Danish Women Make Decisions about Participation in Breast Cancer Screening prior to Invitation Information: An Online Survey Using Experimental Methods.

INTRODUCTION: At mammography screening invitation, the Danish Health Authority recommends women aged 50 to 69 y make an informed decision about whether to be screened. Previous studies have shown that women have very positive attitudes about screening participation. Therefore, we hypothesized that Danish women may already have decided to participate in breast cancer screening prior to receiving their screening invitation at age 50 y. METHODS: We invited a random sample of 2,952 Danish women aged 44 to 49 y (prescreening age) to complete an online questionnaire about barriers to informed screening decision making using the official digital mailbox system in Denmark. We asked participants about their screening intentions using 3 different questions to which women were randomized: screening presented 1) as an opportunity, 2) as a choice, and 3) as an opportunity plus a question about women's stage of decision making. All women completed questions about background characteristics, intended participation in the screening program, use and impact of screening information, and preferences for the decision-making process. Data were linked to sociodemographic register data. RESULTS: A total of 790 (26.8%) women participated in the study. Herein, 97% (95% confidence interval: 96%-98%) reported that they wanted to participate in breast cancer screening when invited at age 50 y. When presented with the choice compared with the opportunity framing, more women rejected screening. When asked about their stage of decision making, most (87%) had already made a decision about screening participation and were unlikely to change their mind. CONCLUSION: In our study, almost all women of prescreening age wanted to participate in breast cancer screening, suggesting that providing information at the time of screening invitation may be too late to support informed decision making. HIGHLIGHTS: Almost all women of prescreening age (44-49 y) in our study wanted to participate in the Danish national mammography screening program starting at age 50 y.Early decision making represents a barrier for informed decision making as women in this study had intentions to participate in breast cancer screening prior to receiving an official screening invitation, and therefore, providing information at the time of screening invitation may be too late to support informed decision making.Very few women rejected screening participation; however, more women rejected screening when the information was framed as an active choice between having or declining breast cancer screening (continue with usual care) compared with presenting only the option of screening with no description of the alternative.Two-thirds of women reading the screening information in this study had unchanged attitudes toward screening after reading the presented information.

Physician-level variation in axillary surgery in older adults with T1N0 hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: A retrospective population-based cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to determine how considerations specific to older adults impact between- and within-surgeon variation in axillary surgery use in women ≥70 years with T1N0 HR+ breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Females ≥70 years with T1N0 HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer diagnosed from 2013 to 2015 in SEER-Medicare were identified and linked to the American Medical Association Masterfile. The outcome of interest was axillary surgery. Key patient-level variables included the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, frailty (based on a claims-based frailty index score), and age (≥75 vs <75). Multilevel mixed models with surgeon clusters were used to estimate the intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) (between-surgeon variance), with 1-ICC representing within-surgeon variance. RESULTS: Of the 4410 participants included, 6.1% had a CCI score of ≥3, 20.7% were frail, and 58.3% were ≥ 75 years; 86.1% underwent axillary surgery. No surgeon omitted axillary surgery in all patients, but 42.3% of surgeons performed axillary surgery in all patients. In the null model, 10.5% of the variance in the axillary evaluation was attributable to between-surgeon differences. After adjusting for CCI score, frailty, and age in mixed models, between-surgeon variance increased to 13.0%. DISCUSSION: In this population, axillary surgery varies more within surgeons than between surgeons, suggesting that surgeons are not taking an "all-or-nothing" approach. Comorbidities, frailty, and age accounted for a small proportion of the variation, suggesting nuanced decision-making may include additional, unmeasured factors such as differences in surgeon-patient communication.

Geriatric End-of-Life Screening Tool Prediction of 6-Month Mortality in Older Patients.

