This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ivanovich, J. Articles by Whelan, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ivanovich, J. Articles by Whelan, A.

Evaluation of the Family History Collection Process and the Accuracy of Cancer Reporting among a Series of Women with Endometrial Cancer¹

Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics [J. I.], Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology [S. B., D. M., T. H., J. R.], Section of Endocrine and Oncologic Surgery, Department of Surgery [P. G.], Section of Medical Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine [A. W.], Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63110

	ABSTRACT

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Family history data are critical in the study of hereditary cancer syndromes and the identification of cancer modifier genes.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the process for collecting and verifying reported cancer family histories and identify reporting inaccuracies among a series of women with endometrial cancer.

Experimental Design: Detailed family histories were obtained from 80 women enrolled in a research study. Medical records were collected to verify cancer reporting.

Results: Participants reported 289 cancers among themselves and 2925 first-, second-, and third-degree relatives. There was a significant relationship between the number of telephone contacts made with each participant and the fraction of records retrieved from hospitals (² = 23.68, d.f. = 7, P = 0.001). Medical records were retrieved for 102 of 289 (35%) reported cancers and 10 additional cancers, not initially reported by participants. Medical records were more likely to be retrieved if the relative with cancer was living, closely related to the study participant, and the cancer type was known. The success in retrieving medical records declined with increasing record age (² = 35.07, d.f. = 5, P < 0.001). Thirty-two of the 112 (28.6%) verified cancers were identified to be inaccurately reported, with a significantly higher number of inaccurate reports among second- and third-degree relatives than first-degree relatives (P = 0.02). Two participants, who did not accurately report their cancer family history, had an increase in their family-based risk assessment after medical record collection.

Conclusions: Additional studies to improve record collection efficiency and identify cancer reporting accuracy are needed among general research populations.

	INTRODUCTION

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Family-based cancer genetics research has made possible the discovery of numerous cancer susceptibility genes, pointed to molecular genetic pathways that are disrupted in tumor initiation and progression, and offered insights into normal cellular development. Family history data are essential for this research as a combination of linked molecular and family/medical history data are needed to determine the penetrance and expressivity of putative susceptibility alleles. Family history data are critical not only in the study of hereditary cancer syndromes but also in research conducted to identify cancer risk modifier genes. Modifier genes lead to a modest elevation of cancer risk and may play a role in a far greater percentage of the population than the rare, highly penetrant cancer susceptibility alleles. Family history data are also valuable in surveillance and chemoprevention trials of individuals at increased risk for disease, as the efficacy of these interventions cannot be measured without an accurate assessment of individuals’ family-based risk.

Few studies have examined the accuracy of cancer family history reporting in the United States (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) . In other countries, centralized cancer registries have facilitated research focused on determining the accuracy of cancer family history reporting (6, 7, 8, 9) . Some investigators have studied high-risk populations or individuals attending cancer risk clinics (4 , 8, 9, 10) . In most studies, the estimation of reporting accuracy has been limited to first-degree relatives or a specific cancer type (6 , 7 , 9 , 11, 12, 13, 14) . Furthermore, few studies have examined both the process to collect and verify family history information, as well as the accuracy of the cancer reporting in a research setting (1 , 9) .

Studies to evaluate the identification, collection, and reporting accuracy of more than one cancer type, using multiple generation family history data, are needed. The purpose of this study was to analyze the process for collecting and verifying reported cancer family histories, as well as to identify reporting inaccuracies among a series of women with endometrial cancer.

	PATIENTS AND METHODS

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
The study population was derived from a cohort of 80 women with histologically confirmed endometrial cancer who were treated in the Division of Gynecologic Oncology at Washington University School of Medicine from 1993 to 1998. Participants consented to family history and tumor studies as part of a protocol approved by the Washington University School of Medicine’s Human Studies Committee. The 80 women included in this study were selected from a series of 231 women from whom tumor tissue was available for DNA studies. Cases were selected without knowledge of family history information, age at diagnosis, or other clinical features suggestive of inherited susceptibility to cancer. The study was designed to obtain equal numbers of cases with tumor microsatellite instability (defective DNA mismatch repair) and tumors lacking microsatellite instability (40 in each group). Participants were the probands for the family history study and are referred to as "probands" throughout.

