-, 90-, and 180-day and 1-year mortality. Claims-based predictors, including comorbidities and indicators of disability, frailty, and functional impairment, were selected using regularized logistic regression, applying the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) in a random 80% training sample. Model performance was assessed and compared with the Gagne comorbidity score in the 20% validation sample.

RESULTS

Overall, 183 204 (24%) individuals died. In addition to demographics, 161 indicators of comorbidity and function were included in the final model. In the validation sample, the c-statistic was 0.825 (0.823-0.828). Median-predicted probability of 5-year mortality was 14%; almost 4% of the cohort had a predicted probability greater than 80%. Compared with the Gagne score, the LASSO model led to improved 5-year mortality classification (net reclassification index = 9.9%; integrated discrimination index = 5.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our claims-based model predicting 5-year mortality showed excellent discrimination and calibration, similar to the Gagne score model, but resulted in improved mortality classification. Regularized regression is a feasible approach for developing prediction tools that could enhance health care research and evaluation of care quality.

A Decision Aid to Promote Appropriate Colorectal Cancer Screening among Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background. Concerns have been raised about both over- and underutilization of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in older patients and the need to align screening behavior with likelihood of net benefit. Objective. The purpose of this study was to test a novel use of a patient decision aid (PtDA) to promote appropriate CRC screening in older adults. Methods. A total of 424 patients ages 70 to 84 y who were not up to date with CRC screening participated in a double-blinded randomized controlled trial of a PtDA targeted to older adults making decisions about whether to undergo CRC screening from March 2012 to February 2015. Intervention. Patients were randomized to a targeted PtDA or an attention control. The PtDA was designed to facilitate individualized decision making—helping patients understand the potential risks, benefits, and uncertainties of CRC screening given advanced age, health state, preferences, and values. Outcomes. Two composite outcomes, appropriate CRC screening behavior 6 mo after the index visit and appropriate screening intent immediately after the visit, were defined as completed screening or intent for patients in good health, discussion about screening with their provider for patients in intermediate health, and no screening or intent for patients in poor health. Health state was determined by age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Results. Four hundred twelve (97%) and 421 (99%) patients were analyzed for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Appropriate screening behavior at 6 mo was higher in the intervention group (55% v. 45%, P = 0.023) as was appropriate screening intent following the provider visit (61% v. 47%, P = 0.003). Limitations. The study took place in a single geographic region. The appropriate CRC screening classification system used in this study has not been formally validated. Conclusions. A PtDA for older adults promoted appropriate CRC screening behavior and intent.

Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, registration number NCT01575990. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01575990?term=epic-d&rank=1

Design of a randomized clinical trial of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid to promote appropriate screening in community-dwelling older adults

BACKGROUND

Appropriate colorectal cancer screening in older adults should be aligned with the likelihood of net benefit. In general, patient decision aids improve knowledge and values clarity, but in older adults, they may also help patients identify their individual likelihood of benefit and foster individualized decision-making. We report on the design of a randomized clinical trial to understand the effects of a patient decision aid on appropriate colorectal cancer screening. This report includes a description of the baseline characteristics of participants.

METHODS

English-speaking primary care patients aged 70-84 years who were not currently up to date with screening were recruited into a randomized clinical trial comparing a tailored colorectal cancer screening decision aid with an attention control. The intervention group received a decision aid that included a values clarification exercise and individualized decision-making worksheet, while the control group received an educational pamphlet on safe driving behaviors. The primary outcome was appropriate screening at 6 months based on chart review. We used a composite measure to define appropriate screening as screening for participants in good health, a discussion about screening for patients in intermediate health, and no screening for patients in poor health. Health state was objectively determined using patients' Charlson Comorbidity Index score and age.

RESULTS

A total of 14 practices in central North Carolina participated as part of a practice-based research network. In total, 424 patients were recruited to participate and completed a baseline visit. Overall, 79% of participants were White and 58% female, with a mean age of 76.8 years. Patient characteristics between groups were similar by age, gender, race, education, insurance coverage, or work status. Overall, 70% had some college education or more, 57% were married, and virtually all had Medicare insurance (90%). The three primary medical conditions among the cohort were a history of diabetes, pneumonia, and cancer (28%, 26%, and 21%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

We designed a randomized clinical trial to test a novel use of a patient decision aid to promote appropriate colorectal cancer screening and have recruited a diverse study population that seems similar between the intervention and control groups. The study should be able to determine the ability of a patient decision aid to increase individualized and appropriate colorectal cancer screening.

Relationship between Physicians' Uncertainty about Clinical Assessments and Patient-Centered Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Elderly

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to examine associations between physicians' clinical assessments, their certainty in these assessments, and the likelihood of a patient-centered recommendation about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the elderly.

