The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Evaluation of association methods for analysing modifiers of disease risk in carriers of high-risk mutations

Evaluation of association methods for analysing modifiers of disease risk in carriers of high-risk mutations
Evaluation of association methods for analysing modifiers of disease risk in carriers of high-risk mutations
There is considerable evidence indicating that disease risk in carriers of high-risk mutations (e.g. BRCA1 and BRCA2) varies by other genetic factors. Such mutations tend to be rare in the population and studies of genetic modifiers of risk have focused on sampling mutation carriers through clinical genetics centres. Genetic testing targets affected individuals from high-risk families, making ascertainment of mutation carriers non-random with respect to disease phenotype. Standard analytical methods can lead to biased estimates of associations. Methods proposed to address this problem include a weighted-cohort (WC) and retrospective likelihood (RL) approach. Their performance has not been evaluated systematically. We evaluate these methods by simulation and extend the RL to analysing associations of two diseases simultaneously (competing risks RL—CRRL). The standard cohort approach (Cox regression) yielded the most biased risk ratio (RR) estimates (relative bias—RB: −25% to −17%) and had the lowest power. The WC and RL approaches provided similar RR estimates, were least biased (RB: −2.6% to 2.5%), and had the lowest mean-squared errors. The RL method generally had more power than WC. When analysing associations with two diseases, ignoring a potential association with one disease leads to inflated type I errors for inferences with respect to the second disease and biased RR estimates. The CRRL generally gave unbiased RR estimates for both disease risks and had correct nominal type I errors. These methods are illustrated by analyses of genetic modifiers of breast and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.
0741-0395
274-291
Barnes, Daniel R.
92a2a7e0-5336-4353-a31a-126ad4fd3d4c
Lee, Andrew
a82db836-29cd-4bf5-a96a-fb6af545b310
Easton, Douglas F.
2661cf5e-8fc6-4f1d-b27a-e60cac8c8819
Antoniou, Antonis C
e5c475a7-25bb-4973-b7aa-689c00c7edab
Lucassen, Anneke
2eb85efc-c6e8-4c3f-b963-0290f6c038a5
EMBRACE Collaborators
KConFab Investigators
Kathleen Cunningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer
Barnes, Daniel R.
92a2a7e0-5336-4353-a31a-126ad4fd3d4c
Lee, Andrew
a82db836-29cd-4bf5-a96a-fb6af545b310
Easton, Douglas F.
2661cf5e-8fc6-4f1d-b27a-e60cac8c8819
Antoniou, Antonis C
e5c475a7-25bb-4973-b7aa-689c00c7edab
Lucassen, Anneke
2eb85efc-c6e8-4c3f-b963-0290f6c038a5

Barnes, Daniel R., Lee, Andrew, Easton, Douglas F. and Antoniou, Antonis C , EMBRACE Collaborators, KConFab Investigators and Kathleen Cunningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (2012) Evaluation of association methods for analysing modifiers of disease risk in carriers of high-risk mutations. Genetic Epidemiology, 36 (3), 274-291. (doi:10.1002/gepi.21620).

Record type: Article

Abstract

There is considerable evidence indicating that disease risk in carriers of high-risk mutations (e.g. BRCA1 and BRCA2) varies by other genetic factors. Such mutations tend to be rare in the population and studies of genetic modifiers of risk have focused on sampling mutation carriers through clinical genetics centres. Genetic testing targets affected individuals from high-risk families, making ascertainment of mutation carriers non-random with respect to disease phenotype. Standard analytical methods can lead to biased estimates of associations. Methods proposed to address this problem include a weighted-cohort (WC) and retrospective likelihood (RL) approach. Their performance has not been evaluated systematically. We evaluate these methods by simulation and extend the RL to analysing associations of two diseases simultaneously (competing risks RL—CRRL). The standard cohort approach (Cox regression) yielded the most biased risk ratio (RR) estimates (relative bias—RB: −25% to −17%) and had the lowest power. The WC and RL approaches provided similar RR estimates, were least biased (RB: −2.6% to 2.5%), and had the lowest mean-squared errors. The RL method generally had more power than WC. When analysing associations with two diseases, ignoring a potential association with one disease leads to inflated type I errors for inferences with respect to the second disease and biased RR estimates. The CRRL generally gave unbiased RR estimates for both disease risks and had correct nominal type I errors. These methods are illustrated by analyses of genetic modifiers of breast and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 24 April 2012
Additional Information: ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 471989
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/471989
ISSN: 0741-0395
PURE UUID: 17964eb3-0d41-4af6-b4dc-746ac86f42cd
ORCID for Anneke Lucassen: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-3324-4338

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 23 Nov 2022 17:41
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 02:54

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Daniel R. Barnes
Author: Andrew Lee
Author: Douglas F. Easton
Author: Antonis C Antoniou
Author: Anneke Lucassen ORCID iD
Corporate Author: EMBRACE Collaborators
Corporate Author: KConFab Investigators
Corporate Author: Kathleen Cunningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×