Original article
Accuracy of family history of cancer obtained through interviews with relatives of patients with childhood sarcoma

https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(94)90037-XGet rights and content

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of reporting of invasive cancer by relatives for family studies. First, we attempted to evaluate whether a lower than expected cancer rate found in second-degree relatives of children with soft-tissue sarcoma was a result of underreporting. Second, we evaluated the accuracy of reported cancer in two data sets by comparing reported cancer information with documentation by medical records and death certificates. We obtained medical histories from a primary informant, usually the proband's parent, on 346 first- and 784 second-degree relatives of 68 childhood and adolescent soft-tissue sarcoma patients. To investigate underreporting by the primary informant we conducted an individual interview with each adult relative or proxy. Primary informants reported 22 cancers in first-degree relatives, all confirmed as invasive cancer, and 71 cancers in second-degree relatives with 50 of 67 for which documentation confirmed as invasive. Of 715 individual informants contacted, 15 additional cancers were reported, including 5 confirmed as invasive. The number of first-degree relatives with confirmed invasive cancers was within the expected range; however, the number of cancers in second-degree relatives was below the expected range (observed/expected = 0.51 (54/105.5) 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.39-0.67). Thus, the lower than expected number of cancers in second-degree relatives was not attributable to underreporting by a single informant or inability to obtain documentation. The overreporting of 25 cancers (24.5%) in second-degree relatives, indicates the need to document all reported cancers. In a second study of 382 childhood and adolescent bone sarcoma families we found that reports of cancer by one informant for his/her first-degree relatives were 88% (86/98) accurate. The results suggest that one informant may suffice for information on first-degree relatives, but that accurate reports on second-degree relatives require additional respondents and documentation.

References (14)

  • R.R. Love et al.

    The accuracy of patient reports of a family history of cancer

    J Chron Dis

    (1985)
  • R.R. Monson

    Analysis of relative survival and proportional mortality

    Comput Biomed Res

    (1974)
  • S.D. Harlow et al.

    Agreement between questionnaire data and medical records-the evidence for accuracy of recall

    Am J Epidemiol

    (1989)
  • P.H. Phillips et al.

    Assessment of family history information in case-control cancer studies

    Am J Epidemiol

    (1991)
  • M.L. Bondy et al.

    Genetic epidemiology of childhood brain tumors

    Genet Epidemiol

    (1991)
  • R.R. Kuijten et al.

    Validation and accuracy of cancer reporting in first degree relatives

  • L.C. Strong et al.

    Cancer in survivors of childhood soft tissue sarcoma and their relatives

    J Natl Cancer Inst

    (1987)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (74)

  • Prevalence of hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes in children with cancer in a highly consanguineous population

    2018, Cancer Epidemiology
    Citation Excerpt :

    Therefore, healthcare providers rely on self-reported family history of cancer in the clinical setting. Despite its limitations, self-reports of family history of cancer have been shown to be generally reliable in a number of studies, particularly in first- and second-degree relatives with 70–90% sensitivity [33,38–44]. Self-reporting of family history of cancer in less developed country settings has been recently reported as a reliable and useful tool for identification of individuals at risk of hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes [38].

  • Polymorphisms in HPV E6/E7 protein interacted genes and risk of cervical cancer in Chinese women: A case-control analysis

    2009, Gynecologic Oncology
    Citation Excerpt :

    Thirdly, we obtained the information on family history of cancer in first relatives by self-reporting, which might have resulted in diagnostic suspicion bias. However, some studies showed that there was high accuracy for reporting family history of cancer in first-degree relatives [28–30], and the accuracy seemed comparable between cancer cases and controls [30], which indicate that self-reporting is a good way for identifying family cancer history in first-degree relatives. Finally, this was a hospital-based case-control study, using the cases from hospitals and the controls from a screening program for non-infectious diseases without HPV infection information.

  • The association of family history of liver cancer with hepatocellular carcinoma: A case-control study in the United States

    2009, Journal of Hepatology
    Citation Excerpt :

    No proxy interviews were conducted. The interviewers used a structured and a validated questionnaire [16,17] to collect information on demographic features, family history of cancer, and risk factors of HCC (25–30 min interview). Cases and controls were blinded for the current study hypothesis.

  • The Accuracy of Cancer Diagnoses as Reported in Families with Head and Neck Cancer: a Case-Control Study

    2008, Clinical Oncology
    Citation Excerpt :

    First, the accuracy of whether relatives had cancer or not and second if the cancer occurred within the head and neck region. There is clear evidence that recall is most accurate for cases of cancer within first-degree relatives [8–10] and hence this study was restricted to first-degree relatives. The issue of whether cancers occurred in the head and neck region is an area that can have a degree of inaccuracy.

  • Performing chart review studies

    2007, Air Medical Journal
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text