Breast and prostate cancer screening rates by cognitive status in US older adults.

INTRODUCTION: For most older adults with dementia, the short-term harms and burdens of routine cancer screening likely outweigh the delayed benefits. We aimed to provide a more updated assessment of the extent that US older adults with dementia receive breast and prostate cancer screenings. METHODS: Using the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) Wave 12 (2014-2015) linked to Medicare, we examine rates of breast and prostate cancer screenings in adults 65+ years by cognitive status. We used claims data to identify eligibility for screening and receipt of screening. We used a validated method using HRS data to define cognitive status. RESULTS: The analytic sample included 2439 women in the breast cancer screening cohort and 1846 men in the prostate cancer screening cohort. Average ages were 76.8 years for women and 75.6 years for men, with 9.0% and 7.6% with dementia in each cohort, respectively. Among women with dementia, 12.3% were screened for breast cancer. When stratified by age, 10.6% of those 75+ and have dementia were screened for breast cancer. When stratified by predicted life expectancy, 10.4% of those with predicted life expectancy of <10 years and have dementia were screened for breast cancer. Among men with dementia, 33.9% were screened for prostate cancer. When stratified by age, 30.9% of those 75+ and have dementia were screened for prostate cancer. When stratified by predicted life expectancy, 34.4% of those with predicted life expectancy of <10 years and have dementia were screened for prostate cancer. Using multivariable logistic regression, dementia was associated with lower odds of receiving breast cancer screening (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23-0.57) and prostate cancer screening (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.96). DISCUSSION: Our results suggest potential over-screening in older adults with dementia. Better supporting dementia patients and caregivers to make informed cancer screening decisions is critical.

Life expectancy estimates based on comorbidities and frailty to inform preventive care.

BACKGROUND: Long-term prognostication is important to inform preventive care in older adults. Existing prediction indices incorporate age and comorbidities. Frailty is another important factor in prognostication. In this project, we aimed at developing life expectancy estimates that incorporate both comorbidities and frailty. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used data from a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries with and without history of cancer from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry areas. We included adults aged 66-95 years who were continuously enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare for ≥1 year from 1998 to 2014. Participants were followed for survival until 12/31/2015, death, or disenrollment. Comorbidity (none, low/medium, high) and frailty categories (low, high) were defined using established methods for claims. We estimated 5- and 10-year survival probabilities and median life expectancies by age, sex, comorbidities, and frailty. RESULTS: The study included 479,646 individuals (4,128,316 person-years), of whom most were women (58.7%). Frailty scores varied widely among participants in the same comorbidity category. In Cox models, both comorbidities and frailty were independent predictors of mortality. Individuals with high comorbidities (HR, 3.24; 95% CI, 3.20-3.28) and low/medium comorbidities (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.34-1.39) had higher risks of death than those with no comorbidities. Compared to low frailty, high frailty was associated with higher risk of death (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.52-1.58). Frailty affected life expectancy estimates in ways relevant to preventive care (i.e., distinguishing <10-year versus >10-year life expectancy) in multiple subgroups. CONCLUSION: Incorporating both comorbidities and frailty may be important in estimating long-term life expectancies of older adults. Our life expectancy tables can aid clinicians' prognostication and inform simulation models and population health management.

Developing a sensor-based mobile application for in-home frailty assessment: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty syndrome disproportionately affects older people, including 15% of non-nursing home population, and is known to be a strong predictor of poor health outcomes. There is a growing interest in incorporating frailty assessment into research and clinical practice, which may provide an opportunity to improve in home frailty assessment and improve doctor patient communication. METHODS: We conducted focus groups discussions to solicit input from older adult care recipients (non-frail, pre-frail, and frail), their informal caregivers, and medical providers about their preferences to tailor a mobile app to measure frailty in the home using sensor based technologies. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: We identified three major themes: 1) perspectives of frailty; 2) perceptions of home based sensors; and 3) data management concerns. These relate to the participants' insight, attitudes and concerns about having sensor-based technology to measure frailty in the home. Our qualitative findings indicate that knowing frailty status is important and useful and would allow older adults to remain independent longer. Participants also noted concerns with data management and the hope that this technology would not replace in-person visits with their healthcare provider. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that study participants of each frailty status expressed high interest and acceptance of sensor-based technologies. Based on the qualitative findings of this study, sensor-based technologies show promise for frailty assessment of older adults with care needs. The main concerns identified related to the volume of data collected and strategies for responsible and secure transfer, reporting, and distillation of data into useful and timely care information. Sensor-based technologies should be piloted for feasibility and utility. This will inform the larger goal of helping older adults to maintain independence while tracking potential health declines, especially among the most vulnerable, for early detection and intervention.

Assessment of Clinician Decision-making on Cancer Screening Cessation in Older Adults With Limited Life Expectancy.

