J E Cleophat1,2,3, H Nabi1,3,4, S Pelletier1,3, K Bouchard1,3, M Dorval1,2,3,5. 1. Centre de recherche du chu de Québec, Axe Oncologie, Quebec City, QC. 2. Université Laval, Faculté de pharmacie, Quebec City, QC. 3. Centre de recherche sur le cancer, Quebec City, QC. 4. inserm, U1018, Centre de recherche en épidémiologie et santé des populations, Villejuif, France. 5. Centre de recherche du cisss Chaudière-Appalaches, Lévis, QC.
Abstract
Background: Many tools have been developed for the standardized collection of cancer family history (fh). However, it remains unclear which tools have the potential to help health professionals overcome traditional barriers to collecting such histories. In this review, we describe the characteristics, validation process, and performance of existing tools and appraise the extent to which those tools can support health professionals in identifying and managing at-risk individuals. Methods: Studies were identified through searches of the medline, embase, and Cochrane central databases from October 2015 to September 2016. Articles were included if they described a cancer fh collection tool, its use, and its validation process. Results: Based on seventy-nine articles published between February 1978 and September 2016, 62 tools were identified. Most of the tools were paper-based and designed to be self-administered by lay individuals. One quarter of the tools could automatically produce pedigrees, provide cancer-risk assessment, and deliver evidence-based recommendations. One third of the tools were validated against a standard reference for collected fh quality and cancer-risk assessment. Only 3 tools were integrated into an electronic health records system. Conclusions: In the present review, we found no tool with characteristics that might make it an efficient clinical support for health care providers in cancer-risk identification and management. Adequately validated tools that are connected to electronic health records are needed to encourage the systematic identification of individuals at increased risk of cancer.
Background: Many tools have been developed for the standardized collection of cancer family history (fh). However, it remains unclear which tools have the potential to help health professionals overcome traditional barriers to collecting such histories. In this review, we describe the characteristics, validation process, and performance of existing tools and appraise the extent to which those tools can support health professionals in identifying and managing at-risk individuals. Methods: Studies were identified through searches of the medline, embase, and Cochrane central databases from October 2015 to September 2016. Articles were included if they described a cancer fh collection tool, its use, and its validation process. Results: Based on seventy-nine articles published between February 1978 and September 2016, 62 tools were identified. Most of the tools were paper-based and designed to be self-administered by lay individuals. One quarter of the tools could automatically produce pedigrees, provide cancer-risk assessment, and deliver evidence-based recommendations. One third of the tools were validated against a standard reference for collected fh quality and cancer-risk assessment. Only 3 tools were integrated into an electronic health records system. Conclusions: In the present review, we found no tool with characteristics that might make it an efficient clinical support for health care providers in cancer-risk identification and management. Adequately validated tools that are connected to electronic health records are needed to encourage the systematic identification of individuals at increased risk of cancer.
Authors: Meghan L Tipsword; Peter S White; Christine G Spaeth; Richard F Ittenbach; Melanie F Myers Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Daniel Chavez-Yenter; Melody S Goodman; Yuyu Chen; Xiangying Chu; Richard L Bradshaw; Rachelle Lorenz Chambers; Priscilla A Chan; Brianne M Daly; Michael Flynn; Amanda Gammon; Rachel Hess; Cecelia Kessler; Wendy K Kohlmann; Devin M Mann; Rachel Monahan; Sara Peel; Kensaku Kawamoto; Guilherme Del Fiol; Meenakshi Sigireddi; Saundra S Buys; Ophira Ginsburg; Kimberly A Kaphingst Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-10-03
Authors: Marie T Kumerow; Juan L Rodriguez; Shifan Dai; Katherine Kolor; Melissa Rotunno; Lucy A Peipins Journal: Prev Med Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 4.637
Authors: Kathleen F Mittendorf; Hannah S Lewis; Devan M Duenas; Donna J Eubanks; Marian J Gilmore; Katrina A B Goddard; Galen Joseph; Tia L Kauffman; Stephanie A Kraft; Nangel M Lindberg; Ana A Reyes; Elizabeth Shuster; Sapna Syngal; Chinedu Ukaegbu; Jamilyn M Zepp; Benjamin S Wilfond; Kathryn M Porter Journal: Hered Cancer Clin Pract Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Anna J Dare; Gregory C Knapp; Anya Romanoff; Olalekan Olasehinde; Olusola C Famurewa; Akinwumi O Komolafe; Samuel Olatoke; Aba Katung; Olusegun I Alatise; T Peter Kingham Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2021-09-10
Authors: Xuan Li; Ryan M Kahn; Noelani Wing; Zhen Ni Zhou; Andreas Ian Lackner; Hannah Krinsky; Nora Badiner; Rhea Fogla; Isabel Wolfe; Hannah Bergeron; Becky Baltich Nelson; Charlene Thomas; Paul J Christos; Ravi N Sharaf; Evelyn Cantillo; Kevin Holcomb; Eloise Chapman-Davis; Melissa K Frey Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2021-06