Measures of familial aggregation depend on definition of family history: meta-analysis for colorectal cancer

Baglietto, Laura; Jenkins, Mark A.; Severi, Gianluca; Giles, Graham G.; Bishop, D. Timothy; Boyle, Peter; Hopper, John L.

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.018

Cited by 88 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 61 publications

(121 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Colorectal cancer was not only a large enough and homogeneous enough subsequent primary neoplasm group to investigate in more detail, but it was also possible to compare the cumulative incidence among this group of survivors with that of other subgroups from the general population at excess risk, such as individuals with at least 2 firstdegree relatives affected by colorectal cancer. The cumulative incidence for individuals with at least 2 first-degree relatives affected by colorectal cancer was de-SUBSEQUENT PRIMARY NEOPLASMS AFTER CHILDHOOD CANCER rived from incidence rates that were estimated using age-specific RRs for such individuals from published metaanalyses 23,24 and then multiplying these with the corresponding age-specific colorectal cancer incidence rates from the general population of England and Wales. 13 All analyses were performed using Stata software, version 11 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term Risks of Subsequent Primary Neoplasms Among Survivors of Childhood Cancer

Reulen¹

2011

JAMA

301

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term Risks of Subsequent Primary Neoplasms Among Survivors of Childhood Cancer

Reulen¹

2011

JAMA

301

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Family history is a well-established risk factor (10). Studies have reported that individuals with one affected first-degree relative (parent, offspring, sibling) have, on average, a 2-fold increased risk of CRC compared with those with no family history (10)(11)(12) and this association increases to 4-fold for individuals with 3 or more affected first-degree relatives (10). However, the above statistics are mere averages.…”

Section: Risk Factors For Developing Crcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer: A Review

Win

MacInnis

Hopper

et al. 2012

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk prediction models are important to identify individuals at high risk of developing the disease who can then be offered individually tailored clinical management, targeted screening and interventions to reduce the burden of disease. They are also useful for research purposes when attempting to identify new risk factors for the disease. In this article, we review the risk prediction models that have been developed for colorectal cancer and appraise their applicability, strengths, and weaknesses. We also discuss the factors to be considered for future development and improvement of models for colorectal cancer risk prediction. We conclude that there is no model that sufficiently covers the known risk factors for colorectal cancer that is suitable for assessment of people from across the full range of risk and that a new comprehensive model is needed. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(3); 398-410. Ó2011 AACR.

show abstract

“…In the case-control design, where cases and controls are the outcomes and the disease status of the (multiple) relatives is the risk factor, the estimate of familial aggregation is useful in settings when a consultand wants to know his or her disease risk given his or her family history (type I relative risk) [9] . Type II relative risks, calculated when the disease status of one relative is considered a risk factor, can be used to quantify the risk of disease to relatives of an affected individual.…”

Section: How Do the Two Measures Of Family History Compare To The Trumentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for Assessing Familial Aggregation: Family History Measures and Confounding in the Standard Cohort, Reconstructed Cohort and Case-Control Designs

Zimmerman¹,

Pal

Tin

et al. 2009

Hum Hered

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To test whether case-control-based familial aggregation studies produce estimates of risk to relatives that are inherently biased or confounded by age and family size, and to compare case-control-derived estimates with those from the reconstructed cohort method. In addition, we test if the definition of family history affects the accuracy of results obtained from either design. We use simulated data, which allows us to know the true data origin. Methods: We simulated populations of three generation families. Both a dominant genetic disease and a non-genetic disease were present in the population. We compared the effect estimates from different measures of family history with those derived from the actual genetic cause of disease. Results: Effect estimates from family history measures that used multiple family members were more accurate than those derived from measures based on a single relative. Neither family size nor age of family members defining family history were confounders in the case-control design. Conclusion: The case-control and reconstructed cohort designs are equally valid in assessing familial aggregation of disease.

show abstract

Measures of familial aggregation depend on definition of family history: meta-analysis for colorectal cancer

Cited by 88 publications

References 61 publications

Long-term Risks of Subsequent Primary Neoplasms Among Survivors of Childhood Cancer

Long-term Risks of Subsequent Primary Neoplasms Among Survivors of Childhood Cancer

Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer: A Review

Methods for Assessing Familial Aggregation: Family History Measures and Confounding in the Standard Cohort, Reconstructed Cohort and Case-Control Designs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About