Family history data were obtained at two different times. First, as part of their routine clinical care, participants completed a medical history questionnaire that included a single question regarding the health of first-degree relatives. These data, as well as information documented in the initial medical encounter, comprise the screening family history (Fig. 1) .

View larger version (37K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the process for collection and verification of cancer family histories reported by the study population. Study population comprised of 80 women with endometrial cancer (probands).

Medical record verification was sought for 289 cancers reported in the detailed family histories. Medical records were also pursued for 82 noncancer procedures, including hysterectomy, gynecologic procedures, colonoscopy, colon surgery, and breast biopsies. As is standard practice, the genetic counselor requested the proband contact the identified relative or, if deceased, the closest living family member, to obtain permission to release their medical records. Medical records and/or death certificates were requested for verification. The genetic counselor contacted the proband periodically by telephone to assist with the collection of the signed medical release forms. Signed release forms were returned to the genetic counselor, then forwarded directly to the hospital. If permission to release medical records was not granted, the reason stated by the proband was documented and assigned to one of three categories: (a) proband unwilling to approach identified relative with cancer; (b) the identified relative was unwilling to release records; and (c) insufficient information was known by the proband to request medical records (Fig. 1) .

All records received were independently reviewed by a medical geneticist (A. W.) and a cancer research investigator (P. G.). A cancer reported by a proband was considered to be inaccurate if on medical record review the cancer site was incorrectly reported, the cancer site was unknown to the proband, or the proband did not report the cancer. The medical geneticist (A. W.) used the family history to assess the family-based cancer risk, focusing on malignancies associated with HNPCC.³ Reported cancers were only considered in the risk assessment if they were verified with medical records. The criteria used to classify each family history are shown in Table 1 .

	RESULTS

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Study Population.
Eighty women treated surgically for endometrial cancer comprise the study population. The average age at the time of surgery was 63 years (38–87 years). Seventy-four women were Caucasian, and 6 were African-American. Ten women had a synchronous or metachronous malignancy, and 2 women had a third primary cancer.

Cancer Family History Reporting and Medical Record Collection Process.
The 80 probands reported the detailed family history information to the genetic counselor and assisted with medical record collection. Information on 634 first-degree, 1501 second-degree, and 790 third-degree relatives was provided. Probands were unable to report the total number of third-degree relatives or consistently provide detailed medical information for such relatives.

Probands reported 11 additional cancers among themselves and 278 cancers among first-, second-, and third-degree relatives for a total of 289 reported cancers. Although breast (39 reports) and lung (29 reports) cancer was reported frequently, cancer of unknown site (63 reports) was the most common reported malignancy (Table 2) . For the 100 cancer reports among first-degree relatives, only 4 cancers were reported among the probands’ children. Cancer was significantly more likely to be reported in first-degree relatives (100 of 634) than second-degree relatives (116 of 1501; P < 0.001; Fig. 1 ).

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Fig. 2. Fraction of cancer and noncancer medical records retrieved from hospitals by the number of contacts made with each proband (2 = 23.68, d.f. = 7, P = 0.001).

Once permission was granted, attempts were made to retrieve medical records from the identified hospital. Of the 156 cancer and 54 noncancer records requested, 102 (35%) and 42 (51%) medical records, respectively, were retrieved successfully. Noncancer procedure medical records (42 of 82) were significantly more likely to be retrieved than cancer records (102 of 289; P = 0.01). The great majority, however, of noncancer procedure reports was reported for either the proband or for first-degree relatives. Both cancer and noncancer records were also significantly more likely to be retrieved from a hospital if the identified relative was alive (48 of 108) than dead (63 of 220; P = 0.001). This significance held when only cancer records were examined as well (P = 0.01). Cancer reports in which the proband identified a specific anatomical site or cancer type (91 of 226) were significantly more likely to be retrieved than cancer reports of unknown anatomical site (11 of 63; P = 0.001). Furthermore, a significantly greater number of cancer reports was verified with medical records among first-degree relatives (47 of 100) than combined second- and third-degree relatives (46 of 178; P < 0.001). The likelihood medical records were successfully retrieved when requested from a hospital declined with the age of record, such that <50% of records were retrieved when records were 40 years old (Fig. 3) . There was a significant relationship with age of medical record and the fraction of records obtained from hospitals (² = 37.24, d.f. = 5, P < 0.001).