METHODS

Two hundred seventy-six primary care physicians in the United States read 3 vignettes about an 80-year-old female patient and answered questions about her life expectancy, their confidence in their life expectancy estimate, the balance of benefits/downsides of CRC screening, their certainty in their benefit/downside assessment, and the best course of action regarding CRC screening. We used logistic regression to determine the relationship between these variables and patient-centered recommendations about CRC screening.

RESULTS

In bivariate analyses, physicians had higher odds of making a patient-centered recommendation about CRC screening when their clinical assessments did not lead to a clear screening recommendation or when they experienced uncertainty in their clinical assessments. However, in a multivariate regression model, only benefit/downside assessment and best course of action remained statistically significant predictors of a patient-centered recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that when the results of clinical assessments do not lead to obvious screening decisions or when physicians feel uncertain about their clinical assessments, they are more likely to make patient-centered recommendations. Existing uncertainty frameworks do not adequately describe the uncertainty associated with patient-centered recommendations found in this study. Adapting or modifying these frameworks to better reflect the constructs associated with uncertainty and the interactions between uncertainty and the complexity inherent in clinical decisions will facilitate a more complete understanding of how and when physicians choose to include patients in clinical decisions.

Physician decision making for colorectal cancer screening in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Although individualized decision making is recommended to appropriately screen for colorectal cancer (CRC) in older adults, it is unclear whether physicians solicit input from older patients before making a recommendation for or against CRC screening.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine whether physicians elect to engage older patients in individualized decision making for CRC screening.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

We surveyed a random sample of 650 US primary care physicians by mail. Physicians responded to questions about three clinical vignettes involving 80-year-old female patients in good, fair, and poor health. We examined whether physicians reported that they would initiate a discussion with the patients about CRC screening and whether they would make a recommendation about screening or seek patient input first.

RESULTS

A total of 276 eligible physicians responded (52 % corrected response rate). Whether physicians indicated they would initiate a discussion about CRC screening varied by vignette: 91 % of physicians indicated they would do so for the patient in good health and 66 % and 44 % for the patients in fair and poor health, respectively (p<0.0001). The proportion of physicians that would seek patient input for their screening recommendation also varied by vignette (45 % for good, 49 % for fair, and 26 % for poor).

CONCLUSION

We found that physicians often individualize their CRC screening recommendations for older women by electing to engage patients in discussions and seeking their input before making a CRC recommendation. Physicians were more likely to elect to engage the patients represented by the good and fair health vignette, where the potential benefits likely outweigh the potential harms, than the patient in poor health, where the potential harms likely outweigh the potential benefits.

The influence of stress, depression, and anxiety on PSA screening rates in a nationally representative sample

BACKGROUND

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer is controversial, with concerning rates of both overscreening and underscreening. The reasons for the observed rates of screening are unknown, and few studies have examined the relationship of psychological health to PSA screening rates. Understanding this relationship can help guide interventions to improve informed decision-making for screening.

METHODS

A nationally representative sample of men 57-85 years old without prostate cancer (N = 1169) from the National Social life, Health and Aging Project was analyzed. The independent relationship of validated psychological health scales measuring stress, anxiety, and depression to PSA testing rates was assessed using multivariable logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

PSA screening rates were significantly lower for men with higher perceived stress [odds ratio (OR) = 0.76, P = 0.006], but not for higher depressive symptoms (OR = 0.89, P = 0.22) when accounting for stress. Anxiety influences PSA screening through an interaction with number of doctor visits (P = 0.02). Among the men who visited the doctor once those with higher anxiety were less likely to be screened (OR = 0.65, P = 0.04). Conversely, those who visited the doctor 10+ times with higher anxiety were more likely to be screened (OR = 1.71, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Perceived stress significantly lowers PSA screening likelihood, and it seems to partly mediate the negative relationship of depression with screening likelihood. Anxiety affects PSA screening rates differently for men with different numbers of doctor visits. Interventions to influence PSA screening rates should recognize the role of the patients' psychological state to improve their likelihood of making informed decisions and improve screening appropriateness.

Remaining Life Expectancy Measurement and PSA Screening of Older Men

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend informed decision-making regarding prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening for men with at least 10 years of remaining life expectancy (RLE). Comorbidity measures have been used to judge RLE in previous studies, but assessments based on other common RLE measures are unknown. We assessed whether screening rates varied based on four clinically relevant RLE measures, including comorbidities, in a nationally-representative, community-based sample. METHODS: Using the National Social Life, Health and Aging Project (NSHAP), we selected men over 65 without prostate cancer (n=709). They were stratified into three RLE categories (0-7 years, 8-12 years, and 13+ years) based on validated measures of comorbidities, self-rated health status, functional status, and physical performance. The independent relationship of each RLE measure and a combined measure to screening was determined using multivariable logistic regressions. RESULTS: Self-rated health (OR = 6.82; p < 0.01) most closely correlated with RLE-based screening, while the comorbidity index correlated the least (OR = 1.50; p = 0.09). The relationship of RLE to PSA screening significantly strengthened when controlling for the number of doctor visits, particularly for comorbidities (OR= 43.6; p < 0.001). Men who had consistent estimates of less than 7 years RLE by all four measures had an adjusted PSA screening rate of 43.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the RLE measure used, men who were estimated to have limited RLE had significant PSA screening rates. However, different RLE measures have different correlations with PSA screening. Specific estimates of over-screening should therefore carefully consider the RLE measure used.

Minimizing inappropriate medications in older populations: a 10-step conceptual framework

The increasing burden of harm resulting from the use of multiple drugs in older patient populations represents a major health problem in developed countries. Approximately 1 in 4 older patients admitted to hospitals are prescribed at least 1 inappropriate medication, and up to 20% of all inpatient deaths are attributable to potentially preventable adverse drug reactions. To minimize this drug-related iatrogenesis, we propose a quality use of medicine framework that comprises 10 sequential steps: 1) ascertain all current medications; 2) identify patients at high risk of or experiencing adverse drug reactions; 3) estimate life expectancy in high-risk patients; 4) define overall care goals in the context of life expectancy; 5) define and confirm current indications for ongoing treatment; 6) determine the time until benefit for disease-modifying medications; 7) estimate the magnitude of benefit versus harm in relation to each medication; 8) review the relative utility of different drugs; 9) identify drugs that may be discontinued; and 10) implement and monitor a drug minimization plan with ongoing reappraisal of drug utility and patient adherence by a single nominated clinician. The framework aims to reduce drug use in older patients to the minimum number of essential drugs, and its utility is demonstrated in reference to a hypothetic case study. Further studies are warranted in validating this framework as a means for assisting clinicians to make more appropriate prescribing decisions in at-risk older patients.

Primary care providers' perspectives on discontinuing prostate cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend against routine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for older men and for those with lower life expectancies. The authors of this report examined providers' decision-making regarding discontinuing PSA screening.

METHODS

A survey of primary providers from a large, university-affiliated primary care practice was administered. Providers were asked about their current screening practices, factors that influenced their decision to discontinue screening, and barriers to discontinuing screening. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to examine whether taking age and/or life expectancy into account and barriers to discontinuing were associated with clinician characteristics and practice styles.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five of 141 providers (88.7%) participated in the survey. Over half (59.3%) took both age and life expectancy into account, whereas 12.2% did not consider either in their decisions to discontinue PSA screening. Providers varied in the age at which they typically stopped screening patients, and the majority (66.4%) reported difficulty in assessing life expectancy. Taking patient age and life expectancy into account was not associated with provider characteristics or practice styles. The most frequently cited barriers to discontinuing PSA screening were patient expectation (74.4%) and time constraints (66.4%). Black providers were significantly less likely than nonblack providers to endorse barriers related to time constraints and clinical uncertainty, although these results were limited by the small sample size of black providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Although age and life expectancy often figured prominently in decisions to use screening, providers faced multiple barriers to discontinuing routine PSA screening.

Serious health events and discontinuation of routine cancer screening

Recently revised US Preventive Services Task Force screening guidelines for colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer contain separate recommendations for persons younger than 75 years and those 75 years or older. Developing an understanding of whether and how patients discontinue screening is important for evaluating the potential benefits and drawbacks of age-delimited screening recommendations as a tool for reducing overdiagnosis rates. Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End

RESULTS

-Medicare data from 1998 to 2007, the authors identified a sample of 32,189 female and 27,669 male fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries who received 2 consecutive breast or prostate screens, 1 year apart. They then estimated the impact of serious health events, such as heart attacks and strokes, on continuation of screening. Rescreening rates among beneficiaries who did not experience a serious health event were 78% for women and 82% for men. Rescreening rates among beneficiaries who experienced a serious health event were 55% for women and 57% for men. The rate ratios associated with a time-varying indicator for the 2-year period following a serious health event were 0.79 (95% confidence interval: 0.76 to 0.81); P < 0.001) for women and 0.87 (95% confidence interval: 0.85 to 0.89; P < 0.001) for men. Approximately one-third of patients and physicians discontinue or temporarily suspend screening for breast and prostate cancer following serious health events. Findings suggest that not all patients persist with screening until they die.

