Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 May 17.
Published in final edited form as: JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jul 1;3(7):e2011645. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.11645

Geographic Variation in Overscreening for Colorectal, Cervical, and Breast Cancer Among Older Adults

Jennifer L Moss 1, Siddhartha Roy 1, Chan Shen 1, Joie D Cooper 1, Robert P Lennon 1, Eugene J Lengerich 1, Alan Adelman 1, William Curry 1, Mack T Ruffin IV 1
PMCID: PMC8127072  NIHMSID: NIHMS1701525  PMID: 32716514

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

National guidelines balance risks and benefits of population-level cancer screening among adults with average risk. Older adults are not recommended to receive routine screening, but many continue to be screened (ie, are overscreened).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence of overscreening for colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers among older adults as well as differences in overscreening by metropolitan status.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The cross-sectional study examined responses to a telephone survey of 176 348 community-dwelling adults. Participants were included if they met age and sex criteria, and they were excluded from each cancer-specific subsample if they had a history of that cancer. Data came from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, administered by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

EXPOSURES

Metropolitan status, according to whether participants lived in a metropolitan statistical area.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Overscreening was assessed using US Preventive Services Task Force definitions, ie, whether participants self-reported having a screening after the recommended upper age limit for colorectal (75 years), cervical (65 years), or breast (74 years) cancer.

RESULTS

Of 176 348 participants (155 411 [88.1%] women; mean [SE] age, 75.0 [0.04] years; 150 871 [85.6%] non-Hispanic white; 60 456 [34.3%] with nonmetropolitan residence) the cancer-specific subsamples contained 20 937 [11.9%] men and 34 244 [19.4%] women for colorectal cancer, 82 811 [47.0%] women for cervical cancer, and 38 356 [21.8%] women for breast cancer. Overall, 9461 men (59.3%; 95% CI, 57.6%−61.1%) were overscreened for colorectal cancer; 14 463 women (56.2%; 95% CI, 54.7%−57.6%), for colorectal cancer; 31 988 women (45.8%; 95% CI, 44.9%−46.7%), for cervical cancer; and 26 198 women (74.1%; 95% CI, 73.0%−75.3%), for breast cancer. Overscreening was more common in metropolitan than nonmetropolitan areas for colorectal cancer among women (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.08–1.39), cervical cancer (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11–1.29), and breast cancer (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.17–1.57). Overscreening for cervical and breast cancers was also associated with having a usual source of care compared with not (eg, cervical cancer: aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.56–2.25; breast cancer: aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.58–2.76), good, very good, or excellent self-reported health compared with fair or poor self-reported health (eg, cervical cancer: aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11–1.32; breast cancer: aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.28–1.69), an educational attainment greater than a high school diploma compared with a high school diploma or less (eg, cervical cancer: aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.06–1.23; breast cancer: aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16–1.46), and being married or living as married compared with other marital status (eg, cervical cancer: OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.26–1.46; breast cancer: OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.34–1.77).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, overscreening for cancer among older adults was high, particularly for women living in metropolitan areas. Overscreening could be associated with health care access and patient-clinician relationships. Additional research on why overscreening persists and how to reduce overscreening is needed to minimize risks associated with cancer screening among older adults.

Introduction

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine screening of average-risk, asymptomatic patients for cancers of the colon and rectum,1 cervix,2 and (female) breast.3 However, recommendations are discontinued after patients reach an upper age limit or develop a disqualifying condition (eg, limited life expectancy). These discontinuations are due to (1) lack of data, because older adults are excluded from screening trials; (2) lower expected benefits of screening because of more serious, noncancer comorbidities among older adults4; and (3) greater expected risks of screening among older adults (eg, gastrointestinal perforation from colonoscopy).5 Other organizations have similar recommendations for cancer screening, although details (eg, eligible ages) vary.6,7

Overscreening refers to routine screening of patients older than the recommended upper age limit or with limited life expectancy.8 Preventing overscreening is challenging for several reasons. First, estimates of life expectancy can be imprecise.9 Second, patients and clinicians may prefer not to discuss life expectancy or factor it into clinical decision-making.10 Third, health care system incentives are frequently linked to high screening rates, encouraging screening regardless of whether it is appropriate for a given patient.11 Fourth, public health campaigns often do not indicate upper age limits for screening, limiting awareness that older adults age out of routine screening.

National prevalence estimates for overscreening have not been reported, and it is unknown how overscreening varies among subgroups. Disparities in appropriate screening among subgroups are well documented; for example, adults in nonmetropolitan areas are less likely to be screened for colorectal cancer (CRC)12 and breast cancer13,14 than adults in metropolitan areas, potentially because of differences in access to screening.15,16

This study fills these gaps by estimating the prevalence of overscreening for colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers and identifying differences in overscreening among subgroups, ie, based on patient characteristics, such as residency in a metropolitan community. An exploratory aim was to examine the association between life expectancy and overscreening.