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Fig. 3. Fraction of cancer and noncancer medical retrieved from hospitals by age of the record. The record age for medical records unable to be retrieved was determined by age and year of cancer diagnosis reported by the proband. Excludes seven records not retrieved by hospital in which no age or year of diagnosis was known by the proband (2 = 35.07, d.f. = 5, P < 0.001).

Cancer reporting errors were classified into two groups. The first group consisted of 11 cancer reports in which the cancer site was reported incorrectly by the proband (Table 3) . These inaccurate reports lower the number of true positives for a given site and, thus, the overall reporting accuracy rate. None of the cancers reported represented a metastasis from a primary site. The most common site inaccurately reported was "stomach cancer." The second group of inaccurate reports included both cancers reported as "unknown site" and malignancies that were not reported by the proband but were identified during medical record review. This type of inaccuracy lowers the sensitivity of the family history interview process. The cancers reported as "unknown" for which the type was verified by medical records represent a variety of cancer sites, with cervical cancer being the most common. Colon carcinoma was the most frequent cancer not reported (Table 3) . Inaccurate reports were more common among second- and third-degree relatives (21 of 56) than first-degree relatives (10 of 55; P = 0.02). There was no difference in the probands’ reporting accuracy for identified male and female relatives with cancer (Table 3) .

Cancer Family Risk Assessment.
Detailed family history data were used to classify probands’ family-based cancer risk into the following risk categories: 50 with baseline family cancer risk, 19 with low family cancer risk, 8 with moderate family cancer risk, and 3 with high family cancer risk. All three families classified as high cancer risk met Amsterdam I or II criteria for HNPCC. The preponderance of families with "baseline" cancer risk is expected, given the population was chosen from a cohort of women who were being treated in a gynecologic oncology office, not a high-risk clinic.

Family histories were reevaluated after the identification of inaccurate cancer reports. For the 19 probands with inaccurate cancer reports, 2 (11%) probands had an increase in their clinical cancer risk assessment. One family moved from baseline up to low risk, with little consequence in clinical cancer screening recommendations. However, the other family moved from moderate to high risk, with the clinical diagnosis of HNPCC being made. None of the 19 probands with inaccurate cancer reports had a decrease in their clinical cancer risk assessment.

	DISCUSSION

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Family-based cancer genetics research and clinical risk assessment both depend on the allocation of substantial resources to collect and verify family history data. As research moves from highly penetrant single gene disorders in high-risk populations to lower penetrant modified genes in the general population, reliable methods of family history collection must be identified. Most studies published to date used high-risk populations or national cancer registries. In anticipation of research and clinical cancer genetics moving toward lower risk groups, we undertook this analysis to better understand the efficacy of the family history collection process and the cancer reporting accuracy in an older, lower risk population.

General research populations may have limited knowledge of or motivation to provide family history information. Timely follow-up contacts with the study population are necessary to obtain permission from relatives to release medical records. In our study, the number of contacts with probands was significantly related to the eventual receipt of medical records. With as many as five timely contacts, the success for obtaining medical records was slightly >50%. A portion (24%) of probands refused or had insufficient data to track records or contact identified relatives with cancer. This finding is consistent with other investigations, in which insufficient detail to collect medical records was the most common reason for failing to verify reported cancers (5 , 10) .

As expected, probands had a lack of health knowledge of and personal contact with distantly related relatives. Cancers and noncancer procedures were reported significantly more frequently among first-degree relatives than more distant relatives. There was a greater likelihood to receive permission for release of records from first-degree relatives than combined second- and third-degree relatives, consistent with other investigations (4 , 9 , 10) . Second- and third-degree relatives, however, are critical in the determination of the expressivity and penetrance of cancer genes, and as such, investigators may need to contact distant relatives directly so detailed medical history information and medical records may be obtained (1 , 2) .

