Reporting bilaterality status in first-degree relatives with breast cancer: a validity study

Literacy assessment of family health history tools for public health prevention

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to systematically identify and evaluate the readability and document complexity of currently available family history tools for the general public.

METHODS

Three steps were undertaken to identify family history tools for evaluation: (a) Internet searches, (b) expert consultation, and (c) literature searches. Tools identified were assessed for readability using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) readability formula. The complexity of documents (i.e., forms collecting family history information) was assessed using the PMOSE/IKIRSCH document readability formula.

RESULTS

A total of 78 tools were identified, 47 of which met the criteria for inclusion. SMOG reading grade levels for multimedia-based tools ranged from 10.1 to 18.3, with an average score of 13.6. For print-based tools, SMOG ranged from 8.7 to 14.1, with an average score of 12.0. Document complexity ranged from very low complexity (level 1 proficiency) to high complexity (level 4 proficiency).

CONCLUSION

The majority of tools are written at a reading grade level that is beyond the 8th grade average reading level in the United States. The lack of family history tools that are easy to read or use may compromise their potential effectiveness in identifying individuals at increased risk for chronic diseases in the general population.

The current state of cancer family history collection tools in primary care: a systematic review

Systematic collection of family history is a prerequisite for identifying genetic risk. This study reviewed tools applicable to the primary care assessment of family history of breast, colorectal, ovarian, and prostate cancer. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central were searched for publications. All primary study designs were included. Characteristics of the studies, the family history collection tools, and the setting were evaluated. Of 40 eligible studies, 18 relevant family history tools were identified, with 11 developed for use in primary care. Most collected information on more than one cancer and on affected relatives used self-administered questionnaires and paper-based formats. Eleven tools had been evaluated relative to current practice, demonstrating 46-78% improvement in data recording over family history recording in patient charts and 75-100% agreement with structured genetic interviews. Few tools have been developed specifically for primary care settings. The few that have been evaluated performed well. The very limited evidence, which depends in part on extrapolation from studies in settings other than primary care, suggests that systematic tools may add significant family health information compared with current primary care practice. The effect of their use on health outcomes has not been evaluated.

Specifying exposure classification parameters for sensitivity analysis: family breast cancer history

One of the challenges to implementing sensitivity analysis for exposure misclassification is the process of specifying the classification proportions (eg, sensitivity and specificity). The specification of these assignments is guided by three sources of information: estimates from validation studies, expert judgment, and numerical constraints given the data. The purpose of this teaching paper is to describe the process of using validation data and expert judgment to adjust a breast cancer odds ratio for misclassification of family breast cancer history. The parameterization of various point estimates and prior distributions for sensitivity and specificity were guided by external validation data and expert judgment. We used both nonprobabilistic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to investigate the dependence of the odds ratio estimate on the classification error. With our assumptions, a wider range of odds ratios adjusted for family breast cancer history misclassification resulted than portrayed in the conventional frequentist confidence interval.

A comparison of methods currently used in clinical practice to estimate familial breast cancer risks

BACKGROUND

With the identification of genes predisposing to hereditary breast cancer, the accurate and consistent estimation of a woman's risk of developing breast cancer based on her family history is of paramount importance if national service guidelines are to be developed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The residual lifetime risk of developing breast cancer was estimated for 200 women attending a breast cancer genetic assessment clinic by three different methods currently in use in the UK. Risks were computed on the basis of the Cancer and Steroid Hormone (CASH) study data and were classified as 'low/moderate' (<20%) or 'high' (>20%). These risk categories are representative of those currently used to allocate surveillance and genetic testing. Risks were then compared to estimates derived by other methods used in current clinical practice, including those of Houlston and Murday.

RESULTS

The CASH data-based method ascribed 27% to the high risk category, as compared to 53% for the combined Houlston and Murday methods. A method based on the number of affected relatives alone ascribed only 14% to the high risk category. Overall, 108 (54%) women were placed in the same risk category by all three methods.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that there is a significant degree of variability between methods currently used to estimate breast cancer risk which has serious implications for individual patient management, service provision and multicentre studies evaluating the benefits of genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility.

Validation of family history of breast cancer and identification of the BRCA1 and other syndromes using a population-based cancer registry

A major risk factor for breast cancer is family history of the disease in first-degree relatives. This study evaluates the validity of family history information on breast cancer in mothers and sisters of breast cancer probands from the cancer registry (CR) compared to personal interviews (PI) of 359 consecutive population-based cases of breast cancer. Breast cancer is seen in mothers of 14% of probands by CR compared to 12% by PI. Further, 13% of probands have a sister with breast cancer using CR compared to 12% by PI. Using PI as the standard, the sensitivity of the CR family history data in mothers is 92% and the specificity is 99%, while in sisters they are 88% and 99%, respectively. These estimates were calculated on cases where family history information is available in the CR. Sensitivity and specificity are recalculated, recording an "error" whenever family history information is not available, and they are 75% and 68%, respectively, for mothers and 72% and 70%, respectively, for sisters. Estimates of proband-mother and proband-sisters familial breast cancer from CR and PI are sufficiently similar to warrant the use of CR family history data in studies of genetic epidemiology. The family phenotype consistent with the BRCA1 syndrome was found in four (1.1%) probands, all below age 50 years, while for BRCA2 there were five (1.4%) probands, three below age 50 years and two 50 years or older. Site-specific familial breast cancer was found in 23 (6.4%) probands. Population-based multiple-case breast cancer families can rapidly be identified through CR. These families can make substantial contributions to the study of genetic and environmental etiology of the disease as well as benefit from preventive and therapeutic efforts. As new knowledge and tools in molecular genetics become available, there is an urgent need for large population-based registries of families at high risk for cancer.