The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cancer Screening Rates in Individuals With Different Life Expectancies
Open accessAbstract
IMPORTANCE: Routine cancer screening has unproven net benefit for patients with limited life expectancy. OBJECTIVE: To examine the patterns of prostate, breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the United States in individuals with different life expectancies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from the population-based National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2000 through 2010 were used and included 27 404 participants aged 65 years or older. Using a validated mortality index specific for NHIS, participants were grouped into those with low (<25%), intermediate (25%-49%), high (50%-74%), and very high (≥75%) risks of 9-year mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates of prostate, breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. RESULTS: In participants with very high mortality risk, 31% to 55% received recent cancer screening, with prostate cancer screening being most common (55%). For women who had a hysterectomy for benign reasons, 34% to 56% had a Papanicolaou test within the past 3 years. On multivariate analysis, very high vs low mortality risk was associated with less screening for prostate (odds ratio [OR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.50-0.85]), breast (OR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.35-0.53]), and cervical (OR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.36-0.70]) cancers. There was less screening for prostate and cervical cancers in more recent years compared with 2000, and there was no significant interaction between calendar year and mortality risk for any cancer screening (P > .05 for all cancers). Our sensitivity analysis showed that screening was also common in individuals with less than 5-year life expectancy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A substantial proportion of the US population with limited life expectancy received prostate, breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening that is unlikely to provide net benefit. These results suggest that overscreening is common in both men and women, which not only increases health care expenditure but can lead to net patient harm.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cancer Screening in Elderly Patients: A Framework for Individualized Decision Making
Walter, L. C., & Covinsky, K. E. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.21.2750 · Cited by 1,003
Prognostic Indices for Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Yourman, L. C., Lee, S. J., Schonberg, M. A., Widera, E. W., & Smith, A. K. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1966 · Cited by 736 · cited 1×
“Married 3902 (49) 3788 (44) 2166 (35) 1350 (32) 11 206 (41)”
Schonberg, M. A., Davis, R. B., McCarthy, E. P., & Marcantonio, E. R. (2009) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-009-1073-y · Cited by 214
Cited by
Pilotto, A., Cella, A., Pilotto, A., Daragjati, J., Veronese, N., Musacchio, C., Mello, A. M., Logroscino, G., Padovani, A., Prete, C., et al. (2017) · Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2016.11.004 · Cited by 454
Cancer statistics for adults aged 85 years and older, 2019
DeSantis, C. E., Miller, K. D., Dale, W., Mohile, S. G., Cohen, H. J., Leach, C. R., Goding Sauer, A., Jemal, A., & Siegel, R. L. (2019) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21577 · Cited by 370
Metadata
- Authors
- Royce, T. J., Hendrix, L. H., Stokes, W. A., Allen, I. M., & Chen, R. C.
- Venue
- JAMA Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2014-10-01
- Volume
- 174
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1558
- ISSN
- 2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1988158700
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cancer Screening Rates in Individuals With Different Life Expectancies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3895
- The paper
- Royce, T. J., Hendrix, L. H., Stokes, W. A., Allen, I. M., & Chen, R. C. (2014). Cancer Screening Rates in Individuals With Different Life Expectancies. JAMA Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3895
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.