Importance: Emergency department (ED) visits by older adults with life-limiting illnesses are a critical opportunity to establish patient care end-of-life preferences, but little is known about the optimal screening criteria for resource-constrained EDs. Objectives: To externally validate the Geriatric End-of-Life Screening Tool (GEST) in an independent population and compare it with commonly used serious illness diagnostic criteria. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study assessed a cohort of patients aged 65 years and older who were treated in a tertiary care ED in Boston, Massachusetts, from 2017 to 2021. Patients arriving in cardiac arrest or who died within 1 day of ED arrival were excluded. Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2023, to March 27, 2024. Exposure: GEST, a logistic regression algorithm that uses commonly available electronic health record (EHR) datapoints and was developed and validated across 9 EDs, was compared with serious illness diagnoses as documented in the EHR. Serious illnesses included stroke/transient ischemic attack, liver disease, cancer, lung disease, and age greater than 80 years, among others. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 6-month mortality following an ED encounter. Statistical analyses included area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, calibration analyses, Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and decision curves. Results: This external validation included 82 371 ED encounters by 40 505 unique individuals (mean [SD] age, 76.8 [8.4] years; 54.3% women, 13.8% 6-month mortality rate). GEST had an external validation area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.78-0.79) that was stable across years and demographic subgroups. Of included encounters, 53.4% had a serious illness, with a sensitivity of 77.4% (95% CI, 76.6%-78.2%) and specificity of 50.5% (95% CI, 50.1%-50.8%). Varying GEST cutoffs from 5% to 30% increased specificity (5%: 49.1% [95% CI, 48.7%-49.5%]; 30%: 92.2% [95% CI, 92.0%-92.4%]) at the cost of sensitivity (5%: 89.3% [95% CI, 88.8-89.9]; 30%: 36.2% [95% CI, 35.3-37.1]). In a decision curve analysis, GEST outperformed serious illness criteria across all tested thresholds. When comparing patients referred to intervention by GEST with serious illness criteria, GEST reclassified 45.1% of patients with serious illness as having low risk of mortality with an observed mortality rate 8.1% and 2.6% of patients without serious illness as having high mortality risk with an observed mortality rate of 34.3% for a total reclassification rate of 25.3%. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that both serious illness criteria and GEST identified older ED patients at risk for 6-month mortality, but GEST offered more useful screening characteristics. Future trials of serious illness interventions for high mortality risk in older adults may consider transitioning from diagnosis code criteria to GEST, an automatable EHR-based algorithm.

Management of Inpatient Elevated Blood Pressures : A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Management of elevated blood pressure (BP) during hospitalization varies widely, with many hospitalized adults experiencing BPs higher than those recommended for the outpatient setting. PURPOSE: To systematically identify guidelines on elevated BP management in the hospital. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Guidelines International Network, and specialty society websites from 1 January 2010 to 29 January 2024. STUDY SELECTION: Clinical practice guidelines pertaining to BP management for the adult and older adult populations in ambulatory, emergency department, and inpatient settings. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently screened articles, assessed quality, and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved via consensus. Recommendations on treatment targets, preferred antihypertensive classes, and follow-up were collected for ambulatory and inpatient settings. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen clinical practice guidelines met inclusion criteria (11 were assessed as high-quality per the AGREE II [Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II] instrument), 11 provided broad BP management recommendations, and 1 each was specific to the emergency department setting, older adults, and hypertensive crises. No guidelines provided goals for inpatient BP or recommendations for managing asymptomatic moderately elevated BP in the hospital. Six guidelines defined hypertensive urgency as BP above 180/120 mm Hg, with hypertensive emergencies requiring the addition of target organ damage. Hypertensive emergency recommendations consistently included use of intravenous antihypertensives in intensive care settings. Recommendations for managing hypertensive urgencies were inconsistent, from expert consensus, and focused on the emergency department. Outpatient treatment with oral medications and follow-up in days to weeks were most often advised. In contrast, outpatient BP goals were clearly defined, varying between 130/80 and 140/90 mm Hg. LIMITATION: Exclusion of non-English-language guidelines and guidelines specific to subpopulations. CONCLUSION: Despite general consensus on outpatient BP management, guidance on inpatient management of elevated BP without symptoms is lacking, which may contribute to variable practice patterns. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging. (PROSPERO: CRD42023449250).

