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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine.
(1991) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-114-9-825_9 · Cited by 3,497
Reducing Mortality from Colorectal Cancer by Screening for Fecal Occult Blood
Mandel, J. S., Bond, J. H., Church, T. R., Snover, D. C., Bradley, G. M., Schuman, L. M., & Ederer, F. (1993) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199305133281901 · Cited by 3,220
Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer
Hardcastle, J. D., Chamberlain, J., Robinson, M. H., Moss, S. M., Amar, S. S., Balfour, T. W., James, P., & Mangham, C. M. (1996) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)03386-7 · Cited by 2,784
Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test
Kronborg, O., Fenger, C., Olsen, J., Jørgensen, O. D., & Søndergaard, O. (1996) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)03430-7 · Cited by 2,495
Guide to Clinical Preventive Services
Allen, T. W. (1991) · The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association · doi:10.1515/jom-1991-900515 · Cited by 2,141
A Case–Control Study of Screening Sigmoidoscopy and Mortality from Colorectal Cancer
Selby, J. V., FRIEDMAN, G. D., Quesenberry, C. P., & Weiss, N. S. (1992) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199203053261001 · Cited by 1,700
American Cancer Society Guidelines for the Early Detection of Cancer
Smith, R. A., Cokkinides, V. E., von Eschenbach, A. C., Levin, B., Cohen, C. J., Runowicz, C. D., Sener, S. F., Saslow, D., & Eyre, H. J. (2002) · CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.52.1.8 · Cited by 1,609
Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis
Kerlikowske, K. M. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.273.2.149 · Cited by 1,136
The Role of Numeracy in Understanding the Benefit of Screening Mammography
Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Black, W. C., & Welch, H. G. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00003 · Cited by 1,132
Information Needs and Decisional Preferences in Women With Breast Cancer
Degner, L. F. (1997) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540420081039 · Cited by 1,119
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mottet, N., van den Bergh, R. C. N., Briers, E., den Broeck, T. V., Cumberbatch, M. G. K., Santis, M. D., Fanti, S., Fossati, N., Gandaglia, G., Gillessen, S., et al. (2020) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042 · Cited by 2,839
Boyd, C. M., Darer, J., Boult, C., Fried, L. P., Boult, L., & Wu, A. W. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.294.6.716 · Cited by 2,581
Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk
Oeffinger, K. C., Fontham, E. T. H., Etzioni, R., Herzig, A. H., Michaelson, J. S., Shih, Y. T., Walter, L. C., Church, T. R., Flowers, C. R., LaMonte, S. J., et al. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.12783 · Cited by 1,706
Self-citationSpecial Issue: KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for the Care of Kidney Transplant Recipients
Eckardt, K., Kasiske, B. L., & Zeier, M. G. (2009) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.02834.x · Cited by 1,574
Cornford, P. A., van den Bergh, R. C. N., Briers, E., den Broeck, T. V., Brunckhorst, O., Darraugh, J., Eberli, D., Meerleer, G. D., Santis, M. D., Farolfi, A., et al. (2024) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.027 · Cited by 1,403
Metadata
- Authors
- Walter, L. C., & Covinsky, K. E.
- Affiliations
- San Francisco VA Medical Center (US)
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2001-06-06
- Volume
- 285
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 2750
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- 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
