Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Estimation and interpretation of models of absolute risk from epidemiologic data, including family-based studies

  • Published:
Lifetime Data Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Absolute risk is the chance that a person with given risk factors and free of the disease of interest at age a will be diagnosed with that disease in the interval (a, a + τ]. Absolute risk is sometimes called cumulative incidence. Absolute risk is a “crude” risk because it is reduced by the chance that the person will die of competing causes of death before developing the disease of interest. Cohort studies admit flexibility in modeling absolute risk, either by allowing covariates to affect the cause-specific relative hazards or to affect the absolute risk itself. An advantage of cause-specific relative risk models is that various data sources can be used to fit the required components. For example, case–control data can be used to estimate relative risk and attributable risk, and these can be combined with registry data on age-specific composite hazard rates for the disease of interest and with national data on competing hazards of mortality to estimate absolute risk. Family-based designs, such as the kin-cohort design and collections of pedigrees with multiple affected individuals can be used to estimate the genotype-specific hazard of disease. Such analyses must be adjusted for ascertainment, and failure to take into account residual familial risk, such as might be induced by unmeasured genetic variants or by unmeasured behavioral or environmental exposures that are correlated within families, can lead to overestimates of mutation-specific absolute risk in the general population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albertsen PC, Hanley JA and Fine J (2005). 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 293: 2095–2101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antoniou AC, Pharoah PDP, McMullan G, Day NE, Ponder BAJ and Easton D (2001). Evidence for further breast cancer susceptibility genes in addition to BRCA1 and BRCA2 in a population-based study. Genet Epidemiol 21: 1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antoniou AC, Pharoah PDP and McMullan G et al (2002). A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes. Br J of Cancer 86: 76–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antoniou A, Pharoah PDP and Narod S et al (2003). Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: A combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet 72: 1117–1130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antoniou AC, Pharoah PPD, Smith P and Easton DF (2004). The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer 91: 1580–1590

    Google Scholar 

  • Begg CB (2002). On the use of familial aggregation in population-based case probands for calculating penetrance. J Nat Cancer Inst 94: 1221–1226

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry DA, Parmigiani G, Sanchez J, Schildkraut J and Winer E (1997). Probability of carrying a mutation of breast-ovarian cancer gene BRCA1 based on family history. J Natl Cancer Inst 89: 227–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry DA, Iversen ES and Gudbjartsson DF et al (2002). BRCAPRO validation, sensitivity of genetic testing of BRCA1/BRCA2, and prevalence of other breast cancer susceptibility genes. J Clin Oncol 20: 2701–2712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookmeyer R and Gail MH (1988). A method for obtaining short-term projections and lower bounds on the size of the AIDS epidemic. J Am Stat Assoc 83: 301–308

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee N and Wacholder S (2001). A marginal likelihood approach for estimating penetrance from kin-cohort designs. Biometrics 57: 245–252

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee N, Hartge P and Wacholder S (2003). Adjustment for competing risk in kin-cohort estimation. Genet Epidemiol 25: 303–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee N, Kalaylioglu Z, Shih JH and Gail MH (2006). Case-control and case-only designs with genotype and family history data: estimating relative risk, residual familial aggregation, and cumulative risk. Biometrics 62: 36–48

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chen JB, Pee D and Ayyagari R et al (2006). Projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk in white women with a model that includes mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst 98: 1215–1226

    Google Scholar 

  • Claus EB, Risch N and Thompson WD (1991). Genetic-analysis of breast-cancer in the Cancer and Steroid-Hormone Study. Am J Hum Genet 48: 232–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Claus EB, Risch N and Thompson WD (1994). Autosomal-dominant inheritance of early-onset breast-cancer – implications for risk prediction. Cancer 73: 643–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claus EB, Schildkraut J, Iversen ES, Berry D and Parmigiani G (1998). Effect of BRCA1 and BRCA2 on the association between breast cancer risk and family history. J Natl Cancer Inst 90: 1824–1829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costantino JP, Gail MH and Pee D et al (1999). Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 91: 1541–1548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox A, Dunning AM and Garcia-Closas M et al (2007). A common coding variant in CASP8 is associated with breast cancer risk. Nat Genet 39: 352–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easton DF, Ford D and Bishop DT et al (1995). Breast and ovarian -cancer incidence in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Am J Hum Genet 56: 265–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton DF, Pooley KA and Dunning AM et al (2007). Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nature 447: 1087–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine JP and Gray RJ (1999). A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 94: 496–509

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RA (1918). The correlation between reatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Trans R Soc Edinburgh 52: 399–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford D, Easton DF and Stratton M et al (1998). Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. Am J Hum Genet 62: 676–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman AN, Graubard BI, Rao SR, McCaskill-Stevens W, Ballard-Barbash R and Gail MH (2003). Estimates of the number of US women who could benefit from tamoxifen for breast cancer chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 95: 526–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gail MH (2008). Models of absolute risk: interpretation, estimation,validation and application. In: Rebbeck, TR, Ambrosone, CB and Shields, PG (eds) Molecular epidemiology in Cancer, Informa Healthcare USA, Inc, New York (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gail M and Chatterjee N (2004). Some biases that may affect kin-cohort studies for estimating the risks from identified disease genes. In: Lin, DY and Haegerty, PJ (eds) Proceedings of the second Seattle symposium in biostatistics: analysis of correlated data, pp 175–187. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gail M and Chatterjee N (2008). Estimating the absolute risk of disease associated with identified mutations. In: Lin, S and Zhao, H (eds) Handbook on analyzing human genetic data—computational approaches and software, Springer, New York (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gail MH and Pfeiffer RM (2005). On criteria for evaluating models of absolute risk. Biostatistics 6: 227–239