Development and Evaluation of Messages for Reducing Overscreening of Breast Cancer in Older Women.

BACKGROUND: Many older women are screened for breast cancer beyond guideline-recommended thresholds. One contributor is pro-screening messaging from health care professionals, media, and family/friends. In this project, we developed and evaluated messages for reducing overscreening in older women. METHODS: We surveyed women ages 65+ who were members of a nationally representative online panel. We constructed 8 messages describing reasons to consider stopping mammograms, including guideline recommendations, false positives, overdiagnosis, and diminishing benefits from screening due to competing risks. Messages varied in their format; some presented statistical evidence, and some described short anecdotes. Each participant was randomized to read 4 of 8 messages. We also randomized participants to one of 3 message sources (clinician, family member, and news story). We assessed whether the message would make participants "want to find out more information" and "think carefully" about mammograms. RESULTS: Participants (N=790) had a mean age of 73.5 years; 25.8% were non-White. Across all messages, 73.0% of the time, participants agreed that the messages would make them seek more information (range among different messages=64.2%-78.2%); 46.5% of the time participants agreed that the messages would make them think carefully about getting mammograms (range =36.7%-50.7%). Top-rated messages mentioned false-positive anecdotes and overdiagnosis evidence. Ratings were similar for messages from clinicians and news sources, but lower from the family member source. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants positively evaluated messages designed to reduce breast cancer overscreening regarding perceived effects on information seeking and deliberation. Combining the top-rated messages into messaging interventions may be a novel approach to reduce overscreening.

Older Adult and Primary Care Practitioner Perspectives on Using, Prescribing, and Deprescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain.

Importance: Guidelines recommend deprescribing opioids in older adults due to risk of adverse effects, yet little is known about patient-clinician opioid deprescribing conversations. Objective: To understand the experiences of older adults and primary care practitioners (PCPs) with using opioids for chronic pain and discussing opioid deprescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study conducted semistructured individual qualitative interviews with 18 PCPs and 29 adults 65 years or older prescribed opioids between September 15, 2022, and April 26, 2023, at a Boston-based academic medical center. The PCPs were asked about their experiences prescribing and deprescribing opioids to older adults. Patients were asked about their experiences using and discussing opioid medications with PCPs. Main Outcome and Measures: Shared and conflicting themes between patients and PCPs regarding perceptions of opioid prescribing and barriers to deprescribing. Results: In total, 18 PCPs (12 [67%] younger that 50 years; 10 [56%] female; and 14 [78%] based at an academic practice) and 29 patients (mean [SD] age, 72 [5] years; 19 [66%] female) participated. Participants conveyed that conversations between PCPs and patients on opioid use for chronic pain were typically challenging and that conversations regarding opioid risks and deprescribing were uncommon. Three common themes related to experiences with opioids for chronic pain emerged in both patient and PCP interviews: opioids were used as a last resort, opioids were used to improve function and quality of life, and trust was vital in a clinician-patient relationship. Patients and PCPs expressed conflicting views on risks of opioids, with patients focusing on addiction and PCPs focusing on adverse drug events. Both groups felt deprescribing conversations were often unsuccessful but had conflicting views on barriers to successful conversations. Patients felt deprescribing was often unnecessary unless an adverse event occurred, and many patients had prior negative experiences tapering. The PCPs described gaps in knowledge on how to taper, a lack of clinical access to monitor patients during tapering, and concerns about patient resistance. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, PCPs and older adults receiving long-term opioid therapy viewed the use of opioids as a beneficial last resort for treating chronic pain but expressed dissonant views on the risks associated with opioids, which made deprescribing conversations challenging. Interventions, such as conversation aids, are needed to support collaborative discussion about deprescribing opioids.

Randomized Trial of Information for Older Women About Cessation of Breast Cancer Screening Invitations.

