Literature DB >> 22080962

Self-reported mammography use following BRCA1/2 genetic testing may be overestimated.

Geneviève Larouche1, Karine Bouchard, Jocelyne Chiquette, Christine Desbiens, Jacques Simard, Michel Dorval.   

Abstract

Adherence to mammographic screening recommendations following BRCA1/2 testing is generally assessed through self-reports. However, the validity of self-reported mammography by women who had undergone BRCA1/2 genetic testing is still unknown. This study aimed to assess the validity of self-reported mammography use in the past 12 months among women who had undergone BRCA1/2 testing. Using a self-administered questionnaire, 307 women who never had cancer were asked 1 year following BRCA1/2 test result disclosure whether they undergone a mammography in the past 12 months. For each participant, this information was compared to that provided by the Quebec Health Insurance Board administrative data set for mammography claims during the same period, here considered as the gold standard. Sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), predictive values, and Cohen's kappa (κ) were calculated. The robustness of these estimates was assessed using sensitivity analysis in which we varied the administrative data time lapses up to 18 months. Overall, the agreement between self-reports and administrative data was 88% (κ = 0.74). Among the 180 participants who had a mammography according to the administrative data, 172 adequately reported this information (Sn = 96%). Sp was moderate (76%), meaning that 24% of those who did not have a mammography reported one. Extending the time lapses to 18 months increased the Sp substantially (Sp = 90%). Self-report overestimates the use of mammography, mainly because women tend to minimize the elapsed time since their last mammography. Self-reports should be used cautiously to assess adherence to mammographic screening following BRCA1/2 testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22080962     DOI: 10.1007/s10689-011-9490-6

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


  22 in total

1.  Validity of women's self-reports of cancer screening test utilization in a managed care population.

Authors:  Lee S Caplan; David V McQueen; Judith R Qualters; Marilyn Leff; Carol Garrett; Ned Calonge
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian.

Authors:  Mary B Daly; Jennifer E Axilbund; Eileen Bryant; Saundra Buys; Charis Eng; Susan Friedman; Laura J Esserman; Carolyn D Farrell; James M Ford; Judy E Garber; Joanne M Jeter; Wendy Kohlmann; Patrick M Lynch; P Kelly Marcom; Lisle M Nabell; Kenneth Offit; Raymond U Osarogiagbon; Boris Pasche; Gwen Reiser; Rebecca Sutphen; Jeffrey N Weitzel
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 11.908

3.  Bias associated with self-report of prior screening mammography.

Authors:  Kathleen A Cronin; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Binbing Yu; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Tracy Onega; Eric J Feuer; Nancy Breen; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Validity of self-reported mammography in a multicultural population in Israel.

Authors:  Orna Baron-Epel; Nurit Friedman; Omri Lernau
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2008-03-18       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  Health behaviors and psychological distress in women initiating BRCA1/2 genetic testing: comparison with control population.

Authors:  Michel Dorval; Karine Bouchard; Elizabeth Maunsell; Marie Plante; Jocelyne Chiquette; Stéphanie Camden; Michel J Dugas; Jacques Simard
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2008-05-15       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 6.  Accuracy of self-reports of Pap and mammography screening compared to medical record: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michelle Howard; Gina Agarwal; Alice Lytwyn
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2008-09-19       Impact factor: 2.506

7.  Surveillance behavior and prophylactic surgery after predictive testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Erna Claes; Gerry Evers-Kiebooms; Marleen Decruyenaere; Lieve Denayer; Andrea Boogaerts; Kristien Philippe; Eric Legius
Journal:  Behav Med       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 3.104

8.  Validation study suggested no differential misclassification of self-reported mammography history in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Authors:  Anouk Pijpe; Renée L Mulder; Peggy Manders; Flora E van Leeuwen; Matti A Rookus
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-07-20       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  Evaluation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation prevalence, risk prediction models and a multistep testing approach in French-Canadian families with high risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Jacques Simard; Martine Dumont; Anne-Marie Moisan; Valérie Gaborieau; Hélène Malouin; Francine Durocher; Jocelyne Chiquette; Marie Plante; Denise Avard; Paul Bessette; Claire Brousseau; Michel Dorval; Béatrice Godard; Louis Houde; Yann Joly; Marie-Andrée Lajoie; Gilles Leblanc; Jean Lépine; Bernard Lespérance; Hélène Vézina; Jillian Parboosingh; Roxane Pichette; Louise Provencher; Josée Rhéaume; Daniel Sinnett; Carolle Samson; Jean-Claude Simard; Martine Tranchant; Patricia Voyer; Douglas Easton; Sean V Tavtigian; Bartha-Maria Knoppers; Rachel Laframboise; Peter Bridge; David Goldgar
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2006-08-11       Impact factor: 6.318

Review 10.  Risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Authors:  Janice L Berliner; Angela Musial Fay
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-05-17       Impact factor: 2.717

View more
  6 in total

1.  Validity of self-reported genetic counseling and genetic testing use among breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Heidi A Hamann; Jasmin A Tiro; Joanne M Sanders; Trisha V Melhado; Rachel K Funk; Melissa Y Carpentier; L Kay Bartholomew; Keith E Argenbright; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2013-08-23       Impact factor: 4.442

2.  Do women change their breast cancer mammogram screening behaviour after BRCA1/2 testing?

Authors:  Geneviève Larouche; Jocelyne Chiquette; Sylvie Pelletier; Jacques Simard; Michel Dorval
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 2.375

3.  The validity of self-reported cancer screening history and the role of social disadvantage in Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  Aisha Lofters; Mandana Vahabi; Richard H Glazier
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 3.295

4.  No evidence of excessive cancer screening in female noncarriers from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families.

Authors:  S Guedaoura; S Pelletier; W D Foulkes; P Hamet; J Simard; N Wong; Z El Haffaf; J Chiquette; M Dorval
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 3.677

5.  Accuracy of Self-Reported Screening Mammography Use: Examining Recall among Female Relatives from the Ontario Site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry.

Authors:  Meghan J Walker; Anna M Chiarelli; Lucia Mirea; Gord Glendon; Paul Ritvo; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight
Journal:  ISRN Oncol       Date:  2013-08-01

6.  Lack of validity of self-reported mammography data.

Authors:  Robert S Levine; Barbara J Kilbourne; Maureen Sanderson; Mary K Fadden; Maria Pisu; Jason L Salemi; Maria Carmenza Mejia de Grubb; Heather O'Hara; Baqar A Husaini; Roget J Zoorob; Charles H Hennekens
Journal:  Fam Med Community Health       Date:  2019-01-29
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.