Comparability of surrogate and self-reported information on melanoma risk factors (original) (raw)

Abstract

Surrogate reports by patients about their relatives, and vice versa, are potentially of great use in studies of the genetic and environmental causes of the familial aggregation of cancer. To assess the quality of such information in a family study of melanoma aetiology in Queensland, Australia, the authors compared surrogate reports with self-reports of standard melanoma risk factors obtained by mailed self-administered questionnaire. There was moderate agreement between surrogate reports provided by the cases and relatives' self-reports for questions on ability to tan (polychoric correlation coefficient (pc) = 0.60), skin colour (pc = 0.57), average propensity to burn (pc = 0.56), and hair colour at age 21 (kappa coefficient = 0.55), although relatives in the extreme risk factor categories were misclassified by surrogates at least half of the time. Agreement was lower for questions on degree of moliness (pc = 0.45), tendency to acute sunburn (pc = 0.42), and number of episodes of painful sunburn (pc = 0.23). The quality of relatives' surrogate reports about cases was similar to that of cases' surrogate reports about relatives. Cases who reported a family history of melanoma provided better surrogate information than did cases who indicated no family history, and female cases provided better surrogate reports than did males. Cases were better able to report for their parents and children than for their siblings. The authors conclude that when the use of surrogate reports of melanoma risk factors is unavoidable, results should be interpreted cautiously in the light of potentially high rates of misclassification. In particular, surrogate reports appear to be a comparatively poor measure of self-assessment of number of moles, the strongest known phenotypic indicator of melanoma risk, and may bias comparisons between families with and without a history of melanoma.

1036

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brown L. M., Dosemeci M., Blair A., Burmeister L. Comparability of data obtained from farmers and surrogate respondents on use of agricultural pesticides. Am J Epidemiol. 1991 Aug 15;134(4):348–355. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Coates R. A., Calzavara L. M., Soskolne C. L., Read S. E., Fanning M. M., Shepherd F. A., Klein M. H., Johnson J. K. Validity of sexual histories in a prospective study of male sexual contacts of men with AIDS or an AIDS-related condition. Am J Epidemiol. 1988 Oct;128(4):719–728. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dorman J. S., Trucco M., LaPorte R. E., Kuller L. H. Family studies: the key to understanding the genetic and environmental etiology of chronic disease? Genet Epidemiol. 1988;5(5):305–310. doi: 10.1002/gepi.1370050502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dubin N., Moseson M., Pasternack B. S. Epidemiology of malignant melanoma: pigmentary traits, ultraviolet radiation, and the identification of high-risk populations. Recent Results Cancer Res. 1986;102:56–75. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-82641-2_5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Green A., Bain C., McLennan R., Siskind V. Risk factors for cutaneous melanoma in Queensland. Recent Results Cancer Res. 1986;102:76–97. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-82641-2_6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Green A., Swerdlow A. J. Epidemiology of melanocytic nevi. Epidemiol Rev. 1989;11:204–221. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hatch M. C., Misra D., Kabat G. C., Kartzmer S. Proxy respondents in reproductive research: a comparison of self- and partner-reported data. Am J Epidemiol. 1991 Apr 15;133(8):826–831. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115962. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Humble C. G., Samet J. M., Skipper B. E. Comparison of self- and surrogate-reported dietary information. Am J Epidemiol. 1984 Jan;119(1):86–98. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Khoury M. J., Flanders W. D., Lipton R. B., Dorman J. S. Commentary: the affected sib-pair method in the context of an epidemiologic study design. Genet Epidemiol. 1991;8(4):277–282. doi: 10.1002/gepi.1370080408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Maclure M., Willett W. C. Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic. Am J Epidemiol. 1987 Aug;126(2):161–169. doi: 10.1093/aje/126.2.161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Martin N. G., Eaves L. J., Heath A. C. Prospects for detecting genotype X environment interactions in twins with breast cancer. Acta Genet Med Gemellol (Roma) 1987;36(1):5–20. doi: 10.1017/s0001566000004542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Martin N. G., Jardine R., Andrews G., Heath A. C. Anxiety disorders and neuroticism: are there genetic factors specific to panic? Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1988 Jun;77(6):698–706. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1988.tb05190.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. McLaughlin J. K., Dietz M. S., Mehl E. S., Blot W. J. Reliability of surrogate information on cigarette smoking by type of informant. Am J Epidemiol. 1987 Jul;126(1):144–146. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Thompson W. D., Orvaschel H., Prusoff B. A., Kidd K. K. An evaluation of the family history method for ascertaining psychiatric disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1982 Jan;39(1):53–58. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1982.04290010031006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Walker A. M., Blettner M. Comparing imperfect measures of exposure. Am J Epidemiol. 1985 Jun;121(6):783–790. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]