BACKGROUND: Older women receive no information about why Australia's breast screening program (BreastScreen) invitations cease after 74 years. We tested how providing older women with the rationale for breast screening cessation impacted informed choice (adequate knowledge; screening attitudes aligned with intention). METHODS: In a three-arm online randomized trial, eligible participants were females aged 70-74 years who had recently participated in breast screening (within 5 years), without personal breast cancer history, recruited through Qualtrics. Participants read a hypothetical scenario in which they received a BreastScreen letter reporting no abnormalities on their mammogram. They were randomized to receive the letter: (1) without any rationale for screening cessation (control); (2) with screening cessation rationale in printed-text form (e.g., downsides of screening outweigh the benefits after age 74); or (3) with screening cessation rationale presented in an animation video form. The primary outcome was informed choice about continuing/stopping breast screening beyond 74 years. RESULTS: A total of 376 participant responses were analyzed. Compared to controls (n = 122), intervention arm participants (text [n = 132] or animation [n = 122]) were more likely to make an informed choice (control 18.0%; text 32.6%, p = .010; animation 40.5%, p < .001). Intervention arm participants had more adequate knowledge (control 23.8%; text 59.8%, p < .001; animation 68.9%, p < .001), lower screening intentions (control 17.2%; text 36.4%, p < .001; animation 49.2%, p < .001), and fewer positive screening attitudes regarding screening for themselves in the animation arm, but not in the text arm (control 65.6%; text 51.5%, p = .023; animation 40.2%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Providing information to older women about the rationale for breast cancer screening cessation increased informed decision-making in a hypothetical scenario. This study is an important first step in improving messaging provided by national cancer screening providers direct to older adults. Further research is needed to assess the impact of different elements of the intervention and the impact of providing this information in clinical practice, with more diverse samples. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTRN12623000033640.

Limited English proficiency and reported receipt of colorectal cancer screening among adults 45-75 in 2019 and 2021.

Introduction: Substantial barriers to screening exist for medically underserved populations, especially adults with limited English proficiency (LEP). We examined the proportion of US adults aged 45-75 up-to-date with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by LEP after 2018. The American Cancer Society began recommending CRC screening for adults 45-49 in 2018. Methods: We analyzed cross-sectional data of adults 45-75 years old participating in the 2019 or 2021 National Health Interview Survey (N = 25,611). Adults were considered up-to-date with screening if they reported any stool test within 1 year, stool-DNA testing within 3 years, or colonoscopy within 10 years. Adults who interviewed in a language other than English were considered to have LEP. Adults not up-to-date with screening were asked if a healthcare professional (HCP) recommended screening, and if so which test(s). Regression models conducted in 2022-2023 evaluated receipt of screening, adjusting for sociodemographics, year, and healthcare access. Results: Overall, 54.0 % (95 % CI 53.1-54.9 %) of participants were up-to-date with screening (9.4 % aged 45-49 vs 75.5 % aged 65-75); prevalence increased from 2019 (52.9 %) to 2021(55.2 %). Adults with LEP (vs English proficiency) were less likely to be up-to-date with screening (31.6 % vs. 56.8 %, [aPR 0.86 (0.77-0.96)]). Among adults not up-to-date, 15.0 % reported their HCP recommended screening (8.4 % among adults with LEP). Conclusions: Nearly half of US adults were not up-to-date with CRC screening in 2019 and 2021 and few reported being recommended screening. Adults with LEP and those 45-49 were least likely to be screened suggesting targeted interventions are needed for these populations.

