Reliability of self-reported family history of cancer in a large case-control study of lymphoma - PubMed (original) (raw)
Reliability of self-reported family history of cancer in a large case-control study of lymphoma
Ellen T Chang et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006.
Abstract
Background: Case-control studies of familial cancer risk traditionally rely on self-reported family history of cancer, which may bias results due to differential recall between case patients and control subjects. To evaluate the reliability of self-reported data, we analyzed questionnaire and registry-based data on familial cancer from a population-based case-control study of malignant lymphoma.
Methods: All 1508 lymphoma case patients and 1229 control subjects completed a telephone interview assessing cancer in family members. Participants were linked to the Swedish Multi-Generation Register and Cancer Register to identify confirmed cancer diagnoses in first-degree relatives. The sensitivity and specificity of self-reported familial cancer were calculated among case patients and control subjects and were compared using logistic regression. All statistical tests were two-sided.
Results: Lymphoma case patients reported a family history of any cancer with statistically significantly higher sensitivity than control subjects (0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83 to 0.87 and 0.80, 95% CI = 0.77 to 0.82, respectively) but with marginally lower specificity (0.89, 95% CI = 0.87 to 0.91 and 0.92, 95% CI = 0.90 to 0.94, respectively). The sensitivity of self-reporting familial cancers by site ranged from less than 0.20 for rare malignancies to nearly 0.75 for more common types, whereas specificity was generally 0.98 or greater. For most sites, the reliability of self-report was similar in patients and control subjects. However, patients reported familial hematopoietic cancer with statistically significantly higher sensitivity (0.60, 95% CI = 0.57 to 0.62) than control subjects (0.38, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.40). Odds ratios for the association between familial cancer and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma were consistently higher when based on self-reported, compared with registry data-based, family history of any cancer or of hematopoietic cancer.
Conclusions: Reliability of self-reported family history of cancer varies between case patients and control subjects. Recall bias may thus produce biased results in case-control studies of familial cancer risk.
Similar articles
- Family history of hematopoietic malignancy and risk of lymphoma.
Chang ET, Smedby KE, Hjalgrim H, Porwit-MacDonald A, Roos G, Glimelius B, Adami HO. Chang ET, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Oct 5;97(19):1466-74. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji293. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005. PMID: 16204696 - Accuracy of self-reported family history of cancer in a large case-control study of ovarian cancer.
Soegaard M, Jensen A, Frederiksen K, Høgdall E, Høgdall C, Blaakaer J, Kjaer SK. Soegaard M, et al. Cancer Causes Control. 2008 Jun;19(5):469-79. doi: 10.1007/s10552-007-9108-3. Epub 2008 Jan 16. Cancer Causes Control. 2008. PMID: 18197461 - Family history of hematopoietic and non-hematopoietic malignancies and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Zhang Y, Wang R, Holford TR, Leaderer B, Zahm SH, Boyle P, Zhu Y, Qin Q, Zheng T. Zhang Y, et al. Cancer Causes Control. 2007 May;18(4):351-9. doi: 10.1007/s10552-006-0088-5. Epub 2007 Jan 6. Cancer Causes Control. 2007. PMID: 17206533 - The prevalence of familial testicular cancer: an analysis of two patient populations and a review of the literature.
Dieckmann KP, Pichlmeier U. Dieckmann KP, et al. Cancer. 1997 Nov 15;80(10):1954-60. Cancer. 1997. PMID: 9366298 Review. - Effects of misclassification on estimates of relative risk in family history studies.
Szatmari P, Jones MB. Szatmari P, et al. Genet Epidemiol. 1999;16(4):368-81. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2272(1999)16:4<368::AID-GEPI4>3.0.CO;2-A. Genet Epidemiol. 1999. PMID: 10207718 Review.
Cited by
- Clinical implications of the family history in patients with lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature and a new cross-sectional/prospective study design (FAHIC: lung).
Citarella F, Takada K, Cascetta P, Crucitti P, Petti R, Vincenzi B, Tonini G, Venanzi FM, Bulotta A, Oresti S, Greco C, Ramella S, Crinò L, Delmonte A, Ferrara R, Di Maio M, Gurrieri F, Cortellini A. Citarella F, et al. J Transl Med. 2024 Jul 31;22(1):714. doi: 10.1186/s12967-024-05538-4. J Transl Med. 2024. PMID: 39085889 Free PMC article. - Parental Understanding of Their Child's Germline Genomic Testing: Intent of Disclosure to Their Child and Family.
Mandrell BN, Blake AK, Sharp KMH, Gattuso JS, McGee RB, Harrison L, Ouma A, Caples M, Johnson LM, Nichols KE. Mandrell BN, et al. J Pers Med. 2023 Nov 28;13(12):1656. doi: 10.3390/jpm13121656. J Pers Med. 2023. PMID: 38138883 Free PMC article. - Proactive familial cancer risk assessment: a service development study in UK primary care.
Badran AR, Youngs A, Forman A, Elms M, Chang LL, Lebbe F, Reekie A, Short J, Hlaing MT, Watts E, Hipps D, Snape K. Badran AR, et al. BJGP Open. 2023 Dec 19;7(4):BJGPO.2023.0076. doi: 10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0076. Print 2023 Dec. BJGP Open. 2023. PMID: 37591554 Free PMC article. - Parents' expectations, preferences, and recall of germline findings in a childhood cancer precision medicine trial.
McGill BC, Wakefield CE, Tucker KM, Daly RA, Donoghoe MW, Vetsch J, Warby M, Fuentes-Bolanos NA, Barlow-Stewart K, Kirk J, Courtney E, O'Brien TA, Marshall GM, Pinese M, Cowley MJ, Tyrrell V, Deyell RJ, Ziegler DS, Hetherington K. McGill BC, et al. Cancer. 2023 Nov 15;129(22):3620-3632. doi: 10.1002/cncr.34917. Epub 2023 Jun 29. Cancer. 2023. PMID: 37382186 Free PMC article. - Polygenic scores in biomedical research.
Kullo IJ, Lewis CM, Inouye M, Martin AR, Ripatti S, Chatterjee N. Kullo IJ, et al. Nat Rev Genet. 2022 Sep;23(9):524-532. doi: 10.1038/s41576-022-00470-z. Epub 2022 Mar 30. Nat Rev Genet. 2022. PMID: 35354965 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical