CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 265Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningStatistical Methods in EpidemiologySurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Validity of self-reported Cancers in a Propsective Cohort Study in Comparison with Data from State Cancer Registries

Bergmann, M. M., Calle, E. E., Mervis, C. A., Miracle-McMahill, H. L., Thun, M. J., Health, C. W.·1998·American Journal of Epidemiology
DOI 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009487
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The accuracy of self-reported cancer diagnoses in a prospective study was compared with population-based cancer registry data in four states. The study cohort included 65,582 men and women aged 39-96 years who were participants in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Survey, begun by the American Cancer Society in 1992. Estimates of sensitivity (the proportion of study participants with a registry-documented cancer who self-reported the cancer) ranged from 0.79 for an exact match of cancer site and year of diagnosis (+/- 1 year) to 0.93 for a match of any reported cancer. The sensitivity of exact matches varied considerably by cancer site and was highest for breast, prostate, and lung cancers (0.91, 0.90, and 0.90, respectively) and lowest for rectal cancer and melanoma (0.16 and 0.53, respectively). Sensitivity also varied slightly by the age, education, and smoking status of study participants. Estimates of sensitivity were virtually identical for each of the four states. The positive predictive value (the proportion of self-reported cancers that were confirmed by the registries) was 0.75 overall and also varied by cancer site. Unlike sensitivity, however, this proportion varied considerably by state. All self-reports of cancer that were not confirmed by the registries were further investigated by repeat questionnaires and acquisition of medical records. Low positive predictive values were due to underascertainment of true cancer cases by the registries, inaccurate reporting on the part of study participants, and problems with the algorithm used by the state to link the study population to the registry data. In conclusion, the ability of members of this cohort to report a past diagnosis of cancer accurately is quite high, especially for cancers of the breast, prostate, lung, and colon, or for the occurrence of any cancer.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009487

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bergmann, M. M., Calle, E. E., Mervis, C. A., Miracle-McMahill, H. L., Thun, M. J., & Health, C. W.
Affiliations
  • German Institute of Human Nutrition (DE)
  • American Cancer Society (US)
Corresponding author
Calle, E. E.
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1998-03-15
Volume
147
Issue
6
Pages
556-562
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
DOI
10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009487
OpenAlex
W2128786891
Cited by
265
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 14
FWCI
1.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
cancer registry data, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, positive predictive value, under-ascertainment, breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, rectal cancer, colon cancer
MeSH terms
Aged, Educational Status, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Medical Records, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Registries, Sensitivity and Specificity, Smoking, United States, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review