Prostate Specific Antigen Screening on a Nationwide Level: Featuring the Contribution of Race and Life Expectancy in Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: Estimation of life expectancy (LE) is important for the relative benefit of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening. Limited data exists regarding screening for Black men with extended LE. The aim of the current study was to assess temporal trends in screening in United States (US) Black men with limited vs. extended LE, using a nationally representative dataset. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the National Health Institution Survey (NHIS) 2000 to 2018, men aged ≥40 without prior history of prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent PSA screening in the last 12 months were stratified into limited LE (ie, LE <15 years) and extended LE (ie, LE≥15 years) using the validated Schonberg index. LE-stratified temporal trends in PSA screening were analyzed for all men, and then in Black men. Weighted multivariable analyses and dominance analyses identified the predictors of PSA screening. RESULTS: PSA screening declined over the study period both for all eligible men with limited and extended LE, particularly between NHIS 2008 and 2013 (27.9%-20.7% in the extended). Screening increased significantly in Black men with extended LE (17.6% in 2010-25.7% in 2018). However, LE was not an independent predictor of screening in the Black cohort. Prior recipient of colonoscopy (55%-57%) and visit to health care provider (24%-32%) were the most important determinants for screening. CONCLUSION: For US men with extended LE, only 1 in 4 receive PSA screening, with a decline over the study-period. Screening rates increased for Black men. However, these changes were not driven by LE consideration itself, but participation in other screenings and access to a provider.

Refinement of an Emergency Department-Based, Advance Care Planning Intervention for Patients With Cognitive Impairment and Their Caregivers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Advance care planning (ACP) conversations are important to provide goal-concordant care (i.e., the care that matches the patient's previously stated goals) near end of life. While 31% of older adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) have dementia, only 39% have previously had ACP conversations. We refined and piloted an ED-based, motivational interview designed to stimulate ACP conversations (ED GOAL) for patients living with cognitive impairment and their caregivers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We systematically refined ED GOAL and then conducted an acceptability study in an urban, academic medical center. We prospectively enrolled adults aged 50+ with cognitive impairment and their caregivers. Trained clinicians conducted the intervention. We measured acceptability after the intervention and participants' ACP engagement at baseline and 1-month follow-up. RESULTS: Specific statements to address both the patient and caregiver were added to the ED GOAL script. Of 60 eligible patient/caregiver dyads approached, 26 participated, and 20 (77%) completed follow-up assessments. Patient mean age was 79 years (SD 8.5); 65% were female, 92.3% were White, 96.2% were non-Hispanic, and 69% had moderate dementia. Most patients/caregivers reported feeling completely heard and understood by the study clinician about their future medical care preferences (58%, 15/26). They also reported that the study clinician was very respectful (96%, 25/26) when eliciting those preferences. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Patients living with cognitive impairment and their caregivers found our refined ED GOAL acceptable and respectful. Future studies need to examine the effect of ED GOAL on ACP engagement among these dyads in the ED.

Validating a model for predicting breast cancer and nonbreast cancer death in women aged 55 years and older.

BACKGROUND: To support mammography screening decision making, we developed a competing-risk model to estimate 5-year breast cancer risk and 10-year nonbreast cancer death for women aged 55 years and older using Nurses' Health Study data and examined model performance in the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS). Here, we examine model performance in predicting 10-year outcomes in the BWHS, Women's Health Initiative-Extension Study (WHI-ES), and Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) and compare model performance to existing breast cancer prediction models. METHODS: We used competing-risk regression and Royston and Altman methods for validating survival models to calculate our model's calibration and discrimination (C index) in BWHS (n = 17 380), WHI-ES (n = 106 894), and MEC (n = 49 668). The Nurses' Health Study development cohort (n = 48 102) regression coefficients were applied to the validation cohorts. We compared our model's performance with breast cancer risk assessment tool (Gail) and International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models by computing breast cancer risk estimates and C statistics. RESULTS: When predicting 10-year breast cancer risk, our model's C index was 0.569 in BWHS, 0.572 in WHI-ES, and 0.576 in MEC. The Gail model's C statistic was 0.554 in BWHS, 0.564 in WHI-ES, and 0.551 in MEC; IBIS's C statistic was 0.547 in BWHS, 0.552 in WHI-ES, and 0.562 in MEC. The Gail model underpredicted breast cancer risk in WHI-ES; IBIS underpredicted breast cancer risk in WHI-ES and in MEC but overpredicted breast cancer risk in BWHS. Our model calibrated well. Our model's C index for predicting 10-year nonbreast cancer death was 0.760 in WHI-ES and 0.763 in MEC. CONCLUSIONS: Our competing-risk model performs as well as existing breast cancer prediction models in diverse cohorts and predicts nonbreast cancer death. We are developing a website to disseminate our model.

