Evidence regarding validity of self-reported family history of cancer (FHC) has been reviewed only for breast, colorectal, prostate, ovarian, endometrial and uterine cancer. We aimed to systematically review studies assessing validity of self-reported family history for the remaining cancer sites. We searched the Medline database for relevant studies published by January 2016. We extracted information on the study design and the positive predictive value (PPV) of self-reported FHC, defined as the proportion of reported cancer diagnoses among relatives that was confirmed by a reference standard (as a measure of over-reporting). We also extracted information on sensitivity of self-reported FHC (as a measure of underreporting). Overall, 21 studies were included that provided information on the PPV of self-reported FHC for relevant cancers and four studies also provided information on sensitivity. The PPV was highest (mostly >70%) for pancreatic, lung, thyroid and urinary system cancers and for leukemia and lymphoma, while it was lowest for stomach and liver cancer. Sensitivity was highest (>70%) for pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, melanoma, leukemia and lymphoma. For several cancers, sample sizes were low and the number of studies limited, particularly regarding sensitivity of self-reported FHC. In conclusion, for some cancers (e.g., pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, leukemia, lymphoma) self-reported FHC can be considered sufficiently valid to be useful, for example, in preventive counseling. For several cancers, it is not sufficiently studied or the pattern is inconsistent. This needs to be taken into account when using self-reported information about FHC in clinical practice or epidemiological research.
Pharmacists omitted many questions mandatory to assess whether self-medication is appropriate. Using the newly developed PDSS more than doubled the number of mandatory questions asked. The results suggest that the PDSS is ready for evaluation of its impact in real patients.
Family history of cancer (FHC) is important in the context of cancer prevention and risk counselling, but there is a lack of information about its consideration in medical routine. We aimed to characterize how FHC is assessed and taken into account in the primary care setting in Germany. We conducted a mail survey among 285 office-based physicians in south-west Germany. We sent a questionnaire to randomly selected general practitioners, dermatologists, gastroenterologists, gynaecologists, urologists and pulmonologists, asking about collection of information on FHC and implications for preventive counselling. A total of 207 physicians returned the questionnaire (response rate 73%), of whom 71% reported asking for FHC routinely, 17% reported using a standardized tool to collect the information and 35% reported regularly updating it. Implications of a positive FHC for counselling were heterogeneous, with priority on recommendations for screening. Referral to genetic counselling was considered by 34% of physicians, mainly gastroenterologists and gynaecologists. In the primary care setting in Germany, FHC is considered an important topic, but there is a lack of standardization in collecting the information and heterogeneity on the implications for counselling. Options to improve this situation, such as the implementation of standardized tools or centralized counselling systems, are needed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.