Methods

Data Source

Data came from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS),17 an annual, nationally representative data set managed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). As part of its core survey, BRFSS monitors health behaviors, chronic health conditions, and preventive health care in the US, including items about cancer screening, approximately every 2 years. Data collection procedures vary, but generally, state health departments contact community-dwelling adults 7 days a week each month using a sampling frame of landline and cellular telephone numbers. The 2018 state-specific response rates (using American Association of Public Opinion Research response rate 418) ranged from 38.8% to 67.2% (mean [SD], 49.8% [6.9%]; median [interquartile range], 49.9% [44.2%−55.0%]).19 Complete details on BRFSS methodology are available online.17 Participants provided verbal informed consent for BRFSS participation. Data collection was approved by the institutional review board at the CDC and review boards of state health departments.17 The present study was exempt from additional institutional review because it involved analysis of publicly available, deidentified data. This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.

Measures

Outcome Variables: Overscreening

All variables were constructed from self-reported responses to BRFSS survey items. We examined overscreening for colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers using USPSTF recommendations.1–3 Specific definitions of overscreening variables were constrained by data availability.17 For each cancer type, we assessed participant sex, age, receipt of screening (ie, colorectal: sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or blood stool test; cervical: Papanicolaou test or human papillomavirus test; breast: mammography), and time since most recent screening.

Participants 76 years or older who were screened for CRC after age 75 years were coded as overscreened and all others as not overscreened (Table 1).1 Women 66 years or older who self-reported screening for cervical cancer after age 65 years were coded as overscreened and all others as not overscreened.2 Women 75 years or older who self-reported being screened for breast cancer after age 74 years were coded as overscreened and all others as not overscreened.3

Table 1.

Definitions of Overscreening for Colorectal, Cervical, and Breast Cancers, Using USPSTF Recommendations

Cancer type USPSTF recommendation Overscreening definition with BRFSS dataa
Colorectalb Adults aged 50–75 y Overscreened if
 with gFOBT every year  age ≥76 and had screening in past 1 y
 with FIT every year  age ≥77 and had screening in past 2 y
 with FIT-DNA every 1 or 3 y  age ≥78 and had screening in past 3 y
 with colonoscopy every 10 y  age ≥80 and had screening in past 5 y
 with CT colonography every 5 y
 with flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 y
 with flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 y plus FIT every year
Cervicalc Women ages 21–29 y Overscreened if
 with cervical cytology every 3 y  age ≥66 and had screening in past 1 y
Women ages 30–65 y  age ≥67 and had screening in past 2 y
 with cervical cytology every 3 y  age ≥68 and had screening in past 3 y
 with hrHPV testing every 5 y  age ≥70 and had screening in past 5 y
 with cervical cytology and hrHPV testing every 5 y
Breastd Women ages 50–74 y Overscreened if
 with mammography every 2 y  age ≥75 and had screening in past 1 y
 age ≥76 and had screening in past 2 y
 age ≥77 and had screening in past 3 y
 age ≥79 and had screening in past 5 y
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: BRFSS, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System; CT, computed tomographic; FIT, fecal immunochemical test; FIT-DNA, multitargeted stool DNA test; gFOBT, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test; hrHPV, high-risk human papillomavirus; USPSTF, US Preventive Services Task Force.

a

Definitions for the current study based on data availability for items in the 2018 BRFSS.17

b

Receipt of some of these tests was assessed in the 2018 BRFSS questionnaire with the 2 following items: “Sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy are exams in which a tube is inserted in the rectum to view the colon for signs of cancer or other health problems. Have you ever had either of these exams?” and “A blood stool test is a test that may use a special kit at home to determine whether the stool contains blood. Have you ever had this test using a home kit?”

c

Receipt of these tests was assessed in the 2018 BRFSS questionnaire with the 2 following items: “A Pap [Papanicolaou] test is a test for cancer of the cervix. Have you ever had a Pap test?” and “An HPV test is sometimes given with the Pap test for cervical cancer screening. Have you ever had an HPV test?”

d

Receipt of this test was assessed in the 2018 BRFSS questionnaire with the following item: “A mammogram is an x-ray of each breast to look for breast cancer. Have you ever had a mammogram?”

Independent Variables

Our primary independent variable was metropolitan residency, assessed with metropolitan statistical area (MSA) codes.17 We coded participants with valid MSA data as metropolitan if they lived in the center city of an MSA, inside the county containing the center city of an MSA, or inside a suburban county of an MSA; all others were coded as nonmetropolitan. We excluded participants from Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands because they did not have valid MSA data.

Control variables included having a usual source of care, self-reported health, educational attainment, marital status, and race/ethnicity. In addition, in the analysis of cervical cancer overscreening, we controlled for history of hysterectomy.

Finally, we estimated 10-year mortality risk (ie, the converse of 10-year life expectancy) using a modified version of an index developed and validated in older adults by Lee et al.20,21 The index is a weighted sum of mortality risk factors (range, 2.5–24.5) (eTable 1 in the Supplement). The items and scoring system for our mortality risk index was modified based on data availability in BRFSS.17

Statistical Analysis

Analyses examined overscreening separately for colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers. Screening for CRC is recommended for men and women, but cervical and breast cancer screenings are only recommended for women; therefore, we stratified analyses of CRC overscreening by sex. Any participant with a history of colorectal, cervical, or breast cancer was excluded from analysis of overscreening for that cancer.