Importance: Despite clinical practice guidelines recommending against routine cancer screening in older adults with limited life expectancy, older adults are still frequently screened for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. Objective: To examine primary care clinicians' decision-making on stopping breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer screening in older adults with limited life expectancy. Design, Setting, and Participants: In qualitative interviews coupled with medical record-stimulated recall, clinicians from 17 academic and community clinics affiliated with a large health system were asked how they came to specific cancer screening decisions in 2 or 3 of their older patients with less than 10-year of estimated life expectancy, including patients with and without recent screening. Patients were surveyed by telephone. Data collection occurred between October 2018 and May 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinician interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed with qualitative content analysis to identify major themes. Patient surveys assessed perception of cancer screening decisions, importance of clinician recommendation, and willingness to stop screening. Results: Twenty-five primary care clinicians (mean [SD] age, 47.1 [9.7] years; 14 female [56%]) discussed 53 patients during medical record-stimulated recall, ranging from 2 to 3 patients per clinician; 46 patients and 1 caregiver (mean [SD] age 74.9 [5.4]; 31 female [66%]) participated in the survey. Clinician interviews revealed 5 major themes: (1) cancer screening decisions were not always conscious, deliberate decisions; (2) electronic medical record alerts were connected with less deliberate decision-making; (3) cancer screening was not binary and clinicians often considered other options to scale back screening without actually stopping; (4) in addition to patient characteristics, clinicians were influenced by patient request and anecdotal experiences; and (5) influences outside of the primary care clinician-patient dyad were important, such as from specialists and patients' family or friends. Patient surveys asked approximately 64 cancer screening decisions of 47 patients. Patients did not recall approximately half (31 of 64) of their cancer screening decisions. Among those with recent screening, the mean score for willingness to stop screening was 3.2 (95% CI 2.5-3.9) on a 5-point Likert scale (with 1 indicating "extremely unlikely" and 5 indicating "extremely likely"). In most screening decisions that involved specialists (13 of 16), patients valued specialists' recommendations over those of primary care clinicians. Conclusions and Relevance: Cancer screening decision-making is complex. Study findings suggest that strategies that facilitate more deliberate decision-making may be important in cancer screening of older adults with limited life expectancy.

Approaches to Risk Assessment Among Older Patients With Diabetes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A patient's prognosis and risk of adverse drug effects are important considerations for individualizing care of older patients with diabetes. This review summarizes the evidence for risk assessment and proposes approaches for clinicians in the context of current clinical guidelines. RECENT FINDINGS: Diabetes guidelines vary in their recommendations for how life expectancy should be estimated and used to inform the selection of glycemic targets. Readily available prognostic tools may improve estimation of life expectancy but require validation among patients with diabetes. Treatment decisions based on prognosis are difficult for clinicians to communicate and for patients to understand. Determining hypoglycemia risk involves assessing major risk factors; models to synthesize these factors have been developed. Applying risk assessment to individualize diabetes care is complex and currently relies heavily on clinician judgment. More research is need to validate structured approaches to risk assessment and determine how to incorporate them into patient-centered diabetes care.

Prognosis communication with older patients with multimorbidity: Assessment after an educational intervention.

This study aimed to assess how internal medicine residents incorporated prognosis to inform clinical decisions and communicated prognosis in primary care visits with older patients with multimorbidity after an educational intervention, and resident and patient perspectives regarding these visits. Assessment used mixed-methods. The authors assessed the frequency and content of prognosis discussions through residents' self-report and qualitative content analysis of audio-recorded clinic visits. The authors assessed the residents' perceived effect of incorporating prognosis on patient care and patient relationship through a resident survey. The authors assessed the patients' perceived quality of communication and trust in physicians through a patient survey. The study included 21 clinic visits that involved 12 first-year residents and 21 patients. Residents reported incorporating patients' prognoses to inform clinical decisions in 13/21 visits and perceived positive effects on patient care (in 11/13 visits) and patient relationship (in 7/13 visits). Prognosis communication occurred in 9/21 visits by self-report, but only in six of these nine visits by content analysis of audio-recordings. Patient ratings were high regardless of whether or not prognosis was communicated. In summary, after training, residents often incorporated patients' prognoses to inform clinical decisions, but sometimes did so without communicating prognosis to the patients. Residents and patients reported positive perceptions regarding the visits.

Comparing Prognostic Tools for Cancer Screening: Considerations for Clinical Practice and Performance Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the agreement and rates of cancer screening using four prognostic tools that require different types of clinical information. DESIGN: Observational retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 2009 and 2010 waves of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 66-90 with survey and claims data (N = 9,469). MEASUREMENTS: Agreement between four indices predicting short-term (4-5 years) and long-term (9-10 years) survival; self-reported breast and prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: Agreement between the four prognostic tools was high. Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from 0.63 to 0.90 for short-term survival and 0.68 to 0.94 for long-term survival. When defining limited short-term life expectancy as less than 25% chance of surviving 4 or 5 years, all four tools agreed in 96.4% of the sample. All four tools agreed in their placement of participants into limited or not-limited long-term life expectancy in 77.1% of participants (<25% chance of surviving 9 or 10 years). Rates of cancer screening were similarly high in individuals with limited long-term life expectancy regardless of the tool used: greater than 31% for mammographic screening in women and greater than 69% for prostate cancer screening. CONCLUSION: There is substantial agreement among different prognostic tools for short- and long-term survival in Medicare beneficiaries. The high rates of cancer screening of individuals with limited life expectancy suggest the importance of incorporating tools into clinical decision-making.