National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Family History and Improving Health: August 24-26, 2009.

Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements 09/2009; 26(1):1-19.
Source: PubMed


OBJECTIVE: To provide health care providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on family history and improving health. PARTICIPANTS: A non-DHHS, nonadvocate 16-member panel representing the fields of family medicine, population health, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, health economics, epidemiology, biostatistics, medical genetics, nursing, endocrinology, behavioral science, ethics, health services and outcomes research, and a public representative. In addition, 21 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience. EVIDENCE: Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the McMaster University Evidence-based Practice Center, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. CONFERENCE PROCESS: The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was presented on the final day of the conference and circulated to the audience for comment. The panel released a revised statement later that day at This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government. CONCLUSIONS: The panel recognized that family history has an important role in the practice of medicine and may motivate positive lifestyle changes, enhance individual empowerment, and influence clinical interventions. The panel found that it is unclear how this information can be effectively gathered and used in the primary care setting for common diseases. The emerging international paradigm on using evidence-based methods to evaluate tests and interventions works best when one can trace a linear pathway from test development through randomized controlled trials that anchor usefulness in clinical practice with quantitative evidence of benefits and harms (principles best exemplified in the field of genetics by the ACCE and Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention methodologies). Family history was a core element of clinical care long before the evidence-based medicine paradigm was even proposed. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the evidence base supporting family history for common diseases in primary care, as assessed in this state-of-the-science review, is weak in defining the key elements, assessing test performance, linking results to clinical conditions, acting on results in specific clinical scenarios, evaluating potential benefits and harms, and assessing factors encouraging and discouraging use of family history. For a systematically collected family history for common diseases to become an evidence-based tool in primary care clinical settings, substantial additional research will be needed. Challenges include the number, complexity, and cost of rigorous studies that have potential to adequately address the scientific questions outlined in this panel's research recommendations. The relative priority of specific research questions on family history in the context of other health information and genetic technologies and interventions that might address the same clinical problems in different ways requires debate in order to ensure the best outcomes for improving health.

1 Follower
11 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine the ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients treated in the American Society of Breast Surgeons MammoSite Breast Brachytherapy Registry Trial who met the criteria for E5194 treated with local excision and adjuvant accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). A total of 194 patients with DCIS were treated between 2002 and 2004 in the Mammosite registry trial; of these, 70 patients met the enrollment criteria for E5194: 1) low to intermediate grade (LIG)-pathological size >0.3 but <2.5 cm and margins ≥3 mm (n = 41) or 2) high grade (HG)-pathological size <1 cm and margins ≥3 mm (n = 29). All patients were treated with lumpectomy followed by adjuvant APBI using MammoSite. Median follow-up was 52.7 months (range, 0-88.4). SAS (version 8.2) was used for statistical analysis. In the LIG cohort, the 5-year IBTR was 0%, compared with 6.1% at 5 years in E5194. In the HG cohort, the 5-year IBTR was 5.3%, compared with 15.3% at 5 years in E5194. The overall 5-year IBTR was 2%, and there were no cases of elsewhere or regional failures in the entire cohort. The 5-year contralateral breast event rate was 0% and 5.6% in LIG and HG patients, respectively (compared with 3.5% and 4.2%, respectively, in E5194). This study found that patients who met the criteria of E5194 treated with APBI had extremely low rates of recurrence (0% vs 6.1% in the LIG cohort and 5.3% vs 15.3% in the HG cohort).
    Cancer 02/2010; 117(6):1149-55. DOI:10.1002/cncr.25615 · 4.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Identification of genetic risk factors for common diseases, including cancer, highlights the importance of familial risk assessment. Little is known about patterns of familial cancer risk in the general population, or whether this risk is associated with knowledge and use of genetic testing. To examine the distribution of familial cancer risk and its associations with genetic testing in the United States. Cross-sectional analysis of the 2005 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). 31,428 adults who completed the NHIS Cancer Control Supplement. Familial cancer risk was estimated based on the number of first-degree relatives with a breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (BRCA)- or a Lynch-associated cancer, age of onset (<50 or > or = 50 years), and personal history of any cancer. Outcomes included having heard of genetic testing, discussed genetic testing with a physician, been advised by a physician to have testing, and received genetic testing. Most adults (84.5%) had no family history of BRCA- or Lynch syndrome-associated cancer; 12.9% had a single first-degree relative (5.3% with early onset); and 2.7% had > or = 2 first-degree relatives. Although 40.2% of adults had heard of genetic testing for cancer risk, only 5.6% of these individuals had discussed testing with a physician, and of these 36.9% were advised to be tested. Overall, only 1.4% of adults who had heard of genetic testing received a test. Familial risk was associated with higher rates of testing; 49.5% of participants in the highest risk group had heard of testing, of those 14.8% had discussed it with their physician, and 4.5% had received genetic testing. These nationally representative data provide estimates of the prevalence of familial cancer risk in the US and suggest that information about genetic testing is not reaching many at higher risk of inherited cancer.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 04/2010; 25(7):717-24. DOI:10.1007/s11606-010-1334-9 · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the ability of My Family Health Portrait to accurately collect family history for six common heritable disorders. Family history is useful to assess disease risk but is not widely used. We compared the pedigree from My Family Health Portrait, an online tool for collection of family history, to a pedigree supplemented by a genetics professional. One hundred fifty volunteers collected their family histories using My Family Health Portrait. A genetic counselor interviewed the volunteers to validate the entries and add diagnoses, as needed. The content and the affection assignments of the pedigrees were compared. The pedigrees were entered into Family Healthware to assess risks for the diseases. The sensitivity of My Family Health Portrait varied among the six diseases (67-100%) compared to the supplemented pedigree. The specificities ranged from 92 to 100%. When the pedigrees were used to generate risk scores, My Family Health Portrait yielded identical risks to the supplemented pedigree for 94-99% of the volunteers for diabetes and colon, breast, and ovarian cancer. The agreement was lower for coronary artery disease (68%) and stroke (83%). These data support the validity of My Family Health Portrait pedigrees for four common conditions--diabetes and colon, breast, and ovarian cancer. The tool performed less well for coronary artery disease and stroke. We recommend that the tool be improved to better capture information for these two common conditions.
    Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 06/2010; 12(6):370-5. DOI:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181e15bd5 · 7.33 Impact Factor
Show more