Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29055968›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2017

Identification of hereditary cancer in the general population: development and validation of a screening questionnaire for obtaining the family history of cancer.

Natalia Campacci, Juliana O de Lima, André L Carvalho, Rodrigo D Michelli, Rafael Haikel, Edmundo Mauad, Danilo V Viana, Matias E Melendez, Fabiana de L Vazquez, Cleyton Zanardo and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Family history tools for primary care: A systematic review.The European journal of general practice · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Natalia CampacciMolecular Oncology Research Center, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6063-3254
Juliana O de LimaCenter of Molecular Diagnostics, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil.
André L CarvalhoMolecular Oncology Research Center, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil.
Rodrigo D MichelliOncogenetics Department, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil.
Rafael HaikelPrevention Department, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil.
Edmundo MauadOncogenetics Department, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil.
Danilo V VianaOncogenetics Department, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil.
Matias E MelendezMolecular Oncology Research Center, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil.
Fabiana de L VazquezMolecular Oncology Research Center, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil.
Cleyton ZanardoCenter for Research Support - NAP, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil.
Rui M ReisMolecular Oncology Research Center, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil.
Benedito M RossiSirio Libanes Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil.
Edenir I PalmeroMolecular Oncology Research Center, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil.
Hospital de Câncer de Barretos · BRHospital Sírio-Libanês · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the challenges for Latin American countries is to include in their healthcare systems technologies that can be applied to hereditary cancer detection and management. The aim of the study is to create and validate a questionnaire to identify individuals with possible risk for hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes (HCPS), using different strategies in a Cancer Prevention Service in Brazil. The primary screening questionnaire (PSQ) was developed to identify families at-risk for HCPS. The PSQ was validated using discrimination measures, and the reproducibility was estimated through kappa coefficient. Patients with at least one affirmative answer had the pedigree drawn using three alternative interview approaches: in-person, by telephone, or letter. Validation of these approaches was done. Kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients were used to analyze data's reproducibility considering the presence of clinical criteria for HCPS. The PSQ was applied to a convenience sample of 20,000 women of which 3121 (15.6%) answered at least one affirmative question and 1938 had their pedigrees drawn. The PSQ showed sensitivity and specificity scores of 94.4% and 75%, respectively, and a kappa of 0.64. The strategies for pedigree drawing had reproducibility coefficients of 0.976 and 0.850 for the telephone and letter approaches, respectively. Pedigree analysis allowed us to identify 465 individuals (24.0%) fulfilling at least one clinical criterion for HCPS. The PSQ fulfills its function, allowing the identification of HCPS at-risk families. The use of alternative screening methods may reduce the number of excluded at-risk individuals/families who live in locations where oncogenetic services are not established.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultAgedAge of OnsetBrazilBreast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsCorrespondence as TopicFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHeredityHumansInterviews as TopicMass ScreeningMiddle AgedHereditary cancerhereditary cancer in low-income countrieshereditary cancer screening strategiesoncogeneticpedigree drawing strategies

Identifiers

PMID29055968
PMCPMC5727305
OpenAlexW2765807688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.