We generated descriptive statistics to summarize the independent variables for each cancer-specific subsample. Next, we calculated the prevalence and 95% CIs of each overscreening outcome. We used bivariate logistic regression to examine the association between metropolitan status and each outcome. Finally, we used multivariable logistic regression to adjust for control variables to quantify the independent association between metropolitan status and overscreening.

We performed 4 supplementary analyses. First, we repeated the multivariable analysis for cervical cancer overscreening, stratifying by participants’ hysterectomy history, given that most women with a total hysterectomy should not receive routine cervical cancer screening.2 Second, to evaluate the extent of overscreening among the oldest participants, we repeated the multivariable analyses stratified by participant age (ie, <80 years vs ≥80 years at the time of BRFSS participation). Third, to evaluate the extent of overscreening among participants with the lowest estimated life expectancy (ie, converse of predicted mortality risk), we repeated the multivariable analyses stratified by scores on the modified mortality risk score (ie, <8 vs ≥8 score, given that Cruz et al21 demonstrated that estimated 10-year risk of mortality surpasses 50% for older adults with scores ≥8). Fourth, to assess the continuous association between life expectancy and overscreening, we used the multivariable models to calculate (1) the association between estimated mortality risk and overscreening and (2) the adjusted probability of overscreening for each cancer across scores on the modified mortality risk index. We plotted these adjusted probabilities, stratified by metropolitan status, to illustrate the association between mortality risk and overscreening.

Analyses were conducted in SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute). All models incorporated sampling weights to account for complex survey design of BRFSS.17 Analyses used a 2-sided P < .05 to determine significance.

Results

Of 176 348 participants (155 411 [88.1%] women; mean [SE] age, 75.0 [0.04] years; 150 871 [85.6%] non-Hispanic white; 60 456 [34.3%] with nonmetropolitan residence), we assessed overscreening among 20 937 (11.9%) men and 34 244 (19.4%) women for CRC, 82 811 (47.0%) women for cervical cancer, and 38 356 (21.8%) women for breast cancer (Table 2). More than 80% of participants lived in a metropolitan area in all 4 subsamples (eg, CRC sample of men: 13 894 participants [82.2%]; cervical cancer sample of women: 54 553 participants [82.2%]). Most participants had a usual source of care (>93% in all subsamples), reported good, very good, or excellent health (>72% in all subsamples), and were non-Hispanic white (>77% in all subsamples). Mean (SE) scores on the modified mortality risk index ranged from 7.03 (0.02) for the cervical cancer subsample to 10.54 (0.04) for the CRC in men subsample.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Groups of Participants Eligible for Overscreening for Cancer, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2018

Characteristic Participants, No. (%)a
Colorectal cancer sample Cervical cancer, women ≥66 y (n = 82 811) Breast cancer, women ≥75 y (n = 38 356)
Men ≥76 y (n = 20 937) Women ≥76 y (n = 34 244)
Metropolitan status
 Nonmetropolitan 7043 (17.8) 11 873 (18.2) 28 258 (17.8) 13 282 (18.2)
 Metropolitan 13 894 (82.2) 22 371 (81.8) 54 553 (82.2) 25 074 (81.8)
Have a usual source of care
 No 1388 (6.8) 1690 (5.5) 4210 (5.2) 1879 (5.4)
 Yes 19 501 (93.2) 32 473 (94.5) 78 440 (94.8) 36 389 (94.6)
Self-reported health
 Fair or poor 5394 (27.9) 8616 (27.8) 18 938 (25.8) 9458 (27.4)
 Good, very good, or excellent 15 543 (72.1) 26 527 (72.2) 63 872 (74.2) 20 725 (72.6)
Educational attainment
 ≤High school degree 7629 (44.5) 16 045 (54.2) 32 709 (46.8) 17 630 (53.3)
 >High school degree 13 308 (55.5) 18 198 (45.8) 50 101 (53.2) 20 725 (46.7)
Marital status
 Other 8949 (38.1) 24 805 (67.2) 49 322 (55.1) 27 147 (65.8)
 Married or living as married 11 988 (61.9) 9437 (32.8) 33 487 (44.9) 11 207 (34.2)
Race/ethnicity
 Non-Hispanic
  White 18 146 (79.2) 29 638 (80.1) 69 954 (77.3) 33 133 (80.2)
  Black 982 (6.9) 2137 (7.9) 5952 (8.9) 2406 (7.8)
 Hispanic 447 (6.8) 711 (6.1) 2176 (7.1) 806 (6.0)
 Other 1362 (7.1) 1757 (5.9) 4728 (6.7) 2010 (6.0)
Hysterectomy
 No NA NA 43 986 (55.5) NA
 Yes NA NA 34 959 (44.5) NA
Mortality Risk Index Score, mean (SE) 10.54 (0.04) 8.55 (0.04) 7.03 (0.02) 8.36 (0.03)
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: NA, not applicable.

a

Each subsample of participants excludes anyone who reported a history of that type of cancer.

