摘要:全面的结直肠癌家族史是否能提高风险预测?

Yingye Zheng, Xinwei Hua, Aung Ko Win, M. Jenkins, R. MacInnis, P. Newcomb
{"title":"摘要:全面的结直肠癌家族史是否能提高风险预测?","authors":"Yingye Zheng, Xinwei Hua, Aung Ko Win, M. Jenkins, R. MacInnis, P. Newcomb","doi":"10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-PR05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a strong and well-established risk factor for CRC. To date, however, family history (FH) of the disease is generally only broadly categorized (usually as present or absent) in most risk prediction models (Freedman et al. 2009). These approaches fail to fully utilize information on family history and may lead to suboptimal predictive performance of CRC risk. We investigated the utility of a CRC risk model that incorporates a comprehensive family history of CRC as well as information on known genetic and environmental risk factors and personal characteristics. Methods: We used data from the Colon Cancer Family Registry (CCFR), a large, international consortium of six study centers. Prediction models were developed based on incident invasive CRC cases (N = 4445) and population-based controls (N = 3967) that were recruited from three study sites (Seattle, USA; Ontario, Canada; and Melbourne, Australia). A familial risk profile (FRP) score, a probability index of absolute risk for lifetime CRC was estimated based on family structure, age of onset for affected relatives and the polygenic effect of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 and MUTYH using modified segregation analysis, an approach adapted from Antoniou et al (2002)). Two sets of gender-specific logistic regression models were built: (I) the FRP models, which included FRP and other known risk factors (e.g., BMI, consumption of red meat, calcium and NSAID use duration, smoking amount (pack-years), a history of polyps, and history of FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, fruit intake, and use of hormone replacement therapy for female); and (II) binary FH models, which replaced FRP with a binary indicator (yes/no) for any self-reported first-degree family member with CRC. 5-year absolute risks were calculated based on the estimated odds ratios (OR), country-, sex- and age-specific CRC incidence rate and mortality due to causes other than CRC. Model validation was conducted with unaffected relatives (N=12,120) and population-based controls (N=1,899) from five study sites based on the follow-up information on incident CRC and death status. The primary endpoint was CRC diagnosis within 5-year after baseline. We used calibration plots to compare the predicted 5-year absolute risks with the observed cumulative incidence rates. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were conducted and areas under the ROC curve (AUC) were used to assess the discriminatory capacity for separating subjects with and without a CRC diagnosis within 5 years, accounting for censoring and competing risk. Results: The ORs (95% confidence interval [CI]) using the FRP per 10% increase were 1.16 (1.11-1.20) for males, and 1.09 (1.06-1.12) for females in the FRP models, while the ORs for the binary FH model were 2.32 (1.88- 2.85) for men and 1.70 (1.38-2.09) for women. The FRP models provided slightly better calibration, with average predicted risks falling within the 95% CIs of the empirical cumulative rates. The binary FH models, by comparison, tended to yield higher estimated CRC risks compared with the observed risks among individuals whose risks were above the top10% of the risk distribution. Both models yielded comparable AUCs using the full validation set. Among individuals with at least one first-degree family member affected with CRC, the FRP model performed significantly better (AUC = 0.71) than the FH model (AUC = 0.63) for male participants; difference equaled 0.09 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.16). The models were comparable for females. Conclusion: Our CRC prediction model that incorporates more comprehensive family history of CRC can provide improved calibration and discrimination of risks compared with the simple FH model, especially in populations with higher underlying risk. The models developed may potentially further improve screening decision making among subgroups with elevated CRC risk. References: 1. Freedman AN, Slattery ML, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Colorectal cancer risk prediction tool for white men and women without known susceptibility . J Clin Oncol 2009;27(5):686-693. 