4.6 Article

Validation of Family Cancer History Data in High-Risk Families: The Influence of Cancer Site, Ethnicity, Kinship Degree, and Multiple Family Reporters

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 181, 期 3, 页码 204-212

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwu258

关键词

cancer; data collection; epidemiologic methods; family medical history; validation studies

资金

  1. Breast Cancer Research Foundation
  2. National Institutes of Health [U01 CA69398, P30 CA13696, P30 ES009089]
  3. National Cancer Institute [CA-06-503, K07 CA151777]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Information on family cancer history (FCH) is often collected for first-degree relatives, but more extensive FCH information is critical for greater accuracy in risk assessment. Using self-reported diagnosis of cancer as the gold standard, we examined differences in the sensitivity and specificity of relative-reported FCH by cancer site, race/ethnicity, language preference, and kinship degree (1,524 individuals from 557 families; average number of relatives per family = 2.7). We evaluated the impact of FCH data collected in 2007-2013 from multiple relatives by comparing mean values and proportions for the number of relatives with any cancer, breast cancer, or ovarian cancer as reported by a single relative and by multiple relatives in the same family. The sensitivity of FCH was lower in Hispanics, Spanish-speaking persons, and third-degree relatives (e.g., for all cancers, sensitivities were 80.7%, 87.4%, and 91.0% for third-, second-, and first-degree relatives, respectively). FCH reported by multiple relatives included a higher number of relatives with cancer than the number reported by a single relative (e.g., mean increase of 1.2 relatives with any cancer), with more relatives diagnosed with any cancer, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer in 52%, 36% and 12% of families, respectively. Collection of FCH data from multiple relatives may provide a more comprehensive picture of FCH and may potentially improve risk assessment and preventive care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据