News

Unnecessary cancer screening 'substantial' in U.S.

View on the News

Change your approach: Discuss life expectancy

To reduce unneeded cancer screening, clinicians must alter their approach to discussions with older patients, said Dr. Cary P. Gross.

Life expectancy should be addressed, because there is substantial heterogeneity among older persons in life expectancy and comorbidity burden. Informational tools should be developed that can help patients weigh anticipated benefits and harms of screening, given their individual risk. "It will truly be a new era when providers will be evaluated, in part, by their ability to refrain from ordering cancer screening tests for some of their patients," he said.

Dr. Gross is at the Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported having ties to FAIR Health, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, and 21st Century Oncology. These remarks were taken from his invited commentary accompanying the two reports on cancer screening (JAMA Intern. Med. 2014 Aug. 18 [doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3901]).


 

FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE

References

The balance among benefits, burden, and harm was unfavorable in almost every scenario tested, outside the recommended screening scenario. For example, "when a screening interval of 5 instead of 10 years was applied, the gain in quality of life by preventing additional life-years with colorectal cancer care was exceeded by the loss of quality of life due to additional colonoscopies and additional complications."

Similarly, when colonoscopy was continued to age 85 years instead of ceasing at age 75 years, "the overall loss of quality of life exceeded the associated increase in life-years gained." Harms were even greater when colonoscopy was continued to age 95 years or when the screening interval was reduced to 3 years. "This study provides strong evidence and a clear rationale for clinicians and policy makers to actively discourage this practice," Dr. van Hees and his associates said (JAMA Intern. Med. 2014 Aug. 18 [doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3889]).

Rather than emphasizing the wastefulness of nonrecommended colorectal cancer screening, stressing that such screening negatively affects patient health is more likely to get both physicians and patients to abandon it. Both physicians and patients should be reminded that "one simple screen" often forces elderly or frail patients with many comorbidities onto a track of continued surveillance, biopsies, and removal of lesions that are unlikely to cause harm, with the attendant complications, the investigators added.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Angiogenic kinase inhibitor receives orphan drug designation for hepatocellular carcinoma
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Vary CRC screening by age, sex, race, ethnicity?
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
TCGA investigators propose four subtypes of gastric cancer
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Stage esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant chemo
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Gut bacteria populations may predict colon cancers
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Flexible sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer, mortality
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Medical consultation rates for surgical cases vary
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Benefits outweigh harms of aspirin therapy
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
FDA okays DNA stool test for CRC screening; Medicare considers coverage
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Radiotherapy plus chemotherapy drive risk of pancreatic cancer in HL patients
MDedge Hematology and Oncology