Variation in Receipt of Cancer Screening and Immunizations by 10-year Life Expectancy among U.S. Adults aged 65 or Older in 2019.

IMPORTANCE: The likelihood of benefit from a preventive intervention in an older adult depends on its time-to-benefit and the adult's life expectancy. For example, the time-to-benefit from cancer screening is >10 years, so adults with <10-year life expectancy are unlikely to benefit. OBJECTIVE: To examine receipt of screening for breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer and receipt of immunizations by 10-year life expectancy. DESIGN: Analysis of 2019 National Health Interview Survey. PARTICIPANTS: 8,329 non-institutionalized adults >65 years seen by a healthcare professional in the past year, representing 46.9 million US adults. MAIN MEASURES: Proportions of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer screenings, and immunizations, were stratified by 10-year life expectancy, estimated using a validated mortality index. We used logistic regression to examine receipt of cancer screening and immunizations by life expectancy and sociodemographic factors. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 54.7% of participants were female, 41.4% were >75 years, and 76.4% were non-Hispanic White. Overall, 71.5% reported being current with colorectal cancer screening, including 61.4% of those with <10-year life expectancy. Among women, 67.0% reported a screening mammogram in the past 2 years, including 42.8% with <10-year life expectancy. Among men, 56.8% reported prostate specific antigen screening in the past two years, including 48.3% with <10-year life expectancy. Reported receipt of immunizations varied from 72.0% for influenza, 68.8% for pneumococcus, 57.7% for tetanus, and 42.6% for shingles vaccination. Lower life expectancy was associated with decreased likelihood of cancer screening and shingles vaccination but with increased likelihood of pneumococcal vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the long time-to-benefit from cancer screening, in 2019 many US adults age >65 with <10-year life expectancy reported undergoing cancer screening while many did not receive immunizations with a shorter time-to-benefit. Interventions to improve individualization of preventive care based on older adults' life expectancy may improve care of older adults.

The differences in code status conversation approaches reported by emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians: A mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: During acute health deterioration, emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians routinely discuss code status (e.g., shared decision making about mechanical ventilation) with seriously ill patients. Little is known about their approaches. We sought to elucidate how code status conversations are conducted by emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians and why their approaches are different. METHODS: We conducted a sequential-explanatory, mixed-method study in three large academic medical centers in the Northeastern United States. Attending physicians and advanced practice providers working in emergency medicine and palliative care were eligible. Among the survey respondents, we purposefully sampled the participants for follow-up interviews. We collected clinicians' self-reported approaches in code status conversations and their rationales. A survey with a 5-point Likert scale ("very unlikely" to "very likely") was used to assess the likelihood of asking about medical procedures (procedure based) and patients' values (value based) during code status conversations, followed by semistructured interviews. RESULTS: Among 272 clinicians approached, 206 completed the survey (a 76% response rate). The reported approaches differed greatly (e.g., 91% of palliative care clinicians reported asking about a patient's acceptable quality of life compared to 59% of emergency medicine clinicians). Of the 206 respondents, 118 (57%) agreed to subsequent interviews; our final number of semistructured interviews included seven emergency medicine clinicians and nine palliative care clinicians. The palliative care clinicians stated that the value-based questions offer insight into patients' goals, which is necessary for formulating a recommendation. In contrast, emergency medicine clinicians stated that while value-based questions are useful, they are vague and necessitate extended discussions, which are inappropriate during emergencies. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians reported conducting code status conversations differently. The rationales may be shaped by their clinical practices and experiences.

Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening in 75 + Women to Inform Shared Decision-making: a Simulation Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) around mammography screening for women ≥ 75 years old. OBJECTIVE: To use microsimulation modeling to estimate the lifetime benefits and harms of screening women aged 75, 80, and 85 years based on their individual risk factors (family history, breast density, prior biopsy) and comorbidity level to support SDM in clinical practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We adapted two established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models to evaluate the remaining lifetime benefits and harms of screening U.S. women born in 1940, at decision ages 75, 80, and 85 years considering their individual risk factors and comorbidity levels. Results were summarized for average- and higher-risk women (defined as having breast cancer family history, heterogeneously dense breasts, and no prior biopsy, 5% of the population). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Remaining lifetime breast cancers detected, deaths (breast cancer/other causes), false positives, and overdiagnoses for average- and higher-risk women by age and comorbidity level for screening (one or five screens) vs. no screening per 1000 women. RESULTS: Compared to stopping, one additional screen at 75 years old resulted in six and eight more breast cancers detected (10% overdiagnoses), one and two fewer breast cancer deaths, and 52 and 59 false positives per 1000 average- and higher-risk women without comorbidities, respectively. Five additional screens over 10 years led to 23 and 31 additional breast cancer cases (29-31% overdiagnoses), four and 15 breast cancer deaths avoided, and 238 and 268 false positives per 1000 average- and higher-risk screened women without comorbidities, respectively. Screening women at older ages (80 and 85 years old) and high comorbidity levels led to fewer breast cancer deaths and a higher percentage of overdiagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation models show that continuing screening in women ≥ 75 years old results in fewer breast cancer deaths but more false positive tests and overdiagnoses. Together, clinicians and 75 + women may use model output to weigh the benefits and harms of continued screening.

Trends in Locoregional Therapy in Older Women with Early-Stage Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer by Frailty and Life Expectancy.

BACKGROUND: In women ≥ 70 years of age with T1N0 hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer, breast surgery type and omission of axillary surgery or radiation therapy (RT) do not impact overall survival. Although frailty and life expectancy ideally factor into therapy decisions, their impact on therapy receipt is unclear. We sought to identify trends in and factors associated with locoregional therapy type by frailty and life expectancy. METHODS: Women ≥ 70 years of age with T1N0 HR+/HER2- breast cancer diagnosed in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database between 2010 and 2015 were stratified by validated claims-based frailty and life expectancy measures. Therapy trends over time by regimen intensity ('high intensity': lumpectomy + axillary surgery + RT, or mastectomy + axillary surgery; 'moderate intensity': lumpectomy + RT, lumpectomy + axillary surgery, or mastectomy only; or 'low intensity': lumpectomy only) were analyzed. Factors associated with therapy type were identified using generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: Of 16,188 women, 21.8% were frail, 22.2% had a life expectancy < 5 years, and only 12.3% fulfilled both criteria. In frail women with a life expectancy < 5 years, high-intensity regimens decreased significantly (48.8-31.2%; p < 0.001) over the study period, although in 2015, 30% still received a high-intensity regimen. In adjusted analyses, frailty and life expectancy < 5 years were not associated with breast surgery type but were associated with a lower likelihood of axillary surgery (frailty: odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.96; life expectancy < 5 years: OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.20-0.25). Life expectancy < 5 years was also associated with a lower likelihood of RT receipt in breast-conserving surgery patients (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.27-0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of high-intensity therapy are decreasing but overtreatment persists in this population. Continued efforts aimed at appropriate de-escalation of locoregional therapy are needed.

Not Too Little, Not Too Much: Optimizing More Versus Less Locoregional Treatment for Older Patients With Breast Cancer.

Although undertreatment of older women with aggressive breast cancers has been a concern for years, there is increasing recognition that some older women are overtreated, receiving therapies unlikely to improve survival or reduce morbidity. De-escalation of surgery may include breast-conserving surgery over mastectomy for appropriate candidates and omitting or reducing extent of axillary surgery. Appropriate patients to de-escalate surgery are those with early-stage breast cancer, favorable tumor characteristics, are clinically node-negative, and who may have other major health issues. De-escalation of radiation includes reducing treatment course length through hypofractionation and ultrahypofractionation regimens, reducing treatment volumes through partial breast irradiation, omission of radiation for select patients, and reducing radiation dose to normal tissues. Shared decision making, which aims to facilitate patients making decisions concordant with their values, can guide health care providers and patients through complicated decisions optimizing breast cancer care.