The ability to verify cancer reports with medical records varies from study to study. Investigations using populations from high-risk cancer clinics have tended to achieve high verification rates, ranging from 42 to 94% among first-degree relatives with cancer (4 , 8 , 10) . Studies that use cancer registries also have good confirmation rates, ranging from 43 to 97% (6 , 8 , 9) . For the research population we investigated, medical records were retrieved for 35% of all cancers reported and nearly 50% of cancers reported among first-degree relatives. The success in retrieving medical records was greatest for cancer reports in which the cancer site was known and the identified relative was alive. This latter relationship, as well as the lower retrieval rate among second- and third-degree relatives, may reflect the record age, as there was a significant relationship in the likelihood of record retrieval with the record age.

These data suggest it may be more difficult to obtain detailed family history information and medical records from populations in which the probands are older and of "lower risk." A more effective screening family history tool, instituted at the time of first clinical contact, may reduce the time of the detailed family history interview process and identify families of greatest research interest. These data also suggest direct contact with distant relatives may aid in cancer reporting and medical record retrieval. It would be useful to conduct a similar study in a younger group of participants with similar "low risk."

Ten cancers, identified on record review in this study, were initially not reported by the proband. In 1 family, three unreported cancers led to the increase in their clinical cancer risk assessment. As many as 35 nonreported cancers have been identified on record review from a series of 288 families (6 , 10) . These cancers were most often second primaries unknown to the proband. Second primary cancers are critical, as they represent a key clinical diagnostic feature in the identification of increased familial cancer risk. To address the issue of underreporting, investigators have performed random checks of relatives’ medical records, with a rate of 3–6% underreporting rate noted (1 , 5) . For this study, noncancer procedure records were requested as a check of cancer reporting, but only 2 cancers were identified.

Several factors have been evaluated for their effect on cancer reporting accuracy (1 , 3 , 4 , 10 , 11) . The relationship of the identified relative to the proband is one such factor. Probands in our series had a higher reporting accuracy among first-degree relatives than more distant relatives, which is consistent with other reports (4 , 10) . Of the 10 inaccurate reports among first-degree relatives, 50% were for the probands’ mothers. This may reflect the relatively older age of the study population, as cancer diagnoses were not as openly discussed among previous generations. In this study, we saw no difference in the cancer reporting accuracy between identified male or female relatives or between relatives who were deceased or living. To the best of our knowledge, the effects of gender or living status have not been reported previously.

Ultimately, the process to verify reported family history data are made to assess the family-based cancer risk necessary for cancer genetics investigations. Two probands had an increase in their family’s cancer risk assessment. This increase in risk assessment contrasts with published reports and may reflect our use of a general research population. Of the 213 families attending a high-risk cancer clinic, management was altered in 23 families (11%), and of these, intensified screening was no longer recommended in 15 families (10) . With 43% of cancer reports verified with medical records, Sijmons (8) found 5% of families had a change in clinical management, and the majority had a decrease in risk assessment. Additional data are needed among general research populations to determine trends in the clinical risk assessment after medical record collection.

In summary, family-based cancer genetics investigations are time consuming and costly. The inclusion of general populations in these investigations poses unique challenges in the collection and verification of the reported family history. Our study suggests family history data may be more difficult to collect among a general research population, with older probands, then has been reported previously in high-risk populations. The ultimate goal is to gather data for the family-based cancer risk assessment that can be used in conjunction with molecular data. Efforts to improve efficiency of data collection and identify inaccurate reporting are needed with similar aged and younger probands used in cancer genetics investigations.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
We thank the women and their families who participated in this study. We also thank the Biostatistics Core in the Siteman Cancer Center for their review of this manuscript.

	FOOTNOTES

 
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

¹ Supported by CA71754 and the Siteman Cancer Center at Washington University School of Medicine and Barnes-Jewish Hospital.

² To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Medical Genetics–Box 8116, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63110. Phone: (314) 454-6093; Fax: (314) 454-2075; E-mail: whelana{at}msnotes.wustl.edu

³ The abbreviation used is: HNPCC, hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer.

Received 9/18/01; revised 3/ 6/02; accepted 3/ 7/02.

