Literature DB >> 9521182

Validity of self-reported cancers in a prospective cohort study in comparison with data from state cancer registries.

M M Bergmann1, E E Calle, C A Mervis, H L Miracle-McMahill, M J Thun, C W Heath.   

Abstract

The accuracy of self-reported cancer diagnoses in a prospective study was compared with population-based cancer registry data in four states. The study cohort included 65,582 men and women aged 39-96 years who were participants in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Survey, begun by the American Cancer Society in 1992. Estimates of sensitivity (the proportion of study participants with a registry-documented cancer who self-reported the cancer) ranged from 0.79 for an exact match of cancer site and year of diagnosis (+/- 1 year) to 0.93 for a match of any reported cancer. The sensitivity of exact matches varied considerably by cancer site and was highest for breast, prostate, and lung cancers (0.91, 0.90, and 0.90, respectively) and lowest for rectal cancer and melanoma (0.16 and 0.53, respectively). Sensitivity also varied slightly by the age, education, and smoking status of study participants. Estimates of sensitivity were virtually identical for each of the four states. The positive predictive value (the proportion of self-reported cancers that were confirmed by the registries) was 0.75 overall and also varied by cancer site. Unlike sensitivity, however, this proportion varied considerably by state. All self-reports of cancer that were not confirmed by the registries were further investigated by repeat questionnaires and acquisition of medical records. Low positive predictive values were due to underascertainment of true cancer cases by the registries, inaccurate reporting on the part of study participants, and problems with the algorithm used by the state to link the study population to the registry data. In conclusion, the ability of members of this cohort to report a past diagnosis of cancer accurately is quite high, especially for cancers of the breast, prostate, lung, and colon, or for the occurrence of any cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9521182     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009487

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  78 in total

1.  Genetic counselors: translating genomic science into clinical practice.

Authors:  Robin L Bennett; Heather L Hampel; Jessica B Mandell; Joan H Marks
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 14.808

2.  The role of early-life socioeconomic status in breast cancer incidence and mortality: unraveling life course mechanisms.

Authors:  Tetyana Pudrovska; Benedicta Anikputa
Journal:  J Aging Health       Date:  2011-09-28

3.  Comparison of physical activity levels between cancer survivors and non-cancer participants in the 2009 BRFSS.

Authors:  Soyang Kwon; Ningqi Hou; Meme Wang
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 4.442

4.  Validity of self reported diagnoses of cancer in a major Spanish prospective cohort study.

Authors:  C Navarro; M D Chirlaque; M J Tormo; D Pérez-Flores; M Rodríguez-Barranco; A Sánchez-Villegas; A Agudo; G Pera; P Amiano; M Dorronsoro; N Larrañaga; J R Quirós; E Ardanaz; A Barricarte; C Martínez; M J Sánchez; A Berenguer; C A González
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  The Gynaecologic Leiden Questionnaire: psychometric properties of a self-report questionnaire of sexual function and vaginal changes for gynaecological cancer patients.

Authors:  Q D Pieterse; M M Ter Kuile; C P Maas; G G Kenter
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 3.894

6.  Physical and mental health status and health behaviors of childhood cancer survivors: findings from the 2009 BRFSS survey.

Authors:  Celeste R Phillips-Salimi; Karen Lommel; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 3.167

7.  Work Experiences of Patients Receiving Palliative Care at a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Exploratory Analysis.

Authors:  Paul A Glare; Tanya Nikolova; Alberta Alickaj; Sujata Patil; Victoria Blinder
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 2.947

8.  Impact of familial risk and mammography screening on prognostic indicators of breast disease among women from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry.

Authors:  Meghan J Walker; Lucia Mirea; Kristine Cooper; Mitra Nabavi; Gord Glendon; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Frances P O'Malley; Anna M Chiarelli
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  Self-report versus medical records for assessing cancer-preventive services delivery.

Authors:  Jeanne M Ferrante; Pamela Ohman-Strickland; Karissa A Hahn; Shawna V Hudson; Eric K Shaw; Jesse C Crosson; Benjamin F Crabtree
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations and postmenopausal breast cancer risk: a nested case control study in the Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort.

Authors:  Marjorie L McCullough; Victoria L Stevens; Roshni Patel; Eric J Jacobs; Elizabeth B Bain; Ronald L Horst; Susan M Gapstur; Michael J Thun; Eugenia E Calle
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2009-08-28       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.