Publications

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) impact a woman's life expectancy and her ability to participate in medical decision-making about breast cancer screening, necessitating the involvement of family caregivers. Making decisions about mammography screening for women with ADRD is stressful. There are no data that suggest that breast cancer screening helps women with ADRD live longer or better. Decision aids may improve the quality of decision-making about mammography for ADRD patients and may inform family caregivers about the risks, benefits, and need for decision-making around mammography screening.

METHODS/DESIGN: The Decisions about Cancer Screening in Alzheimer's Disease (DECAD) trial, a randomized controlled clinical trial, will enroll 426 dyads of older women with ADRD (≥75 years) and a family caregiver from clinics and primary-care practices in Indiana to test a novel, evidence-based decision aid. This decision aid includes information about the impact of ADRD on life expectancy, the benefit of mammograms, and the impact on the quality of life for older women with ADRD. Dyads will be randomized to receive the decision aid or active control information about home safety. This trial will examine the effect on the caregiver's decisional conflict (primary outcome) and the caregiver's decision-making self-efficacy (secondary outcome). A second follow-up at 15 months will include a brief, semi-structured interview with the caregiver regarding the patient's experience with mammograms and decision-making about mammograms. At the same time, a review of the patient's electronic medical record (EMR) will look at discussions about mammography with their primary-care physician and mammogram orders, receipt, results, and burden (e.g., additional diagnostic procedures due to false-positive results, identification of an abnormality on the screening exam but further work-up declined, and identification of a clinically unimportant cancer). A third follow-up at 24 months will extract EMR data on mammogram orders, occurrences, results, and the burden of mammograms.

DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that caregivers who receive the decision aid will have lower levels of decisional conflict and higher levels of decision-making self-efficacy compared to the control group. We also hypothesize that the DECAD decision aid will reduce mammography use among older women with ADRD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Register, NCT03282097 . Registered on 13 September 2017.

OBJECTIVES: To inform the shared decision-making process between clinicians and older adults and their surrogates regarding emergency intubation.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING: Multicenter, emergency department (ED)-based cohort.

PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 65 and older intubated in the ED from 2008 to 2015 from 262 hospitals across the United States (>95% of U.S. nonprofit academic medical centers).

MEASUREMENTS: Our primary outcome was age-specific in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were age-specific odds of death after adjusting for race, comorbid conditions, admission diagnosis, hospital disposition, and geographic region.

RESULTS: We identified 41,463 ED intubation encounters and included 35,036 in the final analysis. Sixty-four percent were in non-Hispanic whites and 54% in women. Overall in-hospital mortality was 33% (95% confidence interval (CI)=34-35%). Twenty-four percent (95% CI=24-25%) of subjects were discharged to home, and 41% (95% CI=40-42%) were discharged to a location other than home. Mortality was 29% (95% CI=28-29%) for individuals aged 65 to 74, 34% (95% CI=33-35%) for those aged 75 to 79, 40% (95% CI=39-41%) for those aged 80 to 84, 43% (95% CI=41-44%) for those aged 85 to 89, and 50% (95% CI=48-51%) for those aged 90 and older.

CONCLUSION: After emergency intubation, 33% percent of older adults die during the index hospitalization. Only 24% of survivors are discharged to home. Simple, graphic representations of this information, in combination with an experienced clinician's overall clinical assessment, will support shared decision-making regarding unplanned intubation.

Purpose To provide guidance regarding the practical assessment and management of vulnerabilities in older patients undergoing chemotherapy. Methods An Expert Panel was convened to develop clinical practice guideline recommendations based on a systematic review of the medical literature. Results A total of 68 studies met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. Recommendations In patients ≥ 65 years receiving chemotherapy, geriatric assessment (GA) should be used to identify vulnerabilities that are not routinely captured in oncology assessments. Evidence supports, at a minimum, assessment of function, comorbidity, falls, depression, cognition, and nutrition. The Panel recommends instrumental activities of daily living to assess for function, a thorough history or validated tool to assess comorbidity, a single question for falls, the Geriatric Depression Scale to screen for depression, the Mini-Cog or the Blessed Orientation-Memory-Concentration test to screen for cognitive impairment, and an assessment of unintentional weight loss to evaluate nutrition. Either the CARG (Cancer and Aging Research Group) or CRASH (Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients) tools are recommended to obtain estimates of chemotherapy toxicity risk; the Geriatric-8 or Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 can help to predict mortality. Clinicians should use a validated tool listed at ePrognosis to estimate noncancer-based life expectancy ≥ 4 years. GA results should be applied to develop an integrated and individualized plan that informs cancer management and to identify nononcologic problems amenable to intervention. Collaborating with caregivers is essential to implementing GA-guided interventions. The Panel suggests that clinicians take into account GA results when recommending chemotherapy and that the information be provided to patients and caregivers to guide treatment decision making. Clinicians should implement targeted, GA-guided interventions to manage nononcologic problems. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

