Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cancer Screening Among Older Adults: a Geriatrician’s Perspective on Breast, Cervical, Colon, Prostate, and Lung Cancer Screening

  • Geriatric Oncology (L Balducci, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Oncology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

We summarize the evidence of benefits, harms, and tools to assist in individualized decisions among older adults in screening for breast, prostate, colon, lung, and cervical cancer.

Recent Findings

The benefits of cancer screening in older adults remain unclear due to minimal inclusion of adults > 75 years old in most randomized controlled trials. Indirect evidence suggests that the benefits of screening seen in younger adults (< 70 years old) can be extrapolated to older adults when they have an estimated life expectancy of at least 10 years. However, older adults, especially those with limited life expectancy, may be at increased risk for experiencing harms of screening, including overdiagnosis of clinically unimportant diseases, complications from diagnostic procedures, and distress after false positive test results.

Summary

We provide a framework to integrate key factors such as health status, risks and benefits of specific tests, and patient preferences to guide clinicians in cancer screening decisions in older adults.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Kotwal AA, Schonberg MA. Cancer screening in the elderly: a review of breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer screening. Cancer J. 2017;23(4):246–53.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Welch HG, Black WC. Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(9):605–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Walter LC, Covinsky KE. Cancer screening in elderly patients: a framework for individualized decision making. Jama. 2001;285(21):2750–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee SJ, Leipzig RM, Walter LC. Incorporating lag time to benefit into prevention decisions for older adults. Jama. 2013;310(24):2609–10.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee SJ, Boscardin WJ, Stijacic-Cenzer I, Conell-Price J, O’Brien S, Walter LC. Time lag to benefit after screening for breast and colorectal cancer: meta-analysis of survival data from the United States, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Denmark. Bmj. 2013;346:e8441.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. • Lee SJ, Kim CM. Individualizing prevention for older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66(2):229–34 Authors present a framework for individualizing preventive medical interventions in older adults, including how to compare individual life expectancy with time to benefit for different medical tests.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Arias E, Xu J. United States Life Tables, 2017. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2017;68(7).

  8. Suemoto CK, Ueda P, Beltrán-Sánchez H, Lebrão ML, Duarte YA, Wong R, et al. Development and validation of a 10-year mortality prediction model: meta-analysis of individual participant data from five cohorts of older adults in developed and developing countries. J Gerontol Ser Biomed Sci Med Sci. 2016;72(3):410–6.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cruz M, Covinsky K, Widera EW, Stijacic-Cenzer I, Lee SJ. Predicting 10-year mortality for older adults. Jama. 2013;309(9):874–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Schonberg MA, Davis RB, McCarthy EP, Marcantonio ER. External validation of an index to predict up to 9-year mortality of community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(8):1444–51.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. •• Schoenborn NL, Lee K, Pollack CE, Armacost K, Dy SM, Bridges JF, et al. Older adults’ views and communication preferences about cancer screening cessation. JAMA Int Med. 2017;177(8):1121–8 Investigators conducted qualitative interviews of older adults to identify communication preferences in stopping cancer screening. They found participants were amenable stopping cancer screening, but often did not understand the role of life expectancy. Authors suggest incorporating individual health status is important in communication strategies, with positive messaging preferred such as “this test would not help you live longer” instead of “you may not live long enough to benefit.”.

    Google Scholar 

  12. • Schoenborn NL, Janssen EM, Boyd CM, Bridges JF, Wolff AC, Pollack CE. Preferred clinician communication about stopping cancer screening among older us adults: results from a national survey. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(8):1126–8 A cross-sectional nationally representative survey of 881 US adults testing 13 different phrases that a clinician may use to explain why a patient should not undergo a routine cancer screening tests. The most preferred phrase to stop cancer screening was “your other health issues should take priority,” along with phrases referencing guidelines, older age, lack of benefit, and high risk for harm. The least preferred option was “the doctor does not give an explanation,” along with discussions of life expectancy, discomfort or inconvenience of the test, and clinicians not bringing up a discussion of cancer screening.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(1):7–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schonberg MA, Li VW, Eliassen AH, Davis RB, LaCroix AZ, McCarthy EP, et al. Accounting for individualized competing mortality risks in estimating postmenopausal breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160(3):547–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-4020-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. • Braithwaite D, Miglioretti DL, Zhu W, Demb J, Trentham-Dietz A, Sprague B, et al. Family history and breast cancer risk among older women in the breast cancer surveillance consortium cohort. JAMA Int Med. 2018;178(4):494–501 Authors demonstrate that family history should be considered when weighing risks and benefits of breast cancer screening in older women.

