This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1055-9965.EPI-07-2625v1 17/4/791    most recent 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 Google Scholar Articles by Bastani, R. Articles by Chang, L. C. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bastani, R. Articles by Chang, L. C. Related Collections Early Detection Early Detection: Biomarkers: Discovery, Methodology, Validation

Validation of Self-reported Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening in a Study of Ethnically Diverse First-Degree Relatives of CRC Cases

School of Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California

Requests for reprints: Roshan Bastani, University of California at Los Angeles School of Public Health, 650 Charles Young Drive South, Room A2-125 CHS, Los Angeles, CA 90095-6900. Phone: 310-206-9266; Fax: 310-206-3566. E-mail: bastani{at}ucla.edu

Background: Evidence about the accuracy of self-reports of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is lacking. We conducted a validation protocol in a randomized trial to increase CRC screening among high-risk individuals.

Methods: First-degree relatives (n = 1,280) of CRC cases who were due for CRC screening were included in the parent trial. All subjects who completed the follow-up interview (n = 948) were asked to participate in validation activities. Self-reports of receipt of CRC screening during the 12-month study period were verified via physicians.

Results: Although 60% (n = 567) verbally agreed, only 171 subjects (18% of original sample) returned the signed validation form with the physician name and contact information and a medical information release statement. The signed forms were mailed to physicians with a $10 incentive and the request to list the dates of recent CRC screening tests. One hundred twenty-three physicians (72% of physicians contacted, 13% of original sample) returned completed validation forms. Rates of agreement were low across all three screening types with physicians verifying self-reported screening for 29% of fecal occult blood testing, 56% of sigmoidoscopy, 55% of colonoscopy, and 57% of any screening test.

Conclusion: Validation of self-report using the type of protocol we used for subjects receiving medical care in many community settings may be unfeasible and cost inefficient. Given the overall low participation rate in validation activities and considerable challenges in collecting high quality data, conclusions about the accuracy of self-reported CRC screening are difficult to make based on the results of this study. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(4):791–8)

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. G. Zapka Validation of Colorectal Cancer Screening Behaviors Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2008; 17(4): 745 - 747. [Full Text] [PDF]