BACKGROUND: Reported family medical history may be the most widely accessible genomics screen currently available. The worth of any population-screening tool may be measured by parameters such as sensitivity and specificity. There is some evidence and theory suggesting that family history of breast cancer may be more frequently communicated about maternal (versus paternal) lines. If true, a discrepancy in reporting family history of breast cancer could mean suboptimal accuracy for this genomics-screening tool. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of reported family history of breast cancer was conducted beginning in early fall 2005 of data collected from April 2003 to March 2005. Study participants were Women's Health Clinic patients without breast cancer aged at least 40 years. The number of women reporting extended paternal relatives (e.g., aunts, grandmothers) with breast cancer was compared to the number of women reporting maternal relatives. RESULTS: More women reported a maternal relative with breast cancer (16%) compared to those reporting paternal relatives (10%) (McNemar odds ratio = 1.71, 95% confidence interval = 1.26 to 2.34). A discrepancy remained in analyses adjusting for potential covariates (race/ethnicity, awareness of breast cancer, family communication about breast cancer, and perceived risk). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported family history of breast cancer may not optimally capture inherited risk from the father's side of the family. Further research is needed to look for modifiable contributors to this discrepancy to optimize screening for familial breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: Reported family medical history may be the most widely accessible genomics screen currently available. The worth of any population-screening tool may be measured by parameters such as sensitivity and specificity. There is some evidence and theory suggesting that family history of breast cancer may be more frequently communicated about maternal (versus paternal) lines. If true, a discrepancy in reporting family history of breast cancer could mean suboptimal accuracy for this genomics-screening tool. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of reported family history of breast cancer was conducted beginning in early fall 2005 of data collected from April 2003 to March 2005. Study participants were Women's Health Clinic patients without breast cancer aged at least 40 years. The number of women reporting extended paternal relatives (e.g., aunts, grandmothers) with breast cancer was compared to the number of women reporting maternal relatives. RESULTS: More women reported a maternal relative with breast cancer (16%) compared to those reporting paternal relatives (10%) (McNemar odds ratio = 1.71, 95% confidence interval = 1.26 to 2.34). A discrepancy remained in analyses adjusting for potential covariates (race/ethnicity, awareness of breast cancer, family communication about breast cancer, and perceived risk). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported family history of breast cancer may not optimally capture inherited risk from the father's side of the family. Further research is needed to look for modifiable contributors to this discrepancy to optimize screening for familial breast cancer.
Authors: Beata Bielinska; Pawel Gaj; Anna Kluska; Dorota Nowakowska; Aneta Balabas; Michalina Dabrowska; Anna Niwinska; Jakub Gruchota; Renata Zub; Elzbieta Skasko; Jan Steffen; Jerzy Ostrowski; Janusz A Siedlecki Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Haley Streff; Jessica Profato; Yuanqing Ye; Denise Nebgen; Susan K Peterson; Claire Singletary; Banu K Arun; Jennifer K Litton Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-06-15
Authors: Catharine Wang; Ananda Sen; Melissa Plegue; Mack T Ruffin; Suzanne M O'Neill; Wendy S Rubinstein; Louise S Acheson Journal: Prev Med Date: 2015-04-19 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Elissa M Ozanne; Adrienne O'Connell; Colleen Bouzan; Phil Bosinoff; Taryn Rourke; Dana Dowd; Brian Drohan; Fred Millham; Pat Griffin; Elkan F Halpern; Alan Semine; Kevin S Hughes Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: John M Quillin; Joann N Bodurtha; Donna K McClish; Kristyn N Hoy; Ian J Wallace; Alice Westerberg; Steven J Danish Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Wylie Burke; Julie Culver; Linda Pinsky; Sarah Hall; Susan E Reynolds; Yutaka Yasui; Nancy Press Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Esme Finlay; Jill E Stopfer; Eric Burlingame; Katherine Goldfeder Evans; Katherine L Nathanson; Barbara L Weber; Katrina Armstrong; Timothy R Rebbeck; Susan M Domchek Journal: Genet Test Date: 2008-03
Authors: Mary Pritzlaff; Arielle Yorczyk; Linda S Robinson; Sara Pirzadeh-Miller; Tirun Lin; David Euhus; Theodora S Ross Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 2.537