    Google Scholar 

  16. McCarthy EP, Burns RB, Freund KM, Ash AS, Shwartz M, Marwill SL, et al. Mammography use, breast cancer stage at diagnosis, and survival among older women. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(10):1226–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. McPherson CP, Swenson KK, Lee MW. The effects of mammographic detection and comorbidity on the survival of older women with breast cancer. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(6):1061–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Barratt A, Howard K, Irwig L, Salkeld G, Houssami N. Model of outcomes of screening mammography: information to support informed choices. Bmj. 2005;330(7497):936. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38398.469479.8F.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Walter LC, Schonberg MA. Screening mammography in older women: a review. JAMA. 2014;311(13):1336–47. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.2834 1853134 [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. • Lee CS, Sengupta D, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Sickles EA, Burnside ES, Zuley ML. Association of patient age with outcomes of current-era, large-scale screening mammography: analysis of data from the National Mammography Database. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(8):1134–6 Authors evaluate the association between patient age and screening mammography performance metrics in women > 40 years old using the National Mammography database. They find that mammography performance metrics (positive predictive value and negative predictive value) improve with age.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Schonberg MA, Marcantonio ER, Li D, Silliman RA, Ngo L, McCarthy EP. Breast cancer among the oldest old: tumor characteristics, treatment choices, and survival. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(12):2038–45. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.25.9796.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Hurria A, Brogan K, Panageas KS, Pearce C, Norton L, Jakubowski A, et al. Patterns of toxicity in older patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;92(2):151–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. • Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC, Kalager M, Zahl PH. Breast cancer screening in Denmark: a cohort study of tumor size and overdiagnosis. Ann Intern Med. 2017. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-0270Authors demonstrate that up to 1 in every 3 invasive tumors and cases of DCIS in women offered screening mammography represents overdiagnosis.

  24. Van Ravesteyn NT, Stout NK, Schechter CB, Heijnsdijk EA, Alagoz O, Trentham-Dietz A, et al. Benefits and harms of mammography screening after age 74 years: model estimates of overdiagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(7):djv103.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Braithwaite D, Zhu W, Hubbard RA, O’Meara ES, Miglioretti DL, Geller B, et al. Screening outcomes in older US women undergoing multiple mammograms in community practice: does interval, age, or comorbidity score affect tumor characteristics or false positive rates? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(5):334–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djs645.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Schonberg MA, Silliman RA, Marcantonio ER. Weighing the benefits and burdens of mammography screening among women age 80 years or older. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(11):1774–80. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.19.9877.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Schonberg MA, Silliman RA, Ngo LH, Birdwell RL, Fein-Zachary V, Donato J, et al. Older women’s experience with a benign breast biopsy-a mixed methods study. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(12):1631–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-2981-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. • Kotwal AA, Walter LC, Lee SJ, Dale W. Are we choosing wisely? Older adults’ cancer screening intentions and recalled discussions with physicians about stopping. J Gen Intern Med. 2019:1–8. In a cross-sectional nationally representative survey, among women 75–84 years old with < 10-year life expectancy, 59% intend on future mammography and 81% recall no conversation with a doctor that mammography may no longer be necessary. Among men 75–84 years old with < 10-year life expectancy, 54% intend on future PSA screening and 77% recall no discussions that PSA screening may be unnecessary.

