Older adults with limited life expectancy are just as likely to undergo colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as those with longer life expectancy, a new study shows.
Researchers used national survey data to estimate the prevalence and factors associated with CRC screening in 25,888 community-dwelling adults aged 65-84 according to their predicted 10-year mortality risk.
They estimated 10-year mortality risk using a validated index. From the lowest to highest quintiles, mortality risk was 12%, 24%, 39%, 58%, and 79%, respectively.
Investigators determined the proportion of screening performed in adults with life expectancy less than 10 years, defined as 10-year mortality risk ≥ 50% (ie, quintiles 4 and 5).
In this cohort of older adults previously not up to date with CRC screening, the overall prevalence of past-year screening was 38.5%.
The prevalence of past-year CRC screening decreased with advancing age but did not differ significantly by 10-year mortality risk. From lowest to highest quintile, prevalence was 39.5%, 40.6%, 38.7%, 36.4%, and 35.4%, respectively.
The likelihood of CRC screening did not differ between adults in the lowest vs highest quintile of 10-year mortality risk (adjusted odds ratio, 1.05).
More than one quarter (27.9%) of past-year screening occurred in adults with life expectancy less than 10 years, and 50.7% of adults aged 75-84 years had life expectancy less than 10 years at the time of screening.
Paradoxically, the prevalence of invasive screening increased with lowered life expectancy among adults aged 70-79 years.
“Our results suggest that health status and life expectancy may be overlooked in current CRC screening programs, and personalized screening incorporating individual life expectancy may improve the value of screening,” the authors write.
The study, with first author Po-Hong Liu, MD, MPH, Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, was published online October 2 in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
The survey data were self-reported and were not validated by medical records. The data did not include information to identify individuals who were at higher risk for CRC or to trace prior CRC screening history. It was not possible to reliably classify test indication (screening vs surveillance vs diagnostic).
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. One author disclosed serving as a consultant or on advisory boards for Exact Sciences, Universal Dx, Roche, and Freenome. Another disclosed consulting for Freenome.
For more news, follow Medscape on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn
Source link : https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/997605?src=rss
Publish date : 2023-10-22 01:53:48
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.