BACKGROUND: Seriously ill older adults in the emergency department (ED) may benefit from palliative care referral, yet little is known about how to identify these patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance and determine the acceptability of a content-validated palliative care screening tool.

DESIGN: We surveyed Emergency Medicine (EM) attending physicians at the end of their shifts using the screening tool and asked them to retrospectively apply it to all patients ≥65 years whom they had cared for. We conducted the survey for three consecutive weeks in October 2015.

SETTING/SUBJECTS: EM attending physicians at an urban, university-affiliated ED.

MEASUREMENT: Patient characteristics, acceptability rating, and time per patient screened.

RESULTS: We approached 38 attending physicians to apply the screening tool for 69 eligible shifts. Physicians agreed to participate during 55 shifts (80%) and screened 207 patients. On 14 shifts (20%), physicians declined to participate. Mean age of the screened patients was 75 years, 51% were male, and 45% had at least one life-limiting illness. Overall, 67 patients (32%) screened positive for palliative care needs. Seventy percent of physicians (n = 33) found the screening tool acceptable to use and the average time of completion was 1.8 minutes per patient screened.

CONCLUSION: A rapid screen of older adults for palliative care needs was acceptable to a majority of EM physicians and identified a significant number of patients who may benefit from palliative care referral. Further research is needed to improve acceptability and determine the appropriate care pathway for patients with palliative care needs.

INTRODUCTION: Our goal was to develop and validate an index to predict in-hospital mortality in older adults after non-traumatic emergency department (ED) intubations.

METHODS: We used Vizient administrative data from hospitalizations of 22,374 adults ≥75 years who underwent non-traumatic ED intubation from 2008-2015 at nearly 300 U.S. hospitals to develop and validate an index to predict in-hospital mortality. We randomly selected one half of participants for the development cohort and one half for the validation cohort. Considering 25 potential predictors, we developed a multivariable logistic regression model using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method to determine factors associated with in-hospital mortality. We calculated risk scores using points derived from the final model's beta coefficients. To evaluate calibration and discrimination of the final model, we used Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square test and receiver-operating characteristic analysis and compared mortality by risk groups in the development and validation cohorts.

RESULTS: Death during the index hospitalization occurred in 40% of cases. The final model included six variables: history of myocardial infarction, history of cerebrovascular disease, history of metastatic cancer, age, admission diagnosis of sepsis, and admission diagnosis of stroke/ intracranial hemorrhage. Those with low-risk scores (<6) had 31% risk of in-hospital mortality while those with high-risk scores (>10) had 58% risk of in-hospital mortality. The Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square of the model was 6.47 (p=0.09), and the c-statistic was 0.62 in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION: The model may be useful in identifying older adults at high risk of death after ED intubation.

OBJECTIVES: Extended validation of an index predicting mortality among community-dwelling US older adults.

DESIGN/SETTING: Examination of the performance of a previously developed index in predicting 10- and 14-year mortality among respondents to the 1997-2000 National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS) using the original development and validation cohorts. Follow-up mortality data are now available through 2011.

PARTICIPANTS: 16,063 respondents from the original development cohort and 8,027 respondents from the original validation cohort. All participants were community dwelling and ≥65 years old.

MEASUREMENTS: We calculated risk scores for each respondent based on the presence or absence of 11 factors (function, illnesses, behaviors, demographics) that make up the index. Using the Kaplan Meier method, we computed 10- and 14-year mortality estimates for the development and validation cohorts to examine model calibration. We examined model discrimination using the c-index.