Clinician and patient perspectives on screening mammography among women age 75 and older: A pilot study of a novel decision aid.

Objective: Supporting patient-clinician communication is key to implementing tailored, risk-based screening for older adults. Objectives of this multiphase mixed methods study were to identify factors that primary care clinicians consider influential when making screening mammography recommendations for women ≥ 75 years, develop a patient decision aid that incorporates these factors, and gather feasibility and acceptability from the patients' perspective. Methods: Clinicians from a Mid-Atlantic practice network completed online surveys. Women in the same network completed surveys before and after receiving a tailored booklet that included information about the benefits and harms of screening for women ≥ 75 years, a breast cancer risk-estimate, and a question prompt list to support patient-clinician communication. Results: Clinicians (N = 21) were primarily women [57.1%] and practiced family medicine [81.0%]. They cited patients' age ≥ 75 years [95.4%], comorbidity [86.4%], functional status [77.3%], cancer family history [63.6%], U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines [81.8%] and new research [77.3%] as factors influencing their recommendations. Fourteen women completed baseline surveys and received personalized decision aids (Mean age = 79.1 years). Eleven completed the post-intervention survey. All were satisfied with the booklet length, 81.8% found the booklet easy to understand and 72.7% helpful in decision-making Perceived lifetime breast cancer risk decreased significantly from pre- to post-intervention (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Results suggest this decision aid, which incorporates key decisional factors from the clinician's perspective, is feasible and acceptable to patients. Innovation: A tailored decision aid booklet is innovative as it provides information on personalized risk and potential benefits and harms to older women considering screening.

Association of Surgery With Frailty Status in Older Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

This cohort study examines associations between type of breast cancer surgery and changes in frailty status among US women aged 70 years or older with early-stage breast cancer.

Automatable end-of-life screening for older adults in the emergency department using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) visits are common at the end-of-life, but the identification of patients with life-limiting illness remains a key challenge in providing timely and resource-sensitive advance care planning (ACP) and palliative care services. To date, there are no validated, automatable instruments for ED end-of-life screening. Here, we developed a novel electronic health record (EHR) prognostic model to screen older ED patients at high risk for 6-month mortality and compare its performance to validated comorbidity indices. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study of ED visits from adults aged ≥65 years who visited any of 9 EDs across a large regional health system between 2014 and 2019. Multivariable logistic regression that included clinical and demographic variables, vital signs, and laboratory data was used to develop a 6-month mortality predictive model-the Geriatric End-of-life Screening Tool (GEST) using five-fold cross-validation on data from 8 EDs. Performance was compared to the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices using area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration, and decision curve analyses. Reproducibility was tested against data from the remaining independent ED within the health system. We then used GEST to investigate rates of ACP documentation availability and code status orders in the EHR across risk strata. RESULTS: A total of 431,179 encounters by 123,128 adults were included in this study with a 6-month mortality rate of 12.2%. Charlson (AUROC (95% CI): 0.65 (0.64-0.69)) and Elixhauser indices (0.69 (0.68-0.70)) were outperformed by GEST (0.82 (0.82-0.83)). GEST displayed robust performance across demographic subgroups and in our independent validation site. Among patients with a greater than 30% mortality risk using GEST, only 5.0% had ACP documentation; 79.0% had a code status previously ordered, of which 70.7% were full code. In decision curve analysis, GEST provided greater net benefit than the Charlson and Elixhauser scores. CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic models using EHR data robustly identify high mortality risk older adults in the ED for whom code status, ACP, or palliative care interventions may be of benefit. Although all tested methods identified patients approaching the end-of-life, GEST was most performant. These tools may enable resource-sensitive end-of-life screening in the ED.