» Articles » PMID: 29743048

Clinical Decision Making in Cancer Care: a Review of Current and Future Roles of Patient Age

Overview
Journal BMC Cancer
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Oncology
Date 2018 May 11
PMID 29743048
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Patient age is among the most controversial patient characteristics in clinical decision making. In personalized cancer medicine it is important to understand how individual characteristics do affect practice and how to appropriately incorporate such factors into decision making. Some argue that using age in decision making is unethical, and how patient age should guide cancer care is unsettled. This article provides an overview of the use of age in clinical decision making and discusses how age can be relevant in the context of personalized medicine.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review, searching Pubmed for English references published between 1985 and May 2017. References concerning cancer, with patients above the age of 18 and that discussed age in relation to diagnostic or treatment decisions were included. References that were non-medical or concerning patients below the age of 18, and references that were case reports, ongoing studies or opinion pieces were excluded. Additional references were collected through snowballing and from selected reports, guidelines and articles.

Results: Three hundred and forty-seven relevant references were identified. Patient age can have many and diverse roles in clinical decision making: Contextual roles linked to access (age influences how fast patients are referred to specialized care) and incidence (association between increasing age and increasing incidence rates for cancer); patient-relevant roles linked to physiology (age-related changes in drug metabolism) and comorbidity (association between increasing age and increasing number of comorbidities); and roles related to interventions, such as treatment (older patients receive substandard care) and outcome (survival varies by age).

Conclusions: Patient age is integrated into cancer care decision making in a range of ways that makes it difficult to claim age-neutrality. Acknowledging this and being more transparent about the use of age in decision making are likely to promote better clinical decisions, irrespective of one's normative viewpoint. This overview also provides a starting point for future discussions on the appropriate role of age in cancer care decision making, which we see as crucial for harnessing the full potential of personalized medicine.

Citing Articles

Implementation of an Oncogeriatric Unit for Frail Older Patients with Breast Cancer: Preliminary Results.

Hipolito-Reis H, Santos J, Almeida P, Teixeira L, Rodrigues F, Tavares N Curr Oncol. 2024; 31(12):7809-7819.

PMID: 39727698 PMC: 11674924. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol31120575.


Utilisation of endocrine therapy for cancer in Indigenous peoples: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bizuayehu H, Belachew S, Jahan S, Diaz A, Baxi S, Griffiths K BMC Cancer. 2024; 24(1):882.

PMID: 39039483 PMC: 11264465. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12627-6.


A comprehensive review on immune checkpoint inhibitors induced cardiotoxicity characteristics and associated factors.

Ndjana Lessomo F, Mandizadza O, Mukuka C, Wang Z Eur J Med Res. 2023; 28(1):495.

PMID: 37941006 PMC: 10631013. DOI: 10.1186/s40001-023-01464-1.


Geriatric Communication Skills Training Program for Oncology Healthcare Providers: a Secondary Analysis of Patient and Caregiver Outcomes.

Kastrinos A, Schofield E, Moreno A, Korc-Grodzicki B, Nelson C, Alexander K J Cancer Educ. 2023; 39(1):12-17.

PMID: 37676422 PMC: 11232120. DOI: 10.1007/s13187-023-02367-9.


Geriatrics communication skills training program for oncology healthcare providers to improve the management of care for older adults with cancer.

Rosa W, Cannity K, Moreno A, Cardillo C, Schofield E, Korc-Grodzicki B PEC Innov. 2023; 1.

PMID: 36741338 PMC: 9894477. DOI: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2022.100066.


References
1.
Werntoft E, Edberg A . The views of physicians and politicians concerning age-related prioritisation in healthcare. J Health Organ Manag. 2009; 23(1):38-52. DOI: 10.1108/14777260910942542. View

2.
Cho I, Park K, Lim C . An empirical comparative study on biological age estimation algorithms with an application of Work Ability Index (WAI). Mech Ageing Dev. 2009; 131(2):69-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.mad.2009.12.001. View

3.
Rivlin M . Why the fair innings argument is not persuasive. BMC Med Ethics. 2001; 1:E1. PMC: 32192. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-1-1. View

4.
Pace L, Keating N . A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions. JAMA. 2014; 311(13):1327-35. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.1398. View

5.
Puts M, Tapscott B, Fitch M, Howell D, Monette J, Wan-Chow-Wah D . A systematic review of factors influencing older adults' decision to accept or decline cancer treatment. Cancer Treat Rev. 2015; 41(2):197-215. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2014.12.010. View