CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,003Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrailty in Older AdultsPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cancer Screening in Elderly Patients: A Framework for Individualized Decision Making

Walter, Louise C., Covinsky, Kenneth E.·2001·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.285.21.2750
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Considerable uncertainty exists about the use of cancer screening tests in older people, as illustrated by the different age cutoffs recommended by various guideline panels. We suggest that a framework to guide individualized cancer screening decisions in older patients may be more useful to the practicing clinician than age guidelines. Like many medical decisions, cancer screening decisions require weighing quantitative information, such as risk of cancer death and likelihood of beneficial and adverse screening outcomes, as well as qualitative factors, such as individual patients' values and preferences. Our framework first anchors decisions through quantitative estimates of life expectancy, risk of cancer death, and screening outcomes based on published data. Potential benefits of screening are presented as the number needed to screen to prevent 1 cancer-specific death, based on the estimated life expectancy during which a patient will be screened. Estimates reveal substantial variability in the likelihood of benefit for patients of similar ages with varying life expectancies. In fact, patients with life expectancies of less than 5 years are unlikely to derive any survival benefit from cancer screening. We also consider the likelihood of potential harm from screening according to patient factors and test characteristics. Some of the greatest harms of screening occur by detecting cancers that would never have become clinically significant. This becomes more likely as life expectancy decreases. Finally, since many cancer screening decisions in older adults cannot be answered solely by quantitative estimates of benefits and harms, considering the estimated outcomes according to the patient's own values and preferences is the final step for making informed screening decisions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.285.21.2750

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,003

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Walter, L. C., & Covinsky, K. E.
Affiliations
San Francisco VA Medical Center (US)
ORCID
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2001-06-06
Volume
285
Issue
21
Pages
2750
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.285.21.2750
OpenAlex
W1978229612
Cited by
1,003
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 89 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 76
FWCI
9.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K02 HS 00006-01)
  • U.S. Public Health Service
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
cancer screening, older adults, age cut-off, life expectancy, cancer-specific mortality, number needed to screen, screening harms, overdiagnosis, patient values and preferences, individualized decision-making, screening guidelines
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Decision Making, Female, Health Services for the Aged, Humans, Life Expectancy, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Risk, Geriatric Assessment, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review