BACKGROUND: Knowledge of family cancer history is essential for estimating an individual's cancer risk and making clinical recommendations regarding screening and referral to a specialty cancer genetics clinic. However, it is not clear if reported family cancer history is sufficiently accurate for this purpose. METHODS: In the population-based 2001 Connecticut Family Health Study, 1019 participants reported on 20 578 first-degree relatives (FDR) and second-degree relatives (SDR). Of those, 2605 relatives were sampled for confirmation of cancer reports on breast, colorectal, prostate, and lung cancer. Confirmation sources included state cancer registries, Medicare databases, the National Death Index, death certificates, and health-care facility records. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for reports on lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer and after stratification by sex, age, education, and degree of relatedness and used to estimate report accuracy. Pairwise t tests were used to evaluate differences between the two strata in each stratified analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Overall, sensitivity and positive predictive value were low to moderate and varied by cancer type: 60.2% and 40.0%, respectively, for lung cancer reports, 27.3% and 53.5% for colorectal cancer reports, 61.1% and 61.3% for breast cancer reports, and 32.0% and 53.4% for prostate cancer reports. Specificity and negative predictive value were more than 95% for all four cancer types. Cancer history reports on FDR were more accurate than reports on SDR, with reports on FDR having statistically significantly higher sensitivity for prostate cancer than reports on SDR (58.9% vs 21.5%, P = .002) and higher positive predictive value for lung (78.1% vs 31.7%, P < .001), colorectal (85.8% vs 43.5%, P = .004), and breast cancer (79.9% vs 53.6%, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: General population reports on family history for the four major adult cancers were not highly accurate. Efforts to improve accuracy are needed in primary care and other health-care settings in which family history is collected to ensure appropriate risk assessment and clinical care recommendations.
BACKGROUND: Knowledge of family cancer history is essential for estimating an individual's cancer risk and making clinical recommendations regarding screening and referral to a specialty cancer genetics clinic. However, it is not clear if reported family cancer history is sufficiently accurate for this purpose. METHODS: In the population-based 2001 Connecticut Family Health Study, 1019 participants reported on 20 578 first-degree relatives (FDR) and second-degree relatives (SDR). Of those, 2605 relatives were sampled for confirmation of cancer reports on breast, colorectal, prostate, and lung cancer. Confirmation sources included state cancer registries, Medicare databases, the National Death Index, death certificates, and health-care facility records. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for reports on lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer and after stratification by sex, age, education, and degree of relatedness and used to estimate report accuracy. Pairwise t tests were used to evaluate differences between the two strata in each stratified analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Overall, sensitivity and positive predictive value were low to moderate and varied by cancer type: 60.2% and 40.0%, respectively, for lung cancer reports, 27.3% and 53.5% for colorectal cancer reports, 61.1% and 61.3% for breast cancer reports, and 32.0% and 53.4% for prostate cancer reports. Specificity and negative predictive value were more than 95% for all four cancer types. Cancer history reports on FDR were more accurate than reports on SDR, with reports on FDR having statistically significantly higher sensitivity for prostate cancer than reports on SDR (58.9% vs 21.5%, P = .002) and higher positive predictive value for lung (78.1% vs 31.7%, P < .001), colorectal (85.8% vs 43.5%, P = .004), and breast cancer (79.9% vs 53.6%, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: General population reports on family history for the four major adult cancers were not highly accurate. Efforts to improve accuracy are needed in primary care and other health-care settings in which family history is collected to ensure appropriate risk assessment and clinical care recommendations.
Authors: M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1989-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David A Barzilai; Siran M Koroukian; Duncan Neuhauser; Kevin D Cooper; Alfred A Rimm; Gregory S Cooper Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 2.506
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: Aubrey R Turner; Brian R Lane; Dan Rogers; Isaac Lipkus; Kathryn Weaver; Suzanne C Danhauer; Zheng Zhang; Fang-Chi Hsu; Sabrina L Noyes; Tamara Adams; Helga Toriello; Thomas Monroe; Trudy McKanna; Tracey Young; Ryan Rodarmer; Richard J Kahnoski; Mouafak Tourojman; A Karim Kader; S Lilly Zheng; William Baer; Jianfeng Xu Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Simon Lucas Goede; Linda Rabeneck; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Ann G Zauber; Lawrence F Paszat; Jeffrey S Hoch; Jean H E Yong; Frank van Hees; Jill Tinmouth; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2015-02-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Arpita Ghosh; Patricia Hartge; Peter Kraft; Amit D Joshi; Regina G Ziegler; Myrto Barrdahl; Stephen J Chanock; Sholom Wacholder; Nilanjan Chatterjee Journal: Genet Epidemiol Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 2.135
Authors: Esther M John; Alison J Canchola; Meera Sangaramoorthy; Jocelyn Koo; Alice S Whittemore; Dee W West Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 4.254
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: Phuong L Mai; Susan Thomas Vadaparampil; Nancy Breen; Timothy S McNeel; Louise Wideroff; Barry I Graubard Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: John M Quillin; Alexander H Krist; Maria Gyure; Rosalie Corona; Vivian Rodriguez; Joseph Borzelleca; Joann N Bodurtha Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2013-07-20