Literature DB >> 16341808

Behavioral and economic impact of a familial history of cancers.

Francois Eisinger1, Carole Tarpin, Laetitia Huiart, Doug Horsman, Laetitia Rabayrol, Remi Didelot, Claire Julian-Reynier, Hagay Sobol.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Misunderstanding of cancer screening recommendations or messages and confidence in the predictive value of positive familial history of disease may converge to stimulate an over-utilization of screening tests in oncology by patients who perceive themselves to be at high risk.
METHODS: A survey looking for predictors of the uptake of five cancer screening tests (mammography, colonoscopy, Fecal Occult Blood Test, upper digestive tract endoscopy and chest X-ray) was carried out on 4000 healthy adults (mean age 46.4 years).
FINDINGS: Based on the results of a multivariate analysis, the survey enlightens the existing relationships between familial history and increasing uptake of medical cancer screening tests, with OR ranging from 1.3 (IC 1.0-1.6) for chest X-ray to 3.0 (IC 2.1-4.1) for colonoscopy. In France (60 million inhabitants), a conservative assessment of the annual net number of unhelpful screening tests attributable to positive family history of related cancer with chest X-ray and Upper digestive tract endoscopy lead to a figure of 7000 and 7800 tests respectively corresponding to a total annual cost of more than Euro 7, million.
INTERPRETATION: Clearer messages about hereditary risks and transparency about the efficacy of screening tests are required in order to decrease over utilization of screening tests and their related costs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16341808     DOI: 10.1007/s10689-005-3143-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Cancer        ISSN: 1389-9600            Impact factor:   2.375


  10 in total

1.  Lung cancer screening: recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-05-04       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Predictors of perceived breast cancer risk and the relation between perceived risk and breast cancer screening: a meta-analytic review.

Authors:  Maria C Katapodi; Kathy A Lee; Noreen C Facione; Marylin J Dodd
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 3.  Participation in colorectal cancer screening: a review.

Authors:  S W Vernon
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1997-10-01       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  The family history--more important than ever.

Authors:  Alan E Guttmacher; Francis S Collins; Richard H Carmona
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-11-25       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Perceived risk, anxiety, mammogram uptake, and breast self-examination of women with a family history of breast cancer: the role of knowing to be at increased risk.

Authors:  C C Drossaert; H Boer; E R Seydel
Journal:  Cancer Detect Prev       Date:  1996

6.  Prostate cancer screening: predictors of participation.

Authors:  M S Tingen; S P Weinrich; M D Boyd; M C Weinrich
Journal:  J Am Acad Nurse Pract       Date:  1997-12

7.  What is the relationship between breast cancer risk and mammography screening? A meta-analytic review.

Authors:  K D McCaul; A D Branstetter; D M Schroeder; R E Glasgow
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 4.267

8.  Adherence to screening examinations for colorectal cancer after diagnosis in a first-degree relative.

Authors:  J L Richardson; K Danley; G T Mondrus; D Deapen; T Mack
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States.

Authors:  Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin; Floyd J Fowler; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-07       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Knowledge, beliefs, and prior screening behavior among blacks and whites reporting for prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  W Demark-Wahnefried; T Strigo; K Catoe; M Conaway; M Brunetti; B K Rimer; C N Robertson
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 2.649

  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  Phenocopies: actual risk or self-fulfilling prophecy?

Authors:  Francois Eisinger
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 6.318

2.  Cancer survivors: familial risk perception and management advice given to their relatives.

Authors:  Francois Eisinger; Anne Deborah Bouhnik; Laetitia Malavolti; Anne Gaelle Le Corroller-Soriano; Claire Julian-Reynier
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.375

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.