Overscreening for CRC Among Men 76 Years or Older

In this subsample, 9461 participants (59.3%; 95% CI, 57.6%−61.1%) were overscreened for CRC. Overscreening was more common in metropolitan (6392 of 11 163 participants [weighted percentage, 60.1%; 95% CI, 58.1%−62.1%]) vs nonmetropolitan areas (3069 of 5432 participants [weighted percentage, 55.8%; 95% CI, 52.5%−59.1%]) (P = .03), but this was not statistically significant in multivariable analysis (Table 3). Compared with other participants, overscreening was more common for Hispanic participants (eg, aOR for Hispanic vs white participants, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.24–2.95). Among men who were overscreened for CRC, the most commonly reported test received was colonoscopy (7146 of 9461 participants [weighted percentage, 74.7%; 95% CI, 72.7%−76.7%]) (eTable 2 in the Supplement).

Table 3.

Multivariable Associations Between Independent Variables and Overscreening for Colorectal, Cervical, and Breast Cancers, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2018

Characteristic aOR (95% CI)
Overscreening for CRCa Overscreening for cervical cancerb Overscreening for breast cancerc
Men Women
No./total No. (%) 9461/16 595 (59.3%) 14 463/26 812 (56.2%) 31 988/74 670 (45.8%) 26 198/35 177 (74.1%)
Metropolitan status
 Nonmetropolitan 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference]
 Metropolitan 1.17 (0.99–1.37) 1.23 (1.08–1.39) 1.20 (1.11–1.29) 1.36 (1.17–1.57)
Have a usual source of care
 No 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference]
 Yes 1.24 (0.89–1.73) 1.18 (0.83–1.69) 1.87 (1.56–2.25) 2.08 (1.58–2.76)
Self-reported health
 Fair or poor 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference]
 Good, very good, or excellent 0.87 (0.74–1.03) 0.96 (0.83–1.11) 1.21 (1.11–1.32) 1.47 (1.28–1.69)
Educational attainment
 ≤High school degree 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference]
 >High school degree 0.97 (0.83–1.13) 0.96 (0.85–1.08) 1.14 (1.06–1.23) 1.30 (1.16–1.46)
Marital status
 Other 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference]
 Married or living as married 1.12 (0.97–1.30) 0.89 (0.78–1.01) 1.36 (1.26–1.46) 1.54 (1.34–1.77)
Race/ethnicity
 Non-Hispanic
  White 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference]
  Black 1.32 (0.97–1.80) 1.27 (1.00–1.61) 2.05 (1.77–2.38) 1.48 (1.09–2.01)
 Hispanic 1.91 (1.24–2.95) 0.96 (0.62–1.46) 2.41 (1.94–3.00) 1.42 (0.97–2.07)
 Other 0.68 (0.45–1.03) 0.91 (0.62–1.34) 1.19 (0.97–1.46) 1.03 (0.79–1.36)
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: CRC, colorectal cancer; aOR, adjusted odds ratio.

a

Data on CRC screening behaviors were missing for 4342 men and 7432 women.

b

Data on cervical cancer screening behavior missing for 8141 women. This model also controlled for hysterectomy history.

c

Data on breast cancer screening behavior missing for 3179 women.

Overscreening for CRC Among Women 76 Years or Older

In this subsample, 14 463 participants (56.2%; 95% CI, 54.7%−57.6%) were overscreened for CRC. Overscreening was more common in metropolitan areas (9731 of 17 750 participants [weighted percentage, 57.0%; 95% CI, 55.3%−58.8%]) vs nonmetropolitan areas (4732 of 9062 participants [weighted percentage, 51.9%; 95% CI, 49.4%−54.4%]) (P < .001), an association that held true in multivariable analysis (aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.08–1.39) (Table 3). Among women who were overscreened for CRC, the most commonly reported test received was colonoscopy (10 543 of 14 463 participants [weighted percentage, 70.3%; 95% CI, 68.5%−72.2%]) (eTable 2 in the Supplement).

Overscreening for Cervical Cancer Among Women 66 Years or Older

In this subsample, 31 988 participants (45.8%; 95% CI, 44.9%−46.7%) were overscreened for cervical cancer. Overscreening was more common in metropolitan areas (21 752 of 49 156 participants [weighted percentage, 47.1%; 95% CI, 46.1%−48.1%]) vs nonmetropolitan areas (10 236 of 25 514 participants [weighted percentage, 40.0%; 95% CI, 38.5%−41.4%]) (P < .001), an association that held true in multivariable analysis (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11–1.29) (Table 3). Overscreening was also more common for participants with a usual source of care compared with those without (aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.56–2.25); for participants with good, very good, or excellent self-reported health compared with those with fair or poor self-reported health (aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11–1.32); for participants who have obtained education beyond a high school degree compared with who had a high school degree or less (aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.06–1.23); for participants who were married or living as married compared with those who were not (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.26–1.46); and for non-Hispanic black or Hispanic patients compared with white patients (non-Hispanic black: aOR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.77–2.38; Hispanic: aOR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.94–3.00). Among women who were overscreened for cervical cancer, almost all participants reported receiving a Papanicolaou test (31 593 of 31 988 participants [weighted percentage, 98.7%; 95% CI, 98.5%−99.0%]) (eTable 2 in the Supplement).

Overscreening was higher among women without a hysterectomy (20 752 of 41 487 participants [weighted percentage, 52.9%; 95% CI, 51.8%−54.1%]) than with a hysterectomy (11 181 of 33 062 participants [weighted percentage, 37.2%; 95% CI, 35.9%−38.5%]) (P < .001) (eTable 3 in the Supplement). For both subsamples, overscreening was more prevalent in metropolitan compared with nonmetropolitan areas, and the association between metropolitan residency and overscreening did not vary by hysterectomy history (overscreening for metropolitan vs nonmetropolitan residents with a hysterectomy: aOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05–1.31; without a hysterectomy: aOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10–1.34; P for interaction = .23).

Overscreening for Breast Cancer Among Women 75 Years or Older

In this subsample, 26 198 participants (74.1%; 95% CI, 73.0%−75.3%) were overscreened for breast cancer. Overscreening was more common in metropolitan areas (17 397 of 23 050 participants [weighted percentage, 75.4%; 95% CI, 74.1%−76.7%]) vs nonmetropolitan areas (8801 of 12 127 participants [weighted percentage, 68.4%; 95% CI, 65.9%−70.9%]) (P < .001), an association that held true in multivariable analysis (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.17–1.57) (Table 3). Compared with other participants, overscreening was more common for participants with a usual source of care compared with those without (aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.58–2.76); for participants with good, very good, or excellent self-reported health compared with those with fair or poor self-reported health (aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.28–1.69); for participants who have obtained education beyond a high school degree compared with those who had a high school degree or less (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16–1.46); for participants who were married or living as married compared with those who were not (aOR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.34–1.77); and for non-Hispanic black patients compared with white patients (non-Hispanic black: aOR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09–2.01). We found high prevalence of overscreening among older adults (>45% for each cancer); in fact, 5408 of 34 244 women aged 76 or older (weighted percentage, 17.1%; 95% CI, 16.1%−18.1%) were overscreened for all 3 cancers.

Associations Between Overscreening for Cancer and Participant Age or Mortality Risk

When comparing participants younger than 80 years with those 80 years or older, overscreening for CRC was higher among older than younger participants (eg, overscreening in men aged <80 years old, 3154 of 6914 participants [weighted percentage, 48.9%; 95% CI, 46.3%−51.5%]; overscreening in men aged ≥80 years, 6307 of 9681 participants [weighted percentage, 67.0%; 95% CI, 64.6%−69.3%]; P < .001), while overscreening for cervical and breast cancers was lower among older participants (eg, overscreening for breast cancer in women aged <80 years, 11 800 of 15 584 participants [weighted percentage, 76.5%; 95% CI, 74.9%−78.0%]; overscreening in women aged ≥80 years, 14 398 of 19 593 participants [weighted percentage, 72.2%; 95% CI, 70.6%−73.9%]; P < .001) (eTable 4 in the Supplement). Overscreening was generally higher in metropolitan than nonmetropolitan areas; however, the association between metropolitan status and overscreening did not vary by age category (eg, overscreening for CRC in men aged <80 years in metropolitan vs nonmetropolitan areas: aOR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.91–1.39] vs overscreening for CRC in men aged ≥80 years in metropolitan vs nonmetropolitan areas: aOR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.92–1.50]; P for interaction = .81).

Overscreening for CRC was higher among participants with high vs low estimated mortality risk (eg, among women, 7714 of 13 538 participants [weighted percentage, 59.7%; 95% CI, 57.7%−61.7%] vs 6749 of 13 274 participants [weighted percentage, 52.6%; 95% CI, 50.4%−54.8%]; P < .001), while overscreening for cervical and breast cancers was lower among participants with high mortality risk vs low mortality risk (8149 of 22 983 participants [weighted percentage, 39.4%; 95% CI, 37.9%−40.9%] vs 23 839 of 51 687 participants [weighted percentage, 48.8%; 95% CI, 47.7%−49.8%]; P < .001 for cervical cancer) (eTable 5 in the Supplement). Overscreening was generally higher in metropolitan than nonmetropolitan areas; however, the association between metropolitan status and overscreening did not vary by predicted mortality risk (eg, overscreening for cervical cancer among women with low estimated 10-year mortality risk in metropolitan vs nonmetropolitan areas; aOR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08–1.30] vs women with high estimated 10-year mortality risk; aOR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.07–1.38]; P for interaction = .61).

The Figure depicts the association between continuous mortality risk scores and overscreening in each subsample. Overscreening for CRC among men was more common as mortality risk increased (ie, as life expectancy decreased) (metropolitan: parameter estimate [est], 0.08; SE, 0.02; P < .001; nonmetropolitan: est, 0.13; SE, 0.02; P < .001); similar findings emerged for overscreening among women (metropolitan: est, 0.05; SE, 0.02; P < .001; nonmetropolitan: est, 0.05; SE, 0.02; P = .01). Mortality risk was negatively associated with overscreening for cervical cancer (metropolitan: est, −0.04; SE, 0.01; P < .001; nonmetropolitan: est, −0.04; SE, 0.01; P < .001) and breast cancer (metropolitan: est, −0.06; SE, 0.01; P < .001; nonmetropolitan: est, −0.05; SE, 0.02; P < .001). None of these effect estimates differed by metropolitan status.

Figure.

Figure.

Open in a new tab

Estimated Probability of Overscreening for Colorectal, Cervical, and Breast Cancer by Estimated 10-Year Mortality Risk, Stratified by Metropolitan Status

Mortality risk index score is calculated using a modification of Lee et al.20,21 Predicted probabilities of overscreening are adjusted for having a usual source of care, self-reported health, educational attainment, marital status, and race/ethnicity; the model assessing overscreening for cervical cancer is also adjusted for hysterectomy history.