2. Antoniou AC, Pharoah PDP, McMullan G, et al. A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes. Br J Cancer, 2002; 86(1), 76-83. Citation Format: Yingye Zheng, Xinwei Hua, Aung Ko Win, Mark Jenkins, Robert Macinnis, Polly Newcomb. Does a comprehensive family history of colorectal cancer improve risk prediction? [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PR05.","PeriodicalId":9487,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abstract PR05: Does a comprehensive family history of colorectal cancer improve risk prediction?\",\"authors\":\"Yingye Zheng, Xinwei Hua, Aung Ko Win, M. Jenkins, R. MacInnis, P. Newcomb\",\"doi\":\"10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-PR05\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a strong and well-established risk factor for CRC. To date, however, family history (FH) of the disease is generally only broadly categorized (usually as present or absent) in most risk prediction models (Freedman et al. 2009). These approaches fail to fully utilize information on family history and may lead to suboptimal predictive performance of CRC risk. We investigated the utility of a CRC risk model that incorporates a comprehensive family history of CRC as well as information on known genetic and environmental risk factors and personal characteristics. Methods: We used data from the Colon Cancer Family Registry (CCFR), a large, international consortium of six study centers. Prediction models were developed based on incident invasive CRC cases (N = 4445) and population-based controls (N = 3967) that were recruited from three study sites (Seattle, USA; Ontario, Canada; and Melbourne, Australia). A familial risk profile (FRP) score, a probability index of absolute risk for lifetime CRC was estimated based on family structure, age of onset for affected relatives and the polygenic effect of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 and MUTYH using modified segregation analysis, an approach adapted from Antoniou et al (2002)). Two sets of gender-specific logistic regression models were built: (I) the FRP models, which included FRP and other known risk factors (e.g., BMI, consumption of red meat, calcium and NSAID use duration, smoking amount (pack-years), a history of polyps, and history of FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, fruit intake, and use of hormone replacement therapy for female); and (II) binary FH models, which replaced FRP with a binary indicator (yes/no) for any self-reported first-degree family member with CRC. 5-year absolute risks were calculated based on the estimated odds ratios (OR), country-, sex- and age-specific CRC incidence rate and mortality due to causes other than CRC. Model validation was conducted with unaffected relatives (N=12,120) and population-based controls (N=1,899) from five study sites based on the follow-up information on incident CRC and death status. The primary endpoint was CRC diagnosis within 5-year after baseline. We used calibration plots to compare the predicted 5-year absolute risks with the observed cumulative incidence rates. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were conducted and areas under the ROC curve (AUC) were used to assess the discriminatory capacity for separating subjects with and without a CRC diagnosis within 5 years, accounting for censoring and competing risk. Results: The ORs (95% confidence interval [CI]) using the FRP per 10% increase were 1.16 (1.11-1.20) for males, and 1.09 (1.06-1.12) for females in the FRP models, while the ORs for the binary FH model were 2.32 (1.88- 2.85) for men and 1.70 (1.38-2.09) for women. The FRP models provided slightly better calibration, with average predicted risks falling within the 95% CIs of the empirical cumulative rates. The binary FH models, by comparison, tended to yield higher estimated CRC risks compared with the observed risks among individuals whose risks were above the top10% of the risk distribution. Both models yielded comparable AUCs using the full validation set. Among individuals with at least one first-degree family member affected with CRC, the FRP model performed significantly better (AUC = 0.71) than the FH model (AUC = 0.63) for male participants; difference equaled 0.09 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.16). The models were comparable for females. Conclusion: Our CRC prediction model that incorporates more comprehensive family history of CRC can provide improved calibration and discrimination of risks compared with the simple FH model, especially in populations with higher underlying risk. The models developed may potentially further improve screening decision making among subgroups with elevated CRC risk. References: 1. Freedman AN, Slattery ML, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Colorectal cancer risk prediction tool for white men and women without known susceptibility . J Clin Oncol 2009;27(5):686-693. 2. Antoniou AC, Pharoah PDP, McMullan G, et al. A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes. Br J Cancer, 2002; 86(1), 76-83. Citation Format: Yingye Zheng, Xinwei Hua, Aung Ko Win, Mark Jenkins, Robert Macinnis, Polly Newcomb. Does a comprehensive family history of colorectal cancer improve risk prediction? [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PR05.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-PR05\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-PR05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:结直肠癌家族史是结直肠癌的重要危险因素。然而,迄今为止,在大多数风险预测模型中,该疾病的家族史(FH)通常仅被广泛分类(通常为存在或不存在)(Freedman et al. 2009)。这些方法不能充分利用家族史信息,可能导致结直肠癌风险的预测性能不理想。我们研究了CRC风险模型的效用,该模型包含了CRC的全面家族史以及已知的遗传和环境风险因素和个人特征的信息。方法:我们使用来自结肠癌家族登记处(CCFR)的数据,CCFR是一个由六个研究中心组成的大型国际联盟。预测模型是基于从三个研究地点(西雅图,美国;加拿大安大略省;以及澳大利亚墨尔本)。根据家庭结构、受影响亲属的发病年龄和MLH1、MSH2、MSH6、PMS2和MUTYH的多基因效应,采用改进的分离分析(一种改编自Antoniou等人(2002)的方法),估计了家族风险概况(FRP)评分,即终生结直肠癌绝对风险的概率指数。建立了两组性别特异性logistic回归模型:(I) FRP模型,包括FRP和其他已知危险因素(如BMI、红肉摄入量、钙和非甾体抗炎药使用时间、吸烟量(包年)、息肉史、FOBT史、乙状结肠镜检查、结肠镜检查、水果摄入量和女性激素替代疗法的使用);(II)二元FH模型,用二元指标(是/否)代替FRP,用于任何自我报告患有CRC的一级家庭成员。5年绝对风险是根据估计的优势比(OR)、国家、性别和年龄特定的CRC发病率和非CRC原因导致的死亡率来计算的。基于CRC事件和死亡状态的随访信息,对来自5个研究地点的未受影响亲属(N=12,120)和基于人群的对照(N=1,899)进行模型验证。主要终点是基线后5年内的CRC诊断。我们使用校准图来比较预测的5年绝对风险与观察到的累积发病率。进行受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析,使用ROC曲线下面积(AUC)评估5年内区分有和没有CRC诊断受试者的区分能力,考虑审查和竞争风险。结果:在FRP模型中,使用FRP每增加10%,男性的or为1.16(1.11-1.20),女性的or为1.09(1.06-1.12),而二元FH模型的or为2.32(1.88- 2.85),女性的or为1.70(1.38-2.09)。FRP模型提供了稍好的校准,平均预测风险落在经验累积率的95% ci内。相比之下,在风险分布的前10%以上的个体中,二元FH模型往往产生更高的CRC估计风险。使用完整的验证集,两个模型都产生了可比较的auc。在至少有一个一级家庭成员患有结直肠癌的个体中,男性参与者的FRP模型(AUC = 0.71)显著优于FH模型(AUC = 0.63);差异为0.09 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.16)。这些模型对女性具有可比性。结论:与简单的FH模型相比,我们的包含更全面的CRC家族史的CRC预测模型可以提供更好的校准和风险区分,特别是在潜在风险较高的人群中。开发的模型可能会进一步改善CRC风险升高亚组的筛查决策。引用:1。李建军,李建军,李建军,等。无已知易感性的白人男性和女性的结直肠癌风险预测工具。中华临床医学杂志2009;27(5):686-693。2. Antoniou AC, Pharoah PDP, McMullan G,等。包含BRCA1、BRCA2等基因的家族性乳腺癌综合模型。中华医学杂志,2002;86(1), 76 - 83。引文格式:郑英业,华鑫伟,Aung Ko Win, Mark Jenkins, Robert Macinnis, Polly Newcomb。全面的结直肠癌家族史能提高风险预测吗?[摘要]。摘自:AACR特别会议论文集:改进癌症风险预测以预防和早期发现;2016年11月16日至19日;费城(PA): AACR;Cancer epidemiology Biomarkers pre2017;26(5增刊):摘要nr PR05。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Abstract PR05: Does a comprehensive family history of colorectal cancer improve risk prediction?
