Literature DB >> 11722693

Screening mammography for frail older women: what are the burdens?

L C Walter1, C Eng, K E Covinsky.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The potential benefits and harms of screening mammography in frail older women are unknown. Therefore, we studied the outcomes of a screening mammography policy that was instituted in a population of community-living nursing home-eligible women as a result of requirements of state auditors. We focused on the potential burdens that may be experienced.
METHODS: Between January 1995 and December 1997, we identified 216 consecutive women who underwent screening mammography after enrolling in a program designed to provide comprehensive care to nursing home-eligible patients who wished to stay at home. Mammograms were performed at 4 radiology centers. From computerized medical records, we tracked each woman through September 1999 for performance and results of mammography, additional breast imaging and biopsies, documentation of psychological reactions to screening, as well as vital status. Mean follow-up was 2.6 years.
RESULTS: The mean age of the 216 women was 81 years. Sixty-three percent were Asian, 91% were dependent in at least 1 activity of daily living, 49% had cognitive impairment, and 11% died within 2 years. Thirty-eight women (18%) had abnormal mammograms requiring further work-up. Of these women, 6 refused work-up, 28 were found to have false-positive mammograms after further evaluation, 1 was diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 3 were diagnosed with local breast cancer. The woman diagnosed with DCIS and 1 woman diagnosed with breast cancer were classified as not having benefited, because screening identified clinically insignificant disease that would not have caused symptoms in the women's lifetimes, since these women died of unrelated causes within 2 years of diagnosis. Therefore, 36 women (17%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12 to 22) experienced burden from screening mammography (28 underwent work-up for false-positive mammograms, 6 refused further work-up of an abnormal mammogram, and 2 had clinically insignificant cancers identified and treated). Forty-two percent of these women had chart-documented pain or psychological distress as a result of screening. Two women (0.9%; 95% CI, 0 to 2) may have received benefit from screening mammography.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that screening mammography in frail older women frequently necessitates work-up that does not result in benefit, raising questions about policies that use the rate of screening mammograms as an indicator of the quality of care in this population. Encouraging individualized decisions may be more appropriate and may allow screening to be targeted to older women for whom the potential benefit outweighs the potential burdens.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11722693      PMCID: PMC1495292          DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2001.10113.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  20 in total

1.  Program of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE): an innovative model of integrated geriatric care and financing.

Authors:  C Eng; J Pedulla; G P Eleazer; R McCann; N Fox
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 5.562

2.  A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients.

Authors:  E Pfeiffer
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1975-10       Impact factor: 5.562

3.  Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; S M Rubin; C Sandrock; V L Ernster
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-01-11       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Estimating treatment benefits for the elderly: the effect of competing risks.

Authors:  H G Welch; P C Albertsen; R F Nease; T A Bubolz; J H Wasson
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1996-03-15       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample.

Authors:  C A Beam; P M Layde; D C Sullivan
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1996-01-22

6.  Breast cancer screening for elderly women with and without comorbid conditions. A decision analysis model.

Authors:  J S Mandelblatt; M E Wheat; M Monane; R D Moshief; J P Hollenberg; J Tang
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1992-05-01       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; J Barclay; E A Sickles; A Eaton; V Ernster
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-11-24       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 8.  The extent of breast cancer screening in older women.

Authors:  M E Costanza
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1994-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  The effect of comorbidity on 3-year survival of women with primary breast cancer.

Authors:  W A Satariano; D R Ragland
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1994-01-15       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial.

Authors:  L Tabar; G Fagerberg; H H Chen; S W Duffy; C R Smart; A Gad; R A Smith
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1995-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  35 in total

Review 1.  Disparities in screening mammography. Current status, interventions and implications.

Authors:  Monica E Peek; Jini H Han
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Maximizing informed cancer screening decisions.

Authors:  Louise C Walter; Carmen L Lewis
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2007-10-22

3.  Should we use large scale healthcare interventions without clear evidence that benefits outweigh costs and harms? No.

Authors:  C Seth Landefeld; Kaveh G Shojania; Andrew D Auerbach
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-06-07

4.  Health services research is translational: lessons learned from VHA-funded research on cancer screening in older adults.

Authors:  Louise C Walter
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Screening Mammography Among Older Women: A Review of United States Guidelines and Potential Harms.

Authors:  Deborah S Mack; Kate L Lapane
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 2.681

6.  A Look at Person- and Family-Centered Care Among Older Adults: Results from a National Survey [corrected].

Authors:  Jennifer L Wolff; Cynthia M Boyd
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-05-02       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Lifestyle risk factors and utilization of preventive services in disabled elderly adults in the community.

Authors:  Dae Hyun Kim; Utpal N Sagar; Suzanne Adams; David J Whellan
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2009-10

8.  Every patient is an individual: clinicians balance individual factors when discussing prognosis with diverse frail elderly adults.

Authors:  Julie N Thai; Louise C Walter; Catherine Eng; Alexander K Smith
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 5.562

Review 9.  Screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Katrina Armstrong; Constance D Lehman; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Refining physician quality indicators for screening mammography in older women: distinguishing appropriate use from overuse.

Authors:  Alai Tan; Yong-Fang Kuo; Linda S Elting; James S Goodwin
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 5.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.