Craig Evan Pollack1,2, Amanda L Blackford2, Nancy L Schoenborn1, Cynthia M Boyd1, Kimberly S Peairs1, Eva H DuGoff3. 1. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the agreement and rates of cancer screening using four prognostic tools that require different types of clinical information. DESIGN: Observational retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 2009 and 2010 waves of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 66-90 with survey and claims data (N = 9,469). MEASUREMENTS: Agreement between four indices predicting short-term (4-5 years) and long-term (9-10 years) survival; self-reported breast and prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: Agreement between the four prognostic tools was high. Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from 0.63 to 0.90 for short-term survival and 0.68 to 0.94 for long-term survival. When defining limited short-term life expectancy as less than 25% chance of surviving 4 or 5 years, all four tools agreed in 96.4% of the sample. All four tools agreed in their placement of participants into limited or not-limited long-term life expectancy in 77.1% of participants (<25% chance of surviving 9 or 10 years). Rates of cancer screening were similarly high in individuals with limited long-term life expectancy regardless of the tool used: greater than 31% for mammographic screening in women and greater than 69% for prostate cancer screening. CONCLUSION: There is substantial agreement among different prognostic tools for short- and long-term survival in Medicare beneficiaries. The high rates of cancer screening of individuals with limited life expectancy suggest the importance of incorporating tools into clinical decision-making.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the agreement and rates of cancer screening using four prognostic tools that require different types of clinical information. DESIGN: Observational retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 2009 and 2010 waves of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 66-90 with survey and claims data (N = 9,469). MEASUREMENTS: Agreement between four indices predicting short-term (4-5 years) and long-term (9-10 years) survival; self-reported breast and prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: Agreement between the four prognostic tools was high. Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from 0.63 to 0.90 for short-term survival and 0.68 to 0.94 for long-term survival. When defining limited short-term life expectancy as less than 25% chance of surviving 4 or 5 years, all four tools agreed in 96.4% of the sample. All four tools agreed in their placement of participants into limited or not-limited long-term life expectancy in 77.1% of participants (<25% chance of surviving 9 or 10 years). Rates of cancer screening were similarly high in individuals with limited long-term life expectancy regardless of the tool used: greater than 31% for mammographic screening in women and greater than 69% for prostate cancer screening. CONCLUSION: There is substantial agreement among different prognostic tools for short- and long-term survival in Medicare beneficiaries. The high rates of cancer screening of individuals with limited life expectancy suggest the importance of incorporating tools into clinical decision-making.
Authors: Lowell E Schnipper; Gary H Lyman; Douglas W Blayney; J Russell Hoverman; Derek Raghavan; Dana S Wollins; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Carol H Lee; D David Dershaw; Daniel Kopans; Phil Evans; Barbara Monsees; Debra Monticciolo; R James Brenner; Lawrence Bassett; Wendie Berg; Stephen Feig; Edward Hendrick; Ellen Mendelson; Carl D'Orsi; Edward Sickles; Linda Warren Burhenne Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Kirsten L Greene; Peter C Albertsen; Richard J Babaian; H Ballentine Carter; Peter H Gann; Misop Han; Deborah Ann Kuban; A Oliver Sartor; Janet L Stanford; Anthony Zietman; Peter Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-09-24 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Hyunsoon Cho; Carrie N Klabunde; K Robin Yabroff; Zhuoqiao Wang; Angela Meekins; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Angela B Mariotto Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Carmen L Lewis; Christine E Kistler; Halle R Amick; Lea C Watson; Debra L Bynum; Louise C Walter; Michael P Pignone Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2006-08-03 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Mara A Schonberg; Vicky Li; Edward R Marcantonio; Roger B Davis; Ellen P McCarthy Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Hyunsoon Cho; Zhuoqiao Wang; K Robin Yabroff; Benmei Liu; Timothy McNeel; Eric J Feuer; Angela B Mariotto Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 3.295