Psychosocial determinants of socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation: a conceptual framework

Cancer screening participation shows a strong, graded association with socioeconomic status (SES) not only in countries such as the United States, where insurance status can be a barrier for lower income groups, but also in the United Kingdom, where the National Health Service provides all health care to residents, including screening, for free. Traditionally, the literature on socioeconomic inequalities has focused on upstream factors, but more proximal (downstream) influences on screening participation also need to be examined, particularly those that address the graded nature of the association rather than focusing specifically on underserved groups. This review offers a framework that links some of the components and corollaries of SES (life stress, educational opportunities, illness experience) to known psychosocial determinants of screening uptake (beliefs about the value of early detection, fatalistic beliefs about cancer, self-efficacy). The aim is to explain why individuals from lower SES backgrounds perceive cancer screening tests as more threatening, more difficult to accomplish, and less beneficial. A better understanding of the mechanisms through which lower SES causes negative attitudes toward screening could facilitate the development of intervention strategies to reduce screening inequalities.

Colorectal cancer screening barriers and facilitators in older persons

BACKGROUND

This systematic review identifies factors that are most consistently mentioned as either barriers to or facilitators of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in older persons.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (1995-2008) was conducted to identify studies that reported barriers to or facilitators of CRC screening uptake, compliance or adherence specifically for older persons (> or = 65 years). Information on study characteristics and barriers and facilitators related to subjects; healthcare providers; policies; and screening tests were then abstracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Eighty-three studies met the eligibility criteria. Low level of education, African American race, Hispanic ethnicity, and female gender were the most frequently reported barriers, whereas being married or living with a partner was the most frequently reported facilitator. The most cited barrier related to healthcare providers was lack of screening recommendation by a physician; having a usual source of care was a commonly reported facilitator. Lack of health insurance, and dual coverage with Medicare and Medicaid were the most frequently reported barriers, whereas Medicare's coverage of screening colonoscopy was consistently reported as a facilitator.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers to, and facilitators of, CRC screening among older persons are reported. Particular attention should be paid to modifiable factors that could become the focus of interventions aimed at increasing CRC screening participation in older persons.

Provider recommendations for colorectal cancer screening in elderly veterans

BACKGROUND

Decisions regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the elderly depend on providers' assessment of likelihood of benefit partly based on patient comorbidity and past screening history. We aimed to describe providers' experiences and practice patterns regarding screening for CRC in elderly patients in the VA system.

METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS

A survey was sent to VA primary care providers who had previously participated in the CanCORS-sponsored Share Thoughts on Care study and at a VA medical center. The surveys consisted of clinical vignettes that varied by patient age (75, 80, or 85 years), comorbidity, and past CRC screening history.

MAIN RESULTS

Completed questionnaires were received from 183 of 351 providers (52%). Ninety-five percent of providers would recommend screening for a healthy 75 year old compared to 66% and 39% for a healthy 80 and 85 year old, respectively (p-values < 0.0001). Providers were more likely to recommend screening for a 75 year old with moderate CHF versus severe CHF [61% versus 15%, OR 9.0 (95% CI 5.8-14.0), p < 0.0001] and more likely to recommend screening for an 80 year old with prior colonoscopy within the preceding 10 years, versus 5 years [42% versus 23%, OR 2.6 (95% CI 1.9-3.5), p < 0.0001]. A substantial minority of respondents (range 15-21%) reported they would screen a 75 year old with an active malignancy, severe CHF, or severe COPD. Provider demographic characteristics were not significantly associated with the probability of a screening recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

VA providers incorporate patient age, comorbidity, and past CRC screening history into CRC screening recommendations for elderly veterans; however, substantial proportions of these recommendations are inappropriate.

Physicians' decisions about continuing or stopping colon cancer screening in the elderly: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Experts suggest an individualized approach to colon cancer screening to take into account variation in older adults' life expectancies and potential to benefit from screening. However, little is known about how physicians make decisions about colon cancer screening in adults age 75 and older.

OBJECTIVE

To understand whether physicians employ individualized decision making for colon cancer screening in older adults, and, if so, to determine the individual factors they believed were important to consider in making such decisions.

DESIGN

Qualitative research using focus groups and individual interviews

PARTICIPANTS

Fifteen primary care physicians practicing in community settings participated in three focus groups and two interviews.

APPROACH

We used two clinical vignettes of 78-year-old women in fair and poor health states to stimulate discussions about clinical decision making for CRC screening in older adults.

RESULTS

Physicians considered a wide range of factors, including clinical factors, such as age, life expectancy, co-morbidities, and functional status, as well as individual factors, such as personality, previous screening behavior, family support, and the relationship with the patient. Physicians reported difficulty with these decisions because of their complexity and because they involve life expectancy estimates. Their approach and discussion with patients seemed to be dependent on the degree of certainty they perceived regarding their clinical assessment as to whether the patient had the potential to benefit from screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal cancer screening decision making is complex. Physicians reported using a range of clinical and individual factors to decide about colorectal cancer screening in older adults.