	REFERENCES

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 

1. Airewele G., Adatto P., Cunningham J., Mastromarino C., Spencer C., Sharp M., Sigurdson A., Bondy M. Family history of cancer in patients with glioma: a validation of accuracy. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. (Bethesda), 90: 543-544, 1998.[Free Full Text]
2. Bondy M., Strom S., Colopy M., Brown B., Strong L. Accuracy of family history of cancer obtained through interviews with relatives of patients with childhood sarcoma. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 47: 89-96, 1994.[CrossRef][Medline]
3. Kerber R., Slatterly M. Comparison of self-reported and database-linked family history of cancer data in a case-control study. Am. J. Epidemiol., 146: 244-248, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Love R. R., Evans A. M., Josten D. M. The accuracy of patient reports of a family history of cancer. J. Chronic Dis., 38: 289-293, 1985.[CrossRef][Medline]
5. Novakovic B., Goldstein A., Tucker M. Validation of family history of cancer in deceased family members. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. (Bethesda), 88: 1492-1493,
6. Eerola H., Blomqvist C., Pukkala E., Pyrhonen S., Nevanlinna H. Familial breast cancer in southern Finland: how prevalent are breast cancer families and can we trust the family history reported by patients?. Eur. J. Cancer, 36: 1143-1148, 2000.
7. Koch M., Hill G. Problems in establishing accurate family history in patients with ovarian cancer of epithelial origin. Cancer Detect. Prev., 10: 279-283, 1987.[Medline]
8. Sijmons R., Boonstra A., Reefhuis J., Hordijk-Hos J., de Walle H., Oosterwijk J., Cornel M. Accuracy of family history of cancer: clinical genetic implications. Eur. J. Hum. Genet., 8: 181-186, 2000.[CrossRef][Medline]
9. Theis B., Boyd N., Lockwood G., Tritchler D. Accuracy of family cancer history in breast cancer patients. Eur. J. Cancer Prev., 3: 321-327, 1994.[Medline]
10. Douglas F., O’Dair L., Robinson M., Evans D., Lynch S. The accuracy of diagnoses as reported in families with cancer: a retrospective study. J. Med. Genet., 36: 309-312, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Aitken J., Bain C., Ward M., Siskind V., Maclennan R. How accurate is self-reported family history of colorectal cancer?. Am. J. Epidemiol., 141: 863-871, 1995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Aitken J., Youl P., Green A., Maclennan R., Martin N. Accuracy of case-reported family history of melanoma in Queensland Australia. Melanoma Res., 6: 313-317, 1996.[Medline]
13. Parazzine F., Negri E., LaVecchia C., Restell C., Franceschi S. Family history of reproductive cancers and ovarian cancer risk: an Italian case-control study. Am. J. Epidemiol., 135: 35-40, 1992.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Parent M., Ghadirian P., Lacroix A., Perret C. Accuracy of reports of familial breast cancer in a case control series. Epidemiol., 6: 184-186, 1995.[Medline]
15. Vasen H., Wijnen J., Menko F., Kleibeuker J., Taal B., Griffioen G., Nagengast F., Meijers-Heijboer E., Bertario L., Varesco L., Bisgaard M-L., Mohr J., Fodde R., Khan P. Cancer risk in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer diagnosed by mutation analysis. Gastroenterology, 110: 1020-1027, 1996.[CrossRef][Medline]
16. Vasen H., Watson P., Mecklin J-P., Lynch H. New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative Group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology, 116: 1453-1456, 1999.[CrossRef][Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Y. Karlan, A. Berchuck, and D. Mutch The Role of Genetic Testing for Cancer Susceptibility in Gynecologic Practice Obstet. Gynecol., July 1, 2007; 110(1): 155 - 167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Mensah, E. Willett, P Ansell, P. Adamson, and E Roman Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Family History of Hematologic Malignancy Am. J. Epidemiol., January 15, 2007; 165(2): 126 - 133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. M.C. Hendriks, A. E. de Jong, H. Morreau, C. M.J. Tops, H. F. Vasen, J. Th. Wijnen, M. H. Breuning, and A. H.J.T. Brocker-Vriends Diagnostic Approach and Management of Lynch Syndrome (Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Carcinoma): A Guide for Clinicians CA Cancer J Clin, July 1, 2006; 56(4): 213 - 225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. J. Murff, D. R. Spigel, and S. Syngal Does This Patient Have a Family History of Cancer?: An Evidence-Based Analysis of the Accuracy of Family Cancer History JAMA, September 22, 2004; 292(12): 1480 - 1489. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ivanovich, J. Articles by Whelan, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ivanovich, J. Articles by Whelan, A.