  29. Schonberg MA, Breslau ES, McCarthy EP. Targeting of mammography screening according to life expectancy in women aged 75 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61(3):388–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.12123.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Schoenborn NL, Huang J, Sheehan OC, Wolff JL, Roth DL, Boyd CM. Influence of age, health, and function on cancer screening in older adults with limited life expectancy. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(1):110–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. • Schoenborn NL, Xue Q-L, Pollack CE, Janssen EM, Bridges JF, Wolff AC, et al. Demographic, health, and attitudinal factors predictive of cancer screening decisions in older adults. Prev Med Rep. 2019;13:244–8 In a cross-sectional nationally representative survey, patients were extremely enthusiastic about continuing cancer screening with 30% of patients agreeing with the statement “I plan to be screened for cancer for as long as I live.”.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Schonberg MA, Hamel MB, Davis RB, Griggs MC, Wee CC, Fagerlin A, et al. Development and evaluation of a decision aid on mammography screening for women 75 years and older. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(3):417–24. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13639.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Walter LC, Lewis CL, Barton MB. Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer in the elderly: a review of the evidence. Am J Med. 2005;118(10):1078–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Eddy DM. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(3):214–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. White MC, Shoemaker ML, Benard VB. Cervical cancer screening and incidence by age: unmet needs near and after the stopping age for screening. Am J Prev Med. 2017;53(3):392–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Diver EJ, Hinchcliff EM, Gockley AA, Melamed A, Contrino L, Feldman S, et al. Assessment of treatment factors and clinical outcomes in cervical cancer in older women compared to women under 65 years old. J Geriatr Oncol. 2018;9(5):516–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sawaya GF, Grady D, Kerlikowske K, La Valleur J, Barnabei VM, Bass K, et al. The positive predictive value of cervical smears in previously screened postmenopausal women: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS). Ann Intern Med. 2000;133(12):942–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sirovich B, Gottlieb D, Fisher E. The burden of prevention: downstream consequences of pap smear testing in the elderly. J Med Screen. 2003;10(4):189–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bell S, Porter M, Kitchener H, Fraser C, Fisher P, Mann E. Psychological response to cervical screening. Prev Med. 1995;24(6):610–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. • Curry SJ, Krist AH, Owens DK, Barry MJ, Caughey AB, Davidson KW, et al. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Jama. 2018;320(7):674–86 USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women > 65 who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at risk for cervical cancer (D recommendation).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sawaya GF, Sung HY, Kearney KA, Miller M, Kinney W, Hiatt RA, et al. Advancing age and cervical cancer screening and prognosis. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49(11):1499–504.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(1):7–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Siegel R, DeSantis C, Jemal A. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(2):104–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, Rutter CM, Webber EM, O’connor E, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Jama. 2016;315(23):2576–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Scholefield J, Moss S, Mangham C, Whynes D, Hardcastle J. Nottingham trial of faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer: a 20-year follow-up. Gut. 2012;61:1036–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Faivre J, Dancourt V, Denis B, Dorval E, Piette C, Perrin P, et al. Comparison between a guaiac and three immunochemical faecal occult blood tests in screening for colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(16):2969–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kronborg O, Jørgensen O, Fenger C, Rasmussen M. Randomized study of biennial screening with a faecal occult blood test: results after nine screening rounds. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2004;39(9):846–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Mandel JS, Church TR, Bond JH, Ederer F, Geisser MS, Mongin SJ, et al. The effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(22):1603–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Shaukat A, Mongin SJ, Geisser MS, Lederle FA, Bond JH, Mandel JS, et al. Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(12):1106–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi LA, Church T, Laiyemo AO, et al. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(25):2345–57.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Holme Ø, Løberg M, Kalager M, Bretthauer M, Schneede RNJ, Tveit KM, et al. Long-term effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in women and men. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(11):775–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sonnenberg A, Delcò F. Cost-effectiveness of a single colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(2):163–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P, Morikawa T, Liao X, Qian ZR, et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(12):1095–105.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Day LW, Kwon A, Inadomi JM, Walter LC, Somsouk M. Adverse events in older patients undergoing colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74(4):885–96.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Schonberg MA, Breslau ES, Hamel MB, Bellizzi KM, McCarthy EP. Colon cancer screening in US adults aged 65 and older according to life expectancy and age. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(4):750–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Wolf AM, Fontham ET, Church TR, Flowers CR, Guerra CE, LaMonte SJ, et al. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(4):250–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. • Piper MS, Maratt JK, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Lewis C, Forman J, Vijan S, et al. Patient attitudes toward individualized recommendations to stop low-value colorectal cancer screening. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(8):e185461-e Veterans enrolled in this study were worried about stopping colorectal cancer screening even when it was considered low-value and unlikely to help them live longer.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Volk RJ, Linder SK, Lopez-Olivo MA, Kamath GR, Reuland DS, Saraykar SS, et al. Patient decision aids for colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(5):779–91.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Volk RJ, Leal VB, Jacobs LE, Wolf AM, Brooks DD, Wender RC, et al. From guideline to practice: new shared decision-making tools for colorectal cancer screening from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(4):246–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Lewis CL, Golin CE, DeLeon C, Griffith JM, Ivey J, Trevena L, et al. A targeted decision aid for the elderly to decide whether to undergo colorectal cancer screening: development and results of an uncontrolled trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10(1):1.

