OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of patient self-report of skin cancer history. DESIGN: A cohort of patients was randomly selected from the case group in a prior case-control study involving skin cancer, and a second cohort was randomly selected from the controls of that study. Patient self-reported history (as determined by responses to a survey) was compared with the gold standard of chart documentation of a pathology report or a procedure note from Mohs micrographic surgery demonstrating skin cancer. SETTING: University-based outpatient dermatology clinic. PATIENTS: Three hundred patients were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients were considered to have correctly classified their skin cancer history if their self-reported history was consistent with chart documentation. RESULTS: We obtained chart information for 258 patients.Of those patients, 183 (70.9%) had chart documentation of nonmelanoma skin cancer, and 16 (6.2%) had chart documentation of a melanoma. Using chart documentation as the gold standard, we found that patients correctly identified their basal cell carcinoma status in 84.3% of cases; their squamous cell carcinoma status in 81.5% of cases; their overall nonmelanoma skin cancer status in 91.8% of cases; their melanoma status in 94.8% of cases; and their overall skin cancer status in 92.6% of cases. Patients' self-reported history of skin cancer of any type had a positive predictive value of 95.1% and a negative predictive value of 85.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported history of skin cancer had a high degree of sensitivity and specificity and a high positive and negative predictive value within the study population. Obtaining medical information by patient report appears to be a useful tool for determining medical history of skin cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of patient self-report of skin cancer history. DESIGN: A cohort of patients was randomly selected from the case group in a prior case-control study involving skin cancer, and a second cohort was randomly selected from the controls of that study. Patient self-reported history (as determined by responses to a survey) was compared with the gold standard of chart documentation of a pathology report or a procedure note from Mohs micrographic surgery demonstrating skin cancer. SETTING: University-based outpatient dermatology clinic. PATIENTS: Three hundred patients were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients were considered to have correctly classified their skin cancer history if their self-reported history was consistent with chart documentation. RESULTS: We obtained chart information for 258 patients.Of those patients, 183 (70.9%) had chart documentation of nonmelanoma skin cancer, and 16 (6.2%) had chart documentation of a melanoma. Using chart documentation as the gold standard, we found that patients correctly identified their basal cell carcinoma status in 84.3% of cases; their squamous cell carcinoma status in 81.5% of cases; their overall nonmelanoma skin cancer status in 91.8% of cases; their melanoma status in 94.8% of cases; and their overall skin cancer status in 92.6% of cases. Patients' self-reported history of skin cancer of any type had a positive predictive value of 95.1% and a negative predictive value of 85.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported history of skin cancer had a high degree of sensitivity and specificity and a high positive and negative predictive value within the study population. Obtaining medical information by patient report appears to be a useful tool for determining medical history of skin cancer.
Authors: Jessica T Kubo; Michael T Henderson; Manisha Desai; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Marcia L Stefanick; Jean Y Tang Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Jean Y Tang; Teresa Fu; Erin Leblanc; Joann E Manson; David Feldman; Eleni Linos; Mara Z Vitolins; Nathalie C Zeitouni; Joseph Larson; Marcia L Stefanick Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lisa Wuerdeman; Lynn Volk; Lisa Pizziferri; Ruslana Tsurikova; Cathyann Harris; Raisa Feygin; Marianna Epstein; Kimberly Meyers; Jonathan S Wald; David Lansky; David W Bates Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2005
Authors: Jean Y Tang; Katrina M Spaunhurst; Rowan T Chlebowski; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Elizabeth Keiser; Fridtjof Thomas; Matthew L Anderson; Nathalie C Zeitouni; Joseph C Larson; Marcia L Stefanick Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Emily McDonald; D Michal Freedman; Bruce H Alexander; Michele M Doody; Margaret A Tucker; Martha S Linet; Elizabeth K Cahoon Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jean Y Tang; Neeta Parimi; Angela Wu; W John Boscardin; James M Shikany; Mary-Margaret Chren; Steven R Cummings; Ervin H Epstein; Douglas C Bauer Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.506