Background: Family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a strong and well-established risk factor for CRC. To date, however, family history (FH) of the disease is generally only broadly categorized (usually as present or absent) in most risk prediction models (Freedman et al. 2009). These approaches fail to fully utilize information on family history and may lead to suboptimal predictive performance of CRC risk. We investigated the utility of a CRC risk model that incorporates a comprehensive family history of CRC as well as information on known genetic and environmental risk factors and personal characteristics. Methods: We used data from the Colon Cancer Family Registry (CCFR), a large, international consortium of six study centers. Prediction models were developed based on incident invasive CRC cases (N = 4445) and population-based controls (N = 3967) that were recruited from three study sites (Seattle, USA; Ontario, Canada; and Melbourne, Australia). A familial risk profile (FRP) score, a probability index of absolute risk for lifetime CRC was estimated based on family structure, age of onset for affected relatives and the polygenic effect of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 and MUTYH using modified segregation analysis, an approach adapted from Antoniou et al (2002)). Two sets of gender-specific logistic regression models were built: (I) the FRP models, which included FRP and other known risk factors (e.g., BMI, consumption of red meat, calcium and NSAID use duration, smoking amount (pack-years), a history of polyps, and history of FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, fruit intake, and use of hormone replacement therapy for female); and (II) binary FH models, which replaced FRP with a binary indicator (yes/no) for any self-reported first-degree family member with CRC. 5-year absolute risks were calculated based on the estimated odds ratios (OR), country-, sex- and age-specific CRC incidence rate and mortality due to causes other than CRC. Model validation was conducted with unaffected relatives (N=12,120) and population-based controls (N=1,899) from five study sites based on the follow-up information on incident CRC and death status. The primary endpoint was CRC diagnosis within 5-year after baseline. We used calibration plots to compare the predicted 5-year absolute risks with the observed cumulative incidence rates. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were conducted and areas under the ROC curve (AUC) were used to assess the discriminatory capacity for separating subjects with and without a CRC diagnosis within 5 years, accounting for censoring and competing risk. Results: The ORs (95% confidence interval [CI]) using the FRP per 10% increase were 1.16 (1.11-1.20) for males, and 1.09 (1.06-1.12) for females in the FRP models, while the ORs for the binary FH model were 2.32 (1.88- 2.85) for men and 1.70 (1.38-2.09) for women. The FRP models provided slightly better calibration, with average predicted risks falling within the 95% CIs of the empirical cumulative rates. The binary FH models, by comparison, tended to yield higher estimated CRC risks compared with the observed risks among individuals whose risks were above the top10% of the risk distribution. Both models yielded comparable AUCs using the full validation set. Among individuals with at least one first-degree family member affected with CRC, the FRP model performed significantly better (AUC = 0.71) than the FH model (AUC = 0.63) for male participants; difference equaled 0.09 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.16). The models were comparable for females. Conclusion: Our CRC prediction model that incorporates more comprehensive family history of CRC can provide improved calibration and discrimination of risks compared with the simple FH model, especially in populations with higher underlying risk. The models developed may potentially further improve screening decision making among subgroups with elevated CRC risk. References: 1. Freedman AN, Slattery ML, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Colorectal cancer risk prediction tool for white men and women without known susceptibility . J Clin Oncol 2009;27(5):686-693. 2. Antoniou AC, Pharoah PDP, McMullan G, et al. A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes. Br J Cancer, 2002; 86(1), 76-83. Citation Format: Yingye Zheng, Xinwei Hua, Aung Ko Win, Mark Jenkins, Robert Macinnis, Polly Newcomb. Does a comprehensive family history of colorectal cancer improve risk prediction? [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PR05.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信