    Google Scholar 

  61. ACS. Estimated new cases for the four major cancers by sex and age group, 2016. Cancer Facts and Figures 2016. 2016. https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2016.html. Accessed January 27, 2017.

  62. Oken MM, Hocking WG, Kvale PA, Andriole GL, Buys SS, Church TR, et al. Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial. Jama. 2011;306(17):1865–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. • Team NLSTR. Lung cancer incidence and mortality with extended follow-up in the National Lung Screening Trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(10):1732–42 In the NLST trial, investigators reported on result from the extended follow-up of 11.3 years. Results were consistent with the original follow-up, with an NNS of 303 to prevent one lung cancer death.

    Google Scholar 

  64. de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, Scholten ET, Nackaerts K, Heuvelmans MA, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(6):503–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Aberle D, Adams A, Berg C, Black W, Clapp J, Fagerstrom R, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395–409.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK, Azzoli CG, Berry DA, Brawley OW, et al. Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. Jama. 2012;307(22):2418–29.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Harris RP, Sheridan SL, Lewis CL, Barclay C, Vu MB, Kistler CE, et al. The harms of screening: a proposed taxonomy and application to lung cancer screening. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(2):281–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. •• Huo J, Xu Y, Sheu T, Volk RJ, Shih Y-CT. Complication rates and downstream medical costs associated with invasive diagnostic procedures for lung abnormalities in the community setting. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(3):324–32 The study objective was to describe the rates of complications after invasive diagnostic pulmonary procedures and costs to patients to better inform patients of the risks of downstream medical procedures in lung cancer screening with LDCT. Authors conducted a retrospective study of 344,510 patients aged 55–77 years who underwent diagnostic procedures between 2008 and 2013 in order to determine complication rates and downstream medical costs. The complication rate was 22.2% (twice as high as NLST rates) with cost of $6320 for minor complications and $56,845 for major complications.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Wiener RS, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Population-based risk for complications after transthoracic needle lung biopsy of a pulmonary nodule: an analysis of discharge records. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(3):137–44.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Kozower BD, Sheng S, O’brien SM, Liptay MJ, Lau CL, Jones DR, et al. STS database risk models: predictors of mortality and major morbidity for lung cancer resection. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90(3):875–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Pinsky PF, Gierada DS, Hocking W, Patz EF, Kramer BS. National Lung Screening Trial findings by age: Medicare-eligible versus under-65 population. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(9):627–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. •• Kinsinger LS, Anderson C, Kim J, Larson M, Chan SH, King HA, et al. Implementation of lung cancer screening in the Veterans Health Administration. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(3):399–406 Investigators describe the implementation process of a lung cancer screening (LCS) program at eight academic VHA hospitals among 93,033 primary care patients assessed for screening criteria. Of the 4246 who met criteria for LCS, 2452 (58%) agreed to screening, 2106 underwent screening, 60% (n = 1257) had nodules, 56% (n = 1184) requiring tracking, 2% (n = 42) had false positive requiring invasive diagnostic interventions, and 1.5% (n = 31) had lung cancer.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Patz EF, Pinsky P, Gatsonis C, Sicks JD, Kramer BS, Tammemägi MC, et al. Overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(2):269–74.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Veronesi G, Maisonneuve P, Bellomi M, Rampinelli C, Durli I, Bertolotti R, et al. Estimating overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(11):776–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Heleno B, Siersma V, Brodersen J. Estimation of overdiagnosis of lung cancer in low-dose computed tomography screening: a secondary analysis of the Danish lung cancer screening trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(10):1420–2.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Moyer VA. Screening for lung cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(5):330–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Wender R, Fontham ET, Barrera E Jr, Colditz GA, Church TR, Ettinger DS, et al. American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(2):107–17. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21172.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. • Goodwin JS, Nishi S, Zhou J, Kuo Y-F. Use of the shared decision-making visit for lung cancer screening among Medicare enrollees. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(5):716–8 Authors evaluate Medicare enrollees who underwent LDCT and had a billed shared decision-making (SDM) visit. Of 19,021 who underwent LDCT in 2016, only 9% had an SDM visit within 3 months prior to scan, with lower odds among black race, female sex, and higher education.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. • Brenner AT, Malo TL, Margolis M, Lafata JE, James S, Vu MB, et al. Evaluating shared decision making for lung cancer screening. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(10):1311–6 Investigators conducted a qualitative analysis of 14 conversations about initiating lung cancer screening (LCS) conducted by primary care physicians. The average time discussing LCS was < 1 min, no decision aids were used in any conversations, there was no discussion of harms, and physicians universally recommended LCS. No conversations met basic skill criteria for explaining pros and cons of LCS.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. MSKCC. Lung Cancer Screening Decision Tool. 2014. http://nomograms.mskcc.org/Lung/Screening.aspx. Accessed January 27, 2017.

