Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 May 9;18(1):546.
doi: 10.1186/s12885-018-4456-9.

Clinical decision making in cancer care: a review of current and future roles of patient age

Affiliations
Review

Clinical decision making in cancer care: a review of current and future roles of patient age

Eirik Joakim Tranvåg et al. BMC Cancer. .

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.

Keywords: Age; Age factors; Clinical practice; Decision making; Oncology; Personalized medicine; Priority setting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The flow of information through our scoping review

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. National Cancer Equality Initiative . The impact of patient age on decision making in oncology. London: Department of Health; 2012.
    1. Werntoft E, Edberg A-K. 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. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rogge J, Kittel B. Who shall not be treated: public attitudes on setting health care priorities by person-based criteria in 28 nations. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0157018. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157018. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Diederich A, Winkelhage J, Wirsik N. Age as a criterion for setting priorities in health care? A survey of the German public view. PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e23930. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023930. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gu Y, Lancsar E, Ghijben P, Butler JRG, Donaldson C. Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: a systematic review of what counts and to what extent. Soc Sci Med. 2015;146:41–52. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.10.005. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources