Association studies offer a potentially powerful approach to identify genetic variants that influence susceptibility to common disease, but are plagued by the impression that they are not consistently reproducible. In principle, the inconsistency may be due to false positive studies, false negative studies or true variability in association among different populations. The critical question is whether false positives overwhelmingly explain the inconsistency. We analyzed 301 published studies covering 25 different reported associations. There was a large excess of studies replicating the first positive reports, inconsistent with the hypothesis of no true positive associations (P < 10(-14)). This excess of replications could not be reasonably explained by publication bias and was concentrated among 11 of the 25 associations. For 8 of these 11 associations, pooled analysis of follow-up studies yielded statistically significant replication of the first report, with modest estimated genetic effects. Thus, a sizable fraction (but under half) of reported associations have strong evidence of replication; for these, false negative, underpowered studies probably contribute to inconsistent replication. We conclude that there are probably many common variants in the human genome with modest but real effects on common disease risk, and that studies using large samples will convincingly identify such variants.

Summary.-The Medical Research Council has for some years encouraged collaborative clinical trials in leukaemia and other cancers, reporting the results in the medical literature. One unreported result which deserves such publication is the development of the expertise to design and analyse such trials. This report was prepared by a group of British and American statisticians, but it is intended for people without any statistical expertise. Part I, which appears in this issue, discusses the design of such trials; Part II, which will appear separately in the January 1977 issue of the Journal, gives full instructions for the statistical analysis of such trials by means of life tables and the logrank test, including a worked example, and discusses the interpretation of trial results, including brief reports of 2 particular trials.Both parts of this report are relevant to all clinical trials which study time to death, and would be equally relevant to clinical trials which' study time to other particular classes of untoward event: first stroke, perhaps, or first relapse, metastasis, disease recurrence, thrombosis, transplant rejection, or death from a particular cause. Part I, in this issue, collects together ideas that have mostly already appeared in the medical literature, but Part II, next month, is the first simple account yet published for non-statistical physicians of how to analyse efficiently data from clinical trials of survival duration. Such trials include the majority of all clinical trials of cancer therapy; in cancer trials, however, it may be preferable to use these statistical methods to study time to local recurrence of tumour, or to study time to detectable metastatic spread, in addition to studying total survival. Solid tumours can be staged at diagnosis; if this, or any other available information in some other disease is an important determinant of outcome, it can be used to make the overall logrank test for the whole heterogeneous trial population more sensitive, and more intuitively satisfactory, for it will then only be necessary to compare like with like, and not, by chance, Stage I with Stage III. CONTENTSMany of these sections may be read out of context, or skipped while reading the main report. The sections on Analysis (Part II), which describe how to draw life tables and to compute P-values by the logrank test, can be used in isolation from the earlier sections on Design (Part I).Requests for reprints to: R. Peto, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, England; or to: M.

