Making Sense of Cancer Risk Calculators on the Web

Overview

Journal J Gen Intern Med

Publisher Springer

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2008 Jan 12

PMID 18188653

Citations 9

Authors

Andrea Gurmankin Levy

Seema S Sonnad

Jibby E Kurichi

Melani Sherman

Katrina Armstrong

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Cancer risk calculators on the internet have the potential to provide users with valuable information about their individual cancer risk. However, the lack of oversight of these sites raises concerns about low quality and inconsistent information. These concerns led us to evaluate internet cancer risk calculators.

Design: After a systematic search to find all cancer risk calculators on the internet, we reviewed the content of each site for information that users should seek to evaluate the quality of a website. We then examined the consistency of the breast cancer risk calculators by having 27 women complete 10 of the breast cancer risk calculators for themselves. We also completed the breast cancer risk calculators for a hypothetical high- and low-risk woman, and compared the output to Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results estimates for the average same-age and same-race woman.

Results: Nineteen sites were found, 13 of which calculate breast cancer risk. Most sites do not provide the information users need to evaluate the legitimacy of a website. The breast cancer calculator sites vary in the risk factors they assess to calculate breast cancer risk, how they operationalize each risk factor and in the risk estimate they provide for the same individual.

Conclusions: Internet cancer risk calculators have the potential to provide a public health benefit by educating individuals about their risks and potentially encouraging preventive health behaviors. However, our evaluation of internet calculators revealed several problems that call into question the accuracy of the information that they provide. This may lead the users of these sites to make inappropriate medical decisions on the basis of misinformation.

Citing Articles

Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tan N, Nargund R, Douglas E, Lopez-Olivo M, Resong P, Ishizawa S Lancet Public Health. 2025; 10(2):e85-e96.

PMID: 39909697 PMC: 11817692. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(24)00278-0.

Disinformation: A Bibliometric Review.

Wang S, Su F, Ye L, Jing Y Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(24).

PMID: 36554727 PMC: 9779732. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192416849.

Adherence of Internet-Based Cancer Risk Assessment Tools to Best Practices in Risk Communication: Content Analysis.

Waters E, Foust J, Scherer L, McQueen A, Taber J J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23(1):e23318.

PMID: 33492238 PMC: 7870349.

Translating Cancer Risk Prediction Models into Personalized Cancer Risk Assessment Tools: Stumbling Blocks and Strategies for Success.

Waters E, Taber J, McQueen A, Housten A, Studts J, Scherer L Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020; 29(12):2389-2394.

PMID: 33046450 PMC: 8170537. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0861.

Chinese primary knee osteoarthritis progression cohort (CPKOPC) to evaluate the progression of knee osteoarthritis in the Beijing population: a prospective cohort study protocol.

Zhao M, Liang Y, Wang X, Zeng L, Tian H BMJ Open. 2019; 9(8):e029430.

PMID: 31434773 PMC: 6707698. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029430.

References

Helewa M, Levesque P, Provencher D, Lea R, Rosolowich V, Shapiro H . Breast cancer, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2002; 24(2):164-80; quiz 181-4. View

Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O . Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002; 287(20):2691-700. DOI: 10.1001/jama.287.20.2691. View

Malin A, Qi D, Shu X, Gao Y, Friedmann J, Jin F . Intake of fruits, vegetables and selected micronutrients in relation to the risk of breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 2003; 105(3):413-8. PMC: 1780272. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.11088. View

Calle E, Rodriguez C, Walker-Thurmond K, Thun M . Overweight, obesity, and mortality from cancer in a prospectively studied cohort of U.S. adults. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348(17):1625-38. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa021423. View

Ademiluyi G, Rees C, Sheard C . Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the quality of health information on the Internet. Patient Educ Couns. 2003; 50(2):151-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00124-6. View

Lagiou A, Lagiou P, Vassilarou D, Stoikidou M, Trichopoulos D . Comparison of age at first full-term pregnancy between women with breast cancer and women with benign breast diseases. Int J Cancer. 2003; 107(5):817-21. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.11476. View

Benigeri M, Pluye P . Shortcomings of health information on the Internet. Health Promot Int. 2003; 18(4):381-6. DOI: 10.1093/heapro/dag409. View

Sweeney C, Blair C, Anderson K, Lazovich D, Folsom A . Risk factors for breast cancer in elderly women. Am J Epidemiol. 2004; 160(9):868-75. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh276. View

Gail M, Brinton L, Byar D, Corle D, Green S, Schairer C . Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989; 81(24):1879-86. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/81.24.1879. View

10.

Impicciatore P, Pandolfini C, Casella N, Bonati M . Reliability of health information for the public on the World Wide Web: systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home. BMJ. 1997; 314(7098):1875-9. PMC: 2126984. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.314.7098.1875. View

11.

Robinson T, Patrick K, Eng T, Gustafson D . An evidence-based approach to interactive health communication: a challenge to medicine in the information age. Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health. JAMA. 1998; 280(14):1264-9. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.14.1264. View

12.

McLeod S . The quality of medical information on the Internet. A new public health concern. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998; 116(12):1663-5. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.116.12.1663. View

13.

Berkey C, Frazier A, Gardner J, Colditz G . Adolescence and breast carcinoma risk. Cancer. 1999; 85(11):2400-9. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19990601)85:11<2400::aid-cncr15>3.0.co;2-o. View

14.

Newcomb P, Egan K, Titus-Ernstoff L, Trentham-Dietz A, Greenberg E, Baron J . Lactation in relation to postmenopausal breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1999; 150(2):174-82. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009977. View

15.

Costantino J, Gail M, Pee D, Anderson S, Redmond C, Benichou J . Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999; 91(18):1541-8. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/91.18.1541. View

16.

Rubinstein W . Hereditary breast cancer in Jews. Fam Cancer. 2004; 3(3-4):249-57. DOI: 10.1007/s10689-004-9550-2. View

17.

Ross J, Parker E, Blair C, Cerhan J, Folsom A . Body mass index and risk of leukemia in older women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004; 13(11 Pt 1):1810-3. View

18.

Freedman A, Seminara D, Gail M, Hartge P, Colditz G, Ballard-Barbash R . Cancer risk prediction models: a workshop on development, evaluation, and application. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97(10):715-23. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dji128. View

19.

Terry K, Willett W, Rich-Edwards J, Hunter D, Michels K . Menstrual cycle characteristics and incidence of premenopausal breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005; 14(6):1509-13. PMC: 2293279. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0051. View

20.

Hartmann L, Sellers T, Frost M, Lingle W, Degnim A, Ghosh K . Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353(3):229-37. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa044383. View