Literature DB >> 12060627

Evaluation of the family history collection process and the accuracy of cancer reporting among a series of women with endometrial cancer.

Jennifer Ivanovich1, Sheri Babb, Paul Goodfellow, David Mutch, Thomas Herzog, Janet Rader, Alison Whelan.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Family history data are critical in the study of hereditary cancer syndromes and the identification of cancer modifier genes.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the process for collecting and verifying reported cancer family histories and identify reporting inaccuracies among a series of women with endometrial cancer. EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: Detailed family histories were obtained from 80 women enrolled in a research study. Medical records were collected to verify cancer reporting.
RESULTS: Participants reported 289 cancers among themselves and 2925 first-, second-, and third-degree relatives. There was a significant relationship between the number of telephone contacts made with each participant and the fraction of records retrieved from hospitals (chi(2) = 23.68, d.f. = 7, P = 0.001). Medical records were retrieved for 102 of 289 (35%) reported cancers and 10 additional cancers, not initially reported by participants. Medical records were more likely to be retrieved if the relative with cancer was living, closely related to the study participant, and the cancer type was known. The success in retrieving medical records declined with increasing record age (chi(2) = 35.07, d.f. = 5, P < 0.001). Thirty-two of the 112 (28.6%) verified cancers were identified to be inaccurately reported, with a significantly higher number of inaccurate reports among second- and third-degree relatives than first-degree relatives (P = 0.02). Two participants, who did not accurately report their cancer family history, had an increase in their family-based risk assessment after medical record collection.
CONCLUSIONS: Additional studies to improve record collection efficiency and identify cancer reporting accuracy are needed among general research populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12060627

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  9 in total

1.  Uterine serous carcinoma: increased familial risk for lynch-associated malignancies.

Authors:  Summer B Dewdney; Nora T Kizer; Abegail A Andaya; Sheri A Babb; Jingqin Luo; David G Mutch; Amy P Schmidt; Louise A Brinton; Russell R Broaddus; Nilsa C Ramirez; Phyllis C Huettner; Donald Scott McMeekin; Kathleen Darcy; Shamshad Ali; Patricia L Judson; Robert S Mannel; Shashikant B Lele; David M O'Malley; Paul J Goodfellow
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2012-01-13

2.  The impact of cancer pathology confirmation on clinical management of a family history of cancer.

Authors:  E Edwards; A Lucassen
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.375

3.  Low accuracy of self-reported family history of melanoma in high-risk patients.

Authors:  Nicholas D Flint; Michael D Bishop; Tristan C Smart; Jennifer L Strunck; Kenneth M Boucher; Douglas Grossman; Aaron M Secrest
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.375

4.  Excess of early onset multiple myeloma in endometrial cancer probands and their relatives suggests common susceptibility.

Authors:  Israel Zighelboim; Sheri Babb; Feng Gao; Matthew A Powell; David G Mutch; Paul J Goodfellow
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2007-03-01       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  Cancer family history reporting: impact of method and psychosocial factors.

Authors:  Kimberly M Kelly; Randi Shedlosky-Shoemaker; Kyle Porter; Amber Remy; Philip DeSimone; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-02-23       Impact factor: 2.717

6.  Family history of breast and ovarian cancer and triple negative subtype in hispanic/latina women.

Authors:  Kristin Anderson; Patricia A Thompson; Betsy C Wertheim; Lorena Martin; Ian K Komenaka; Melissa Bondy; Adrian Daneri-Navarro; Maria Mercedes Meza-Montenegro; Luis Enrique Gutierrez-Millan; Abenaa Brewster; Lisa Madlensky; Malaika Tobias; Loki Natarajan; María Elena Martínez
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2014-12-11

7.  Cumulative evidence for relationships between multiple variants of HNF1B and the risk of prostate and endometrial cancers.

Authors:  Yu Tong; Yi Qu; Shiping Li; Fengyan Zhao; Yibin Wang; Dezhi Mu
Journal:  BMC Med Genet       Date:  2018-07-27       Impact factor: 2.103

8.  Epitope-positive truncating MLH1 mutation and loss of PMS2: implications for IHC-directed genetic testing for Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Israel Zighelboim; Matthew A Powell; Sheri A Babb; Alison J Whelan; Amy P Schmidt; Mark Clendenning; Leigha Senter; Stephen N Thibodeau; Albert de la Chapelle; Paul J Goodfellow
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2009-08-12       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  Risk assessment for endometrial cancer in women with abnormal vaginal bleeding: Results from the prospective IETA-1 cohort study.

Authors:  Jan Yvan Verbakel; Ruben Heremans; Laure Wynants; Elisabeth Epstein; Bavo De Cock; Maria Angela Pascual; Francesco Paolo Giuseppe Leone; Povilas Sladkevicius; Juan Luis Alcazar; Catherine Van Pachterbeke; Ligita Jokubkiene; Robert Fruscio; Tom Bourne; Ben Van Calster; Dirk Timmerman; Thierry Van den Bosch
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 4.447

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.