Discussion

In this observational study using BRFSS data, we examined overscreening for colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers. To our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating the high prevalence of older adults receiving cancer screenings that are not recommended by USPSTF or supported by randomized clinical trials. This pattern emphasizes the need for additional research to identify risks and benefits of screening in older adults and to determine who may benefit from screening after the recommended upper age limits. In the meantime, interventions to reduce overscreening are needed to improve preventive care, reduce patient harms and health care costs, and increase efficiency of health systems and public health programs.

Overscreening for colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers was higher for women in metropolitan vs nonmetropolitan areas. At least 4 factors may explain these findings. First, clinicians in nonmetropolitan areas may have longer, more trusting relationships with patients,22 which may support conversations about stopping cancer screening. Second, women in nonmetropolitan areas have challenges accessing screening facilities,23,24 which likely limits overscreening and appropriate screening. Third, clinicians in metropolitan areas are more likely to have technology to remind patients to receive screenings25; patients at these clinics may continue to receive screening reminders after it is no longer appropriate. Fourth, people in metropolitan areas have less fatalistic beliefs about cancer,26 which might make them more receptive to screening. Why these factors do not extend to overscreening for CRC among men is unclear.

Geographic maldistribution of health care resources is among the most persistent characteristics of the US health care system.27 For example, family medicine is the most common specialty in nonmetropolitan areas,28 but women in metropolitan areas are more likely to see an obstetrician or gynecologist for cervical and breast cancer screening.29 These women tend to have higher perceived risk for cervical and breast cancer compared with women seen by family physicians,30,31 which could influence screening behaviors.

Guidelines for cancer screening must balance risks (eg, emotional anxiety, unnecessary follow-up procedures) with benefits (eg, population mortality benefit).32 Individuals with limited life expectancy can anticipate fewer benefits from cancer screening, particularly for colonoscopy.1,33–35 We assessed life expectancy using a modified version of a previously validated index20,21 to estimate 10-year mortality risk. Cruz et al21 reported 10-year mortality risk surpassed 50% when participants scored 8 points or more on the index; we detected no meaningful reduction in overscreening when patients passed this threshold. Mortality risk was positively associated with CRC overscreening (although this association was very small), perhaps because patients and clinicians overestimate the benefits of screening.36 In contrast, mortality risk was negatively associated with overscreening for cervical and breast cancers, although this association was very small. End-of-life care and quality of life may be improved by appropriate cessation of cancer screening.

At the population level, we need better data regarding when cancer screening tests become more risky than beneficial for older adults. Based on current scientific understanding, continuing to screen patients who are older and/or have limited life expectancy may cause more harms than benefits. The development of successful interventions to address this problem is thus essential. Previous studies have evaluated electronic health record alerts,37 decision aids,38 and social marketing36,39–41 to reduce overscreening, with mixed results. Another potential approach is to intervene on patient-clinician discussions about screening.39 Patient-clinician conversations that involve shared decision-making are encouraged before prostate cancer screening42,43 and lung cancer screening44; similar conversations may help reduce overscreening with other types of cancer. In addition, public health campaigns should include statements about the upper age limits for cancer screening.

Strengths and Limitations

This study has several strengths. It leveraged a large, national health survey, increasing the representativeness of the findings. In addition, we examined participants’ mortality risk and its association with overscreening, which represents a novel contribution. In terms of study limitations, cancer screening variables are subject to recall bias, which could be especially problematic for CRC screening, which has a long time horizon. We cannot distinguish between cancer screening and surveillance tests. Furthermore, we have no clinical information on participants, including whether they were at above-average risk for cancer, and therefore, screening may still have been appropriate. Also, it is likely that participants in this analysis are healthier than the average US adult older than 65 years, given that institutionalized adults were excluded, and participants had to be healthy enough to complete a lengthy phone survey. As a result of these limitations, the prevalence of overscreening is likely overestimated; future research should validate self-reported screening with health records or claims data to determine the true prevalence of overscreening. Finally, we used current USPSTF recommendations to define overscreening; however, emerging evidence suggests that it may be appropriate to screen women after the current upper age limits for breast cancer45,46 and cervical cancer.47,48 It will be important to monitor the prevalence and trends in the demographic characteristics associated with overscreening as recommendations change.

Conclusions

In this study, overscreening for colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers was high among older adults in the US, particularly for women in metropolitan areas. Importantly, these patterns are not strongly associated with predicted life expectancy. The results of this study can be used by public health, primary care, and health care systems to prevent overscreening. Interventions to reduce overscreening for cancer among older adults are needed to improve preventive care and reduce health care burden, costs, and harms for this population.

Supplementary Material

Moss Overscreening Supplement

eTable 1. Mortality Risk Index

eTable 2. Type of Colorectal or Cervical Cancer Screening Test Used After the Recommended Upper Age Limit Among Older Adults Who Were Overscreened, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2018

eTable 3. Multivariable Associations Between Predictor Variables and Overscreening for Cervical Cancer Among Women Without Versus With a Hysterectomy, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2018

eTable 4. Multivariable Associations Between Predictor Variables and Overscreening for Cancer Among Participants Ages <80 Years Versus 80+ Years, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2018

eTable 5. Multivariable Associations Between Predictor Variables and Overscreening for Cancer Among Participants With Low Versus High Predicted 10-year Mortality Risk, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2018

Key Points.

Question

What are the prevalence and demographic characteristics associated with overscreening for colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers among older adults in the US?

Findings

In a large, nationally representative, cross-sectional telephone survey with 176 348 participants, more than 45% of older adults in the US reported being screened for colorectal, cervical, or breast cancer after the recommended upper age limit, and overscreening for cervical and breast cancer was more common in metropolitan areas. Life expectancy was not associated with overscreening.

Meaning

The findings of this study suggest that interventions to reduce overscreening among older adults are needed at the levels of patients, health care professionals, communities, and systems to reduce patient harms and costs and to increase health care efficiency.

Funding/Support:

This study was supported by National Cancer Institute grant K22 CA225705 (Dr Moss); by an Institutional Research Grant, number IRG 17-175-04, from the American Cancer Society (Dr Roy); by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health grant UL1 TR002014 (Dr Lengerich); and by the Hershey Company Professorship and Dr and Mrs Forney George Fellowship (Dr Ruffin).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor:

The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Publisher's Disclaimer: Disclaimer: The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding sources.

REFERENCES

  • 1.US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: colorectal cancer: screening. Published June 15, 2016. Accessed June 11, 2020. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/colorectal-cancer-screening2
  • 2.US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: cervical cancer: screening. Published August 21, 2018. Accessed June 11, 2020. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/cervical-cancer-screening2
  • 3.US Preventive Services Task Force. Final update summary: breast cancer: screening. January 11, 2016. Accessed June 11, 2020. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/breast-cancer-screening
  • 4.Terret C, Castel-Kremer E, Albrand G, Droz JP. Effects of comorbidity on screening and early diagnosis of cancer in elderly people. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(1):80–87. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70336-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Arora G, Mannalithara A, Singh G, Gerson LB, Triadafilopoulos G. Risk of perforation from a colonoscopy in adults: a large population-based study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(3 Pt 2):654–664. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.09.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(7):1016–1030. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2017.174 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Smith RA, Andrews K, Brooks D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2016: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(2):96–114. doi: 10.3322/caac.21336 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ebell M, Herzstein J. Improving quality by doing less: overscreening. Am Fam Physician. 2015;91(1):22–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Clarke MG, Ewings P, Hanna T, Dunn L, Girling T, Widdison AL. How accurate are doctors, nurses, and medical students at predicting life expectancy? Eur J Intern Med. 2009;20(6):640–644. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2009.06.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Schoenborn NL, Lee K, Pollack CE, et al. Older adults’ preferences for when and how to discuss life expectancy in primary care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2017;30(6):813–815. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2017.06.170067 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Resnick MJ, Graves AJ, Thapa S, et al. Medicare Accountable Care Organization enrollment and appropriateness of cancer screening. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(5):648–654. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.8087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Anderson AE, Henry KA, Samadder NJ, Merrill RM, Kinney AY. Rural vs urban residence affects risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11(5):526–533. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.11.025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Doescher MP, Jackson JE. Trends in cervical and breast cancer screening practices among women in rural and urban areas of the United States. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2009;15(3):200–209. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181a117da [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Moss JL, Liu B, Feuer EJ. Urban/rural differences in breast and cervical cancer incidence: the mediating roles of socioeconomic status and provider density. Womens Health Issues. 2017;27(6):683–691. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2017.09.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Belasco EJ, Gong G, Pence B, Wilkes E. The impact of rural health care accessibility on cancer-related behaviors and outcomes. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12(4):461–470. doi: 10.1007/s40258-014-0099-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Onega T, Alford-Teaster J, Wang F. Population-based geographic access to parent and satellite National Cancer Institute Cancer Center facilities. Cancer. 2017;123(17):3305–3311. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30727 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Updated November 5, 2019. Accessed June 11, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/
  • 18.American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Revised 2016. Accessed June 11, 2020. http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/Standard-Definitions20169theditionfinal.pdf
  • 19.US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System: 2018 summary data quality report. Published July 17, 2019. Accessed June 11, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/annual_data/2018/pdf/2018-sdqr-508.pdf
  • 20.Lee SJ, Lindquist K, Segal MR, Covinsky KE. Development and validation of a prognostic index for 4-year mortality in older adults. JAMA. 2006;295(7):801–808. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.7.801 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cruz M, Covinsky K, Widera EW, Stijacic-Cenzer I, Lee SJ. Predicting 10-year mortality for older adults. JAMA. 2013;309(9):874–876. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.1184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Donahue KE, Ashkin E, Pathman DE. Length of patient-physician relationship and patients’ satisfaction and preventive service use in the rural south: a cross-sectional telephone study. BMC Fam Pract. 2005;6(1):40. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-6-40 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Onega T, Hubbard R, Hill D, et al. Geographic access to breast imaging for US women. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11(9):874–882. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.03.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Aboagye JK, Kaiser HE, Hayanga AJ. Rural-urban differences in access to specialist providers of colorectal cancer care in the United States: a physician workforce issue. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(6):537–543. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.5062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Engelman KK, Ellerbeck EF, Perpich D, Nazir N, McCarter K, Ahluwalia JS. Office systems and their influence on mammography use in rural and urban primary care. J Rural Health. 2004;20(1):36–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2004.tb00005.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Befort CA, Nazir N, Engelman K, Choi W. Fatalistic cancer beliefs and information sources among rural and urban adults in the USA. J Cancer Educ. 2013;28(3):521–526. doi: 10.1007/s13187-013-0496-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rosenthal MB, Zaslavsky A, Newhouse JP. The geographic distribution of physicians revisited. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(6 pt 1):1931–1952. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00440.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rosenblatt RA, Hart LG. Physicians and rural America. West J Med. 2000;173(5):348–351. doi: 10.1136/ewjm.173.5.348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Health Disparities in Rural Women. Committee Opinion; 586; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Rubinstein WS, Acheson LS, O’Neill SM, et al. ; Family Healthware Impact Trial (FHITr) Group. Clinical utility of family history for cancer screening and referral in primary care: a report from the Family Healthware Impact Trial. Genet Med. 2011;13(11):956–965. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182241d88 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rubinstein WS, O’neill SM, Rothrock N, et al. Components of family history associated with women’s disease perceptions for cancer: a report from the Family Healthware Impact Trial. Genet Med. 2011;13(1):52–62. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181fbe485 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Curry SJ, Byers T, Hewitt M, eds; Institute of Medicine (US), National Research Council (US), National Cancer Policy Board. Fulfilling the Potential of Cancer Prevention and Early Detection. National Academies Press; 2003. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Day LW, Velayos F. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in the elderly: updates and controversies. Gut Liver. 2015;9(2):143–151. doi: 10.5009/gnl14302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wilson JAP. Colon cancer screening in the elderly: when do we stop? Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2010;121:94–103. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2576–2594. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.3332 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kobayashi LC, von Wagner C, Wardle J. Perceived life expectancy is associated with colorectal cancer screening in England. Ann Behav Med. 2017;51(3):327–336. doi: 10.1007/s12160-016-9855-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Teoh D, Vogel RI, Langer A, et al. Effect of an electronic health record decision support alert to decrease excess cervical cancer screening. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2019;23(4):253–258. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000484 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Schonberg MA, Kistler CE, Pinheiro A, et al. Effect of a mammography screening decision aid for women 75 years and older: a cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(6):831–842. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Torke AM, Schwartz PH, Holtz LR, Montz K, Sachs GA. Older adults and forgoing cancer screening: “I think it would be strange.” JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):526–531. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2903 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lewis CL, Kistler CE, Amick HR, et al. Older adults’ attitudes about continuing cancer screening later in life: a pilot study interviewing residents of two continuing care communities. BMC Geriatr. 2006;6:10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-6-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lewis CL, Couper MP, Levin CA, Pignone MP, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Plans to stop cancer screening tests among adults who recently considered screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(8):859–864. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1346-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bowen DJ, Hannon PA, Harris JR, Martin DP. Prostate cancer screening and informed decision-making: provider and patient perspectives. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2011;14(2):155–161. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2010.55 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bhuyan SS, Chandak A, Gupta N, et al. Patient-provider communication about prostate cancer screening and treatment: new evidence from the Health Information National Trends Survey. Am J Mens Health. 2017;11(1):134–146. doi: 10.1177/1557988315614082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Chalian H, Khoshpouri P, Iranmanesh AM, Mammarappallil JG, Assari S. Lung cancer screening patient-provider discussion: where do we stand and what are the associated factors? SAGE Open Med. 2019;7: 2050312119854265. doi: 10.1177/2050312119854265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Oeffinger KC, Fontham ETH, Etzioni R, et al. ; American Cancer Society. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599–1614. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.12783 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Dehal A, Abbas A, Johna S. Comorbidity and outcomes after surgery among women with breast cancer: analysis of nationwide in-patient sample database. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;139(2):469–476. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2543-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Dinkelspiel H, Fetterman B, Poitras N, et al. Screening history preceding a diagnosis of cervical cancer in women age 65 and older. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(2):203–206. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Castañón A, Landy R, Cuzick J, Sasieni P. Cervical screening at age 50–64 years and the risk of cervical cancer at age 65 years and older: population-based case control study. PLoS Med. 2014;11(1):e1001585–e1001585. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001585 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Moss Overscreening Supplement

eTable 1. Mortality Risk Index

eTable 2. Type of Colorectal or Cervical Cancer Screening Test Used After the Recommended Upper Age Limit Among Older Adults Who Were Overscreened, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2018

eTable 3. Multivariable Associations Between Predictor Variables and Overscreening for Cervical Cancer Among Women Without Versus With a Hysterectomy, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2018

eTable 4. Multivariable Associations Between Predictor Variables and Overscreening for Cancer Among Participants Ages <80 Years Versus 80+ Years, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2018

eTable 5. Multivariable Associations Between Predictor Variables and Overscreening for Cancer Among Participants With Low Versus High Predicted 10-year Mortality Risk, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2018

NIHMS1701525-supplement-Moss_Overscreening_Supplement.pdf (597.4KB, pdf)

RESOURCES