RESULTS: Participants in the development and validation cohorts were similar. Participants with risk scores 0-4 had 23% risk of 14-year mortality whereas respondents with risk scores (13+) had 89% risk of 14-year mortality. The c-index of the model in both cohorts was 0.73 for predicting 10-year mortality and 0.72 for predicting 14-year mortality. Overall, 18.4% of adults 65-74 years and 60.2% of adults ≥75 years have >50% risk of mortality in 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS: Our index demonstrated excellent calibration and discrimination in predicting 10- and 14-year mortality among community-dwelling US adults ≥65 years. Information on long-term prognosis is needed to help clinicians and older adults make more informed person-centered medical decisions and to help older adults plan for the future.

Purpose The benefits of annual surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors with limited life expectancy are not known, and there are important risks; however, little is known about mammography use among these women. Materials and Methods We used National Health Interview Study data from 2000, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2015 to examine surveillance mammography use among women age ≥ 65 years who reported a history of breast cancer. Using multivariable logistic regression, we assessed the probability of mammography within the last 12 months by 5- and 10-year life expectancy (using the validated Schonberg index), adjusting for survey year, region, age, marital status, insurance, educational attainment, and indicators of access to care. Results Of 1,040 respondents, 33.7% were age ≥ 80 years and 88.6% were white. Approximately 8.6% and 35.1% had an estimated life expectancy of ≤ 5 and ≤ 10 years, respectively. Overall, 78.9% reported having routine surveillance mammography in the last 12 months. Receipt of mammography decreased with decreasing life expectancy ( P < .001), although 56.7% and 65.9% of those with estimated ≤ 5-year and ≤ 10-year life expectancy, respectively, reported mammography in the last year. Conversely, 14.1% of those with life expectancy > 10 years did not report mammography. In adjusted analyses, lower ( v higher) life expectancy was significantly associated with lower odds of mammography (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.8 for ≤ 5-year life expectancy and OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.6 for ≤ 10-year life expectancy). Conclusion Many (57%) older breast cancer survivors with an estimated short life expectancy (< 5 years) receive annual surveillance mammography despite unknown benefits, whereas 14% with estimated life expectancy > 10 years did not report mammography. Practice guidelines are needed to optimize and tailor follow-up care for older patients.

OBJECTIVES: To examine over-screening of older Israelis for colon and breast cancer.

DESIGN: Cross sectional.

SETTING: Clalit Health Services (CHS), Israel's largest health maintenance organization (HMO), provides care for more than half of the country's population and operates a national age-based programs for cancer screening.

PARTICIPANTS: All community-dwelling members aged 65 to 79 in 2014 (N = 370,876).

MEASUREMENTS: We used CHS data warehouse to evaluate cancer screening during 2014. Life expectancy (LE) was estimated using the validated Schonberg index.

RESULTS: Almost one-quarter (23.1%; 15.6% of adults aged 65-74, 42.7% of adults aged 75-79) of the study population had an estimated LE of less than 10 years. Annual fecal occult blood test and biannual mammography rates among adults aged 65 to 74 with a LE of 10 years or longer were 37.1% and 70.0%, respectively. Rates dropped after age 75 (4.0%, 19.5%) and to a lesser extent with a LE of less than 10 years (31.6%, 56.4%). Prostate-specific antigen testing is not part of the national screening program, and the proportion of people tested (42.6%), did not vary similarly with age of 75 and older (43.2%) or LE of less than 10 years (38.1%).

CONCLUSION: The cancer screening inclusion criteria of the national referral system have a strong effect on receipt of screening; LE considerations are less influential. Some method of estimating LE could be incorporated into algorithms to improve individualized cancer screening to reduce over- and underscreening of older adults.

There are relatively limited data on outcomes of screening older adults for cancer; therefore, the decision to screen older adults requires balancing the potential harms of screening and follow-up diagnostic tests with the possibility of benefit. Harms of screening can be amplified in older and frail adults and include discomfort from undergoing the test itself, anxiety, potential complications from diagnostic procedures resulting from a false-positive test, false reassurance from a false-negative test, and overdiagnosis of tumors that are of no threat and may result in overtreatment. In this paper, we review the evidence and guidelines on breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancer as applied to older adults. We also provide a general framework for approaching cancer screening in older adults by incorporating evidence-based guidelines, patient preferences, and patient life expectancy estimates into shared screening decisions.