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gail M and Rimer B (1999). Risk-based recommendations for mammographic screening for women in their forties. J Clin Oncol 17: 740–740

    Google Scholar 

  • Gail MH, Wieand S and Piantadosi S (1984). Biased estimates of treatment effect in randomized experiments with nonlinear regressions and omitted covariates. Biometrika 71: 431–444

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gail M H, Brinton LA and Byar DP et al (1989). Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Nat Cancer Inst 81: 1879–1886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gail MH, Costantino JP and Bryant J et al (1999a). Weighing the risks and benefits of tamoxifen treatment for preventing breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 91: 1829–1846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gail MH, Pee D, Benichou J and Carroll R (1999b). Designing studies to estimate the penetrance of an identified autosomal dominant mutation: cohort, case-control, and genotyped-proband designs. Genet Epidemiol 16: 15–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gail MH, Pee D and Carroll R (1999c). Kin-cohort designs for gene characterization. In: Seminara, D (eds) Monographs of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Number 26: innovative study designs and analytic approaches to the genetic epidemiology of cancer, pp 55–60. Oxford University Press, Cary, NC

    Google Scholar 

  • Gail MH, Pee D and Carroll R (2001). Effects of violations of assumptions on likelihood methods for estimating the penetrance of an autosomal dominant mutation from kin-cohort studies. J Stat Plan Inference 96: 167–177

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter DJ, Kraft P and Jacobs KB et al (2007). A genome-wide association study identifies alleles in FGFR2 associated with risk of sporadic postmenopausal breast cancer. Nat Genet 39: 870–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iversen ES and Chen SN (2005). Population-calibrated gene characterization: Estimating age at onset distributions associated with cancer genes. J Am Stat Assoc 100: 399–409

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • John EM, Hopper JL and Beck JC et al (2004). The Breast Cancer Family Registry: an infrastructure for cooperative multinational, interdisciplinary and translational studies of the genetic epidemiology of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 6: R375–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraft P and Thomas DC (2000). Bias and efficiency in family-based gene-characterization studies: Conditional, prospective, retrospective and joint likelihoods. Am J Hum Genet 66: 1119–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langholz B, Borgan O (2003) Estimation of absolute risk from nested case-control data (vol 53, p 767, 1997). Biometrics 59:451–451

  • Mark SD and Katki HA (2006). Specifying and implementing nonparametric and semiparametric survival estimators in two-stage (nested) cohort studies with missing case data. J Am Stat Assoc 101: 460–471

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pepe MS, Janes H, Longton G, Leisenring W and Newcomb P (2004). Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. Am J Epidemiol 159: 882–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer RM, Gail MH and Pee D (2001). Inference for covariates that accounts for ascertainment and random genetic effects in family studies. Biometrika 88: 933–948

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Prentice RL (1986). A case-cohort design for epidemiologic cohort studies and disease prevention trials. Biometrika 73: 1–11

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Prentice RL, Kalbfleisch JD, Peterson AV, Flournoy N, Farewell VT and Breslow NE (1978). Analysis of failure times in presence of competing risks. Biometrics 34: 541–554

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Risch N (1990). Linkage strategies for genetically complex traits 1 Multilocus models. Am J Hum Genet 46: 222–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockhill B, Spiegelman D, Byrne C, Hunter DJ and Colditz GA (2001). Validation of the Gail et al model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 93: 358–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Self SG and Prentice RL (1988). Asymptotic-distribution theory and efficiency results for case cohort studies. Ann Stat 16: 64–81

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Struewing JP, Hartge P and Wacholder S et al (1997). The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med 336: 1401–1408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsiatis AA (2005). Competing risks. In: Armitage, P and Colton, T (eds) Encyclopedia of biostatistics, pp 1025–1035. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chicester England

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J (2005) A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors (vol 23, p 1111, 2004). Stat Med 24:156–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Wacholder S, Hartge P and Struewing JP et al (1998). The kin-cohort study for estimating penetrance. Am J Epidemiol 148: 623–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittemore AS (1997). Logistic regression of family data from case-control studies (vol 82, p 57, 1995). Biometrika 84:989–990

    Google Scholar 

  • Wingo PA, Ory HW, Layde PM and Lee NC (1988). The evaluation of the data-collection process for a multicenter, population-based, case-control design. Am J Epidemiolo 128: 206–217

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biostatistics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6120 Executive Blvd, EPS 8032, Bethesda, MD, 20892-7244, USA

    Mitchell H. Gail

Authors
  1. Mitchell H. Gail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mitchell H. Gail.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gail, M.H. Estimation and interpretation of models of absolute risk from epidemiologic data, including family-based studies. Lifetime Data Anal 14, 18–36 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-007-9070-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-007-9070-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation