ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2011
Confirmation of family cancer history reported in a population-based survey.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 102 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gender differences in self-reported family history of cancer: A review and secondary data analysis.Cancer medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Prevalence and healthcare actions of women in a large health system with a family history meeting the 2005 USPSTF recommendation for BRCA genetic counseling referral.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2013Trial
- Chronic Stress, Immune Suppression, and Cancer Occurrence: Unveiling the Connection Using Survey Data and Predictive Models.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Breast cancer risk associated withCancer pathogenesis and therapy · 2025Article
- Assessing completeness of cancer family history in EHRs using genetically defined kinships: A cross-sectional study.Genetics in medicine open · 2025Article
- The Use of National Cancer Registry Data for Breast Cancer Family History Assessment in Premenopausal Women.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Effects of Fecal Occult Blood Immunoassay Screening for Colorectal Cancer-Experience from a Hospital in Central Taiwan.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Unawareness of breast cancer family history among African women.The Pan African medical journal · 2023Article
- Prevalence of Americans reporting a family history of cancer indicative of increased cancer risk: Estimates from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey.Preventive medicine · 2022Article
- Environmental scan of family chart linking for genetic cascade screening in a U.S. integrated health system.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Familial non-medullary thyroid cancer: a critical review.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2021Review
- Ability of known colorectal cancer susceptibility SNPs to predict colorectal cancer risk: A cohort study within the UK Biobank.PloS one · 2021Article
- Familial associations for rheumatoid autoimmune diseases.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2020Article
- Race/Ethnicity and Accuracy of Self-Reported Female First-Degree Family History of Breast and Other Cancers in the Northern California Breast Cancer Family Registry.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2019Article
- The clinical behavior and survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and a family history of the disease.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- The role of endoscopy in the management of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer syndrome.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019Review
- Uptake of genetic testing for germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in a predominantly Hispanic population.Cancer genetics · 2019Article
- Article
- Association of family history with long-term prognosis in patients undergoing liver resection of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundKnowledge of family cancer history is essential for estimating an individual's cancer risk and making clinical recommendations regarding screening and referral to a specialty cancer genetics clinic. However, it is not clear if reported family cancer history is sufficiently accurate for this purpose.
methodsIn the population-based 2001 Connecticut Family Health Study, 1019 participants reported on 20 578 first-degree relatives (FDR) and second-degree relatives (SDR). Of those, 2605 relatives were sampled for confirmation of cancer reports on breast, colorectal, prostate, and lung cancer. Confirmation sources included state cancer registries, Medicare databases, the National Death Index, death certificates, and health-care facility records. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for reports on lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer and after stratification by sex, age, education, and degree of relatedness and used to estimate report accuracy. Pairwise t tests were used to evaluate differences between the two strata in each stratified analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided.
resultsOverall, sensitivity and positive predictive value were low to moderate and varied by cancer type: 60.2% and 40.0%, respectively, for lung cancer reports, 27.3% and 53.5% for colorectal cancer reports, 61.1% and 61.3% for breast cancer reports, and 32.0% and 53.4% for prostate cancer reports. Specificity and negative predictive value were more than 95% for all four cancer types. Cancer history reports on FDR were more accurate than reports on SDR, with reports on FDR having statistically significantly higher sensitivity for prostate cancer than reports on SDR (58.9% vs 21.5%, P = .002) and higher positive predictive value for lung (78.1% vs 31.7%, P < .001), colorectal (85.8% vs 43.5%, P = .004), and breast cancer (79.9% vs 53.6%, P = .02).
conclusionsGeneral population reports on family history for the four major adult cancers were not highly accurate. Efforts to improve accuracy are needed in primary care and other health-care settings in which family history is collected to ensure appropriate risk assessment and clinical care recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.