The authors describe the design and implementation of a large multiethnic cohort established to study diet and cancer in the United States. They detail the source of the subjects, sample size, questionnaire development, pilot work, and approaches to future analyses. The cohort consists of 215,251 adult men and women (age 45-75 years at baseline) living in Hawaii and in California (primarily Los Angeles County) with the following ethnic distribution: African-American (16.3%), Latino (22.0%), Japanese-American (26.4%), Native Hawaiian (6.5%), White (22.9%), and other ancestry (5.8%). From 1993 to 1996, participants entered the cohort by completing a 26-page, self-administered mail questionnaire that elicited a quantitative food frequency history, along with demographic and other information. Response rates ranged from 20% in Latinos to 49% in Japanese-Americans. As expected, both within and among ethnic groups, the questionnaire data show substantial variations in dietary intakes (nutrients as well as foods) and in the distributions of non-dietary risk factors (including smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity, and physical activity). When compared with corresponding ethnic-specific cancer incidence rates, the findings provide tentative support for several current dietary hypotheses. As sufficient numbers of cancer cases are identified through surveillance of the cohort, dietary and other hypotheses will be tested in prospective analyses. Keywords alcohol drinking; cohort studies; diet; ethnic groups; obesity; physical fitness; prospective studies; smoking Ethnic minorities in the United States have not been well represented in epidemiologic research on diet and cancer, especially in prospective cohort studies. Thus, little is known about the relation of dietary factors to cancer risk in these groups. Furthermore, while diet and other external factors are the predominant determinants of cancer risk in all these groups (1), the extent to which environmental exposures explain interethnic differences in incidence Reprint requests to Dr. Laurence Kolonel, Cancer Research Center of Hawaii, 1236 Lauhala Street, Honolulu, HI 96813. HHS Public Access Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript is not known. By including a variety of ethnic groups within a single study, and by using a common data collection methodology in all groups, interethnic comparisons of exposuredisease relations can readily be made.Hawaii has long presented special opportunities for epidemiologic research because of its diverse ethnic/cultural environment. Over the past two decades, the Los Angeles basin has also attracted large ethnic populations, including a variety of groups from Asia, and Latino migrants from Mexico and Central and South America. Together, these two areas now provide an unmatched resource for epidemiologic initiatives.Recognizing the need for dietary studies of ethnic minorities in the United States, the unique opportunities offered by Hawaii and southern California for conducting cross-ethnic a...

SummaryBackgroundEndometriosis is a risk factor for epithelial ovarian cancer; however, whether this risk extends to all invasive histological subtypes or borderline tumours is not clear. We undertook an international collaborative study to assess the association between endometriosis and histological subtypes of ovarian cancer.MethodsData from 13 ovarian cancer case–control studies, which were part of the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium, were pooled and logistic regression analyses were undertaken to assess the association between self-reported endometriosis and risk of ovarian cancer. Analyses of invasive cases were done with respect to histological subtypes, grade, and stage, and analyses of borderline tumours by histological subtype. Age, ethnic origin, study site, parity, and duration of oral contraceptive use were included in all analytical models.Findings13 226 controls and 7911 women with invasive ovarian cancer were included in this analysis. 818 and 738, respectively, reported a history of endometriosis. 1907 women with borderline ovarian cancer were also included in the analysis, and 168 of these reported a history of endometriosis. Self-reported endometriosis was associated with a significantly increased risk of clear-cell (136 [20·2%] of 674 cases vs 818 [6·2%] of 13 226 controls, odds ratio 3·05, 95% CI 2·43–3·84, p<0·0001), low-grade serous (31 [9·2%] of 336 cases, 2·11, 1·39–3·20, p<0·0001), and endometrioid invasive ovarian cancers (169 [13·9%] of 1220 cases, 2·04, 1·67–2·48, p<0·0001). No association was noted between endometriosis and risk of mucinous (31 [6·0%] of 516 cases, 1·02, 0·69–1·50, p=0·93) or high-grade serous invasive ovarian cancer (261 [7·1%] of 3659 cases, 1·13, 0·97–1·32, p=0·13), or borderline tumours of either subtype (serous 103 [9·0%] of 1140 cases, 1·20, 0·95–1·52, p=0·12, and mucinous 65 [8·5%] of 767 cases, 1·12, 0·84–1·48, p=0·45).InterpretationClinicians should be aware of the increased risk of specific subtypes of ovarian cancer in women with endometriosis. Future efforts should focus on understanding the mechanisms that might lead to malignant transformation of endometriosis so as to help identify subsets of women at increased risk of ovarian cancer.FundingOvarian Cancer Research Fund, National Institutes of Health, California Cancer Research Program, California Department of Health Services, Lon V Smith Foundation, European Community's Seventh Framework Programme, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany, Programme of Clinical Biomedical Research, German Cancer Research Centre, Eve Appeal, Oak Foundation, UK National Institute of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Cancer Council Tasmania, Cancer Foundation of Western Australia, Mermaid 1, Danish Cancer Society, and Roswell Park Alliance Foundation.