  81. Kovalchik SA, Tammemagi M, Berg CD, Caporaso NE, Riley TL, Korch M, et al. Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(3):245–54.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Katki HA, Kovalchik SA, Berg CD, Cheung LC, Chaturvedi AK. Development and validation of risk models to select ever-smokers for CT lung cancer screening. Jama. 2016;315(21):2300–11.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. • Caverly TJ, Fagerlin A, Wiener RS, Slatore CG, Tanner NT, Yun S, et al. Comparison of observed harms and expected mortality benefit for persons in the Veterans Health Affairs Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(3):426–8 VA patients who participated in the lung cancer screening implementation study were stratified into quintiles of lung cancer risk from lowest to highest to determine whether the risk/benefit ratio differed. Harms were consistent across risk groups for lung cancer (56% rate of false positives with 2% rate of false positive requiring diagnostic evaluations), but benefits were highest for those at highest risk for lung cancer. Authors conclude that patients may benefit from further risk-stratification for lung cancer risk to further individualize decision-making.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. VA. Screening for Lung Cancer. 2014. http://www.prevention.va.gov/docs/LungCancerScreeningHandout.pdf. Accessed January 26, 2017.

  85. Volk RJ, Linder SK, Leal VB. Feasibility of a patient decision aid about lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography. Prev Med. 2014;62:60–3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Ruparel M, Quaife SL, Ghimire B, Dickson JL, Bhowmik A, Navani N, et al. Impact of a lung cancer screening information film on informed decision-making: a randomized trial. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019;16(6):744–51.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Bechis SK, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR. Impact of age at diagnosis on prostate cancer treatment and survival. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(2):235–41. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2010.30.2075.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL III, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1310–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Pinsky PF, Prorok PC, Yu K, Kramer BS, Black A, Gohagan JK, et al. Extended mortality results for prostate cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median follow-up of 15 years. Cancer. 2017;123(4):592–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Crawford ED, Grubb R III, Black A, Andriole GL Jr, Chen M-H, Izmirlian G, et al. Comorbidity and mortality results from a randomized prostate cancer screening trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;29(4):355–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;2009(360):1320–8.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Zappa M, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2014;384(9959):2027–35.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. • Martin RM, Donovan JL, Turner EL, Metcalfe C, Young GJ, Walsh EI, et al. Effect of a low-intensity PSA-based screening intervention on prostate cancer mortality: the CAP randomized clinical trial. Jama. 2018;319(9):883–95 An RCT of 419,582 men aged 50–69 years old in the UK with recruitment between 2001 and 2009 and follow-up ending in 2016 testing “an invitation to attend a PSA testing clinic and receive a single PSA test vs standard (unscreened) practice.” In intervention versus control arms, prostate cancer mortality was similar (RR = 0.96, CI 0.85–1.08) and prostate cancer was diagnosed more frequently in intervention group (RR = 1.19, CI 1.13–1.25), particularly low-grade cancers.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Brawer MK. Prostate-specific antigen: current status. CA Cancer J Clin. 1999;49(5):264–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol. 2011;186(5):1830–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Rosario DJ, Lane JA, Metcalfe C, Donovan JL, Doble A, Goodwin L, et al. Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: prospective evaluation within PROTECT study. Bmj. 2012;344:d7894.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaeffer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S, et al. Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2017;71(3):353–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, Wever E, Gulati R, et al. Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(6):374–83.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Roussel B, Ouellet GM, Mohile SG, Dale W. Prostate cancer in elderly men: screening, active surveillance, and definitive therapy. Clin Geriatr Med. 2015;31(4):615–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. USPSTF. Prostate Cancer Screening Draft Recommendations. 2017. https://screeningforprostatecancer.org/. Accessed 4-27-2017.

  102. Smith RA, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Fedewa SA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Saslow D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(4):297–316.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. • Bynum J, Passow H, Carmichael D, Skinner J. Exnovation of low value care: a decade of prostate-specific antigen screening practices. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(1):29–36 Serial cross-sectional study of fee-for-service Medicare (2003–2013) in men > 68 years old finding little reduction in PSA screening over time with heterogenous changes across different regions.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. • Fenton JJ, Weyrich MS, Durbin S, Liu Y, Bang H, Melnikow J. Prostate-specific antigen–based screening for prostate cancer: evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Jama. 2018;319(18):1914–31 Review of the evidence showing that PSA screening is associated with reduced prostate cancer mortality risk in younger men, but associated with false positives, biopsy complications, overdiagnosis (21–50% of screen-detected cancers), urinary incontinence, and erectile dysfunction for all men.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. • Riikonen JM, Guyatt GH, Kilpeläinen TP, Craigie S, Agarwal A, Agoritsas T et al. Decision aids for prostate cancer screening choice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2019. This study determined the association between decision aids and decisional outcomes for prostate cancer screening (knowledge, decisional conflict, screening discussion, and screening choice) in 19 eligible trials. Results provide moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared with usual care result in a small reduction in decisional conflict and low-quality evidence of increases in cancer screening knowledge. No evidence that decision aids facilitated shared decision-making or screening choice, suggesting that future decision aids need to promote the shared decision-making process.

  106. • Jacobs IJ, Menon U, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Kalsi JK, et al. Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10022):945–56 In this English RCT of 202,638 women 50–74 years old, individuals were randomized (1:1:2) to annual CA-125 level, annual transvaginal ultrasound, or no screening with median follow-up of 11.1 years. There was no significant mortality reduction in the primary analysis.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A, Johnson CC, Lamerato L, Isaacs C, et al. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening randomized controlled trial. Jama. 2011;305(22):2295–303.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Henrikson NB, Bowles EJA, Blasi PR, Morrison CC, Nguyen M, Pillarisetty VG, et al. Screening for pancreatic cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Jama. 2019;322(5):445–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA

    Ashwin A. Kotwal & Louise C. Walter

  2. Geriatrics, Palliative, and Extended Care Service Line, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 4150 Clement Street (181G), San Francisco, CA, 94121, USA

    Ashwin A. Kotwal & Louise C. Walter

Authors
  1. Ashwin A. Kotwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Louise C. Walter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashwin A. Kotwal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Neither of the authors has any potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Geriatric Oncology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kotwal, A.A., Walter, L.C. Cancer Screening Among Older Adults: a Geriatrician’s Perspective on Breast, Cervical, Colon, Prostate, and Lung Cancer Screening. Curr Oncol Rep 22, 108 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-020-00968-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-020-00968-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation