BACKGROUND: Although family history of cancer is widely ascertained in research and clinical care, little is known about assessment methods, accuracy, or other quality measures. Given its widespread use in cancer screening and surveillance, better information is needed about the clarity and accuracy of family history information reported in the general population. METHODS: This telephone survey in Connecticut examined coherence and completeness of reports from 1,019 respondents about 20,504 biological relatives. RESULTS: Of 2,657 cancer reports, 97.7% were judged consistent with malignancy (versus benign or indeterminate conditions); 79% were site specific, 10.1% had unspecified cancer sites, and 8.6% had "ill-defined" sites. Only 6.1% of relatives had unknown histories. Unknown histories and ambiguous sites were significantly higher for second-degree relatives. The adjusted percentage of first-degree relative reports with ambiguous sites increased with decreasing education and African-American race of survey respondents, and with deceased vital status of relatives. Ambiguous second-degree relative reports were also associated with deceased vital status and with male gender of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that family history of cancer reports from the general population are generally complete and coherent. IMPACT: Strategies are needed to improve site specificity and thus maximize the utility of such information in primary care settings.
BACKGROUND: Although family history of cancer is widely ascertained in research and clinical care, little is known about assessment methods, accuracy, or other quality measures. Given its widespread use in cancer screening and surveillance, better information is needed about the clarity and accuracy of family history information reported in the general population. METHODS: This telephone survey in Connecticut examined coherence and completeness of reports from 1,019 respondents about 20,504 biological relatives. RESULTS: Of 2,657 cancer reports, 97.7% were judged consistent with malignancy (versus benign or indeterminate conditions); 79% were site specific, 10.1% had unspecifiedcancer sites, and 8.6% had "ill-defined" sites. Only 6.1% of relatives had unknown histories. Unknown histories and ambiguous sites were significantly higher for second-degree relatives. The adjusted percentage of first-degree relative reports with ambiguous sites increased with decreasing education and African-American race of survey respondents, and with deceased vital status of relatives. Ambiguous second-degree relative reports were also associated with deceased vital status and with male gender of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that family history of cancer reports from the general population are generally complete and coherent. IMPACT: Strategies are needed to improve site specificity and thus maximize the utility of such information in primary care settings.
Authors: Eugene C Rich; Wylie Burke; Caryl J Heaton; Susanne Haga; Linda Pinsky; M Priscilla Short; Louise Acheson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Suzanne M O'Neill; Wendy S Rubinstein; Catharine Wang; Paula W Yoon; Louise S Acheson; Nan Rothrock; Erin J Starzyk; Jennifer L Beaumont; James M Galliher; Mack T Ruffin Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Paula W Yoon; Maren T Scheuner; Kris L Peterson-Oehlke; Marta Gwinn; Andrew Faucett; Muin J Khoury Journal: Genet Med Date: 2002 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Kristin B Niendorf; Melissa A Geller; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Timothy R Church; Anna Leininger; Angela Bakke; Robert D Madoff Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Sapna Syngal; Randall E Brand; James M Church; Francis M Giardiello; Heather L Hampel; Randall W Burt Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Mirar Bristol; Susan M Domchek; Peter W Groeneveld; Younji Kim; U Nkiru Motanya; Judy A Shea; Katrina Armstrong Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Margaret Sin; Julia E McGuinness; Meghna S Trivedi; Alejandro Vanegas; Thomas B Silverman; Katherine D Crew; Rita Kukafka Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Julia E McGuinness; Meghna S Trivedi; Thomas Silverman; Awilda Marte; Jennie Mata; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew Journal: Cancer Genet Date: 2019-04-24
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