Incorporating medical interventions into carrier probability estimation for genetic counseling

BACKGROUND: Mendelian models for predicting who may carry an inherited deleterious mutation of known disease genes based on family history are used in a variety of clinical and research activities. People presenting for genetic counseling are increasingly reporting risk-reducing medical interventions in their family histories because, recently, a slew of prophylactic interventions have become available for certain diseases. For example, oophorectomy reduces risk of breast and ovarian cancers, and is now increasingly being offered to women with family histories of breast and ovarian cancer. Mendelian models should account for medical interventions because interventions modify mutation penetrances and thus affect the carrier probability estimate. METHODS: We extend Mendelian models to account for medical interventions by accounting for post-intervention disease history through an extra factor that can be estimated from published studies of the effects of interventions. We apply our methods to incorporate oophorectomy into the BRCAPRO model, which predicts a woman's risk of carrying mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 based on her family history of breast and ovarian cancer. This new BRCAPRO is available for clinical use. RESULTS: We show that accounting for interventions undergone by family members can seriously affect the mutation carrier probability estimate, especially if the family member has lived many years post-intervention. We show that interventions have more impact on the carrier probability as the benefits of intervention differ more between carriers and non-carriers. CONCLUSION: These findings imply that carrier probability estimates that do not account for medical interventions may be seriously misleading and could affect a clinician's recommendation about offering genetic testing. The BayesMendel software, which allows one to implement any Mendelian carrier probability model, has been extended to allow medical interventions, so future Mendelian models can easily account for interventions

A regression model for risk difference estimation in population-based case-control studies clarifies gender differences in lung cancer risk of smokers and never smokers

BACKGROUND: Additive risk models are necessary for understanding the joint effects of exposures on individual and population disease risk. Yet technical challenges have limited the consideration of additive risk models in case-control studies. METHODS: Using a flexible risk regression model that allows additive and multiplicative components to estimate absolute risks and risk differences, we report a new analysis of data from the population-based case-control Environment And Genetics in Lung cancer Etiology study, conducted in Northern Italy between 2002-2005. The analysis provides estimates of the gender-specific absolute risk (cumulative risk) for non-smoking- and smoking-associated lung cancer, adjusted for demographic, occupational, and smoking history variables. RESULTS: In the multiple-variable lexpit regression, the adjusted 3-year absolute risk of lung cancer in never smokers was 4.6 per 100,000 persons higher in women than men. However, the absolute increase in 3-year risk of lung cancer for every 10 additional pack-years smoked was less for women than men, 13.6 versus 52.9 per 100,000 persons. CONCLUSIONS: In a Northern Italian population, the absolute risk of lung cancer among never smokers is higher in women than men but among smokers is lower in women than men. Lexpit regression is a novel approach to additive-multiplicative risk modeling that can contribute to clearer interpretation of population-based case-control studies

Comparative performance of lung cancer risk models to define lung screening eligibility in the United Kingdom

Abstract: Background: The National Health Service England (NHS) classifies individuals as eligible for lung cancer screening using two risk prediction models, PLCOm2012 and Liverpool Lung Project-v2 (LLPv2). However, no study has compared the performance of lung cancer risk models in the UK. Methods: We analysed current and former smokers aged 40–80 years in the UK Biobank (N = 217,199), EPIC-UK (N = 30,813), and Generations Study (N = 25,777). We quantified model calibration (ratio of expected to observed cases, E/O) and discrimination (AUC). Results: Risk discrimination in UK Biobank was best for the Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT, AUC = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.81–0.84), followed by the LCRAT (AUC = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.79–0.82) and the Bach model (AUC = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79–0.81). Results were similar in EPIC-UK and the Generations Study. All models overestimated risk in all cohorts, with E/O in UK Biobank ranging from 1.20 for LLPv3 (95% CI = 1.14–1.27) to 2.16 for LLPv2 (95% CI = 2.05–2.28). Overestimation increased with area-level socioeconomic status. In the combined cohorts, USPSTF 2013 criteria classified 50.7% of future cases as screening eligible. The LCDRAT and LCRAT identified 60.9%, followed by PLCOm2012 (58.3%), Bach (58.0%), LLPv3 (56.6%), and LLPv2 (53.7%). Conclusion: In UK cohorts, the ability of risk prediction models to classify future lung cancer cases as eligible for screening was best for LCDRAT/LCRAT, very good for PLCOm2012, and lowest for LLPv2. Our results highlight the importance of validating prediction tools in specific countries

Determining the HPV vaccine schedule for a HIV-infected population in sub Saharan Africa, a commentary

Background: Epidemiological studies have established human papillomavirus (HPV) infection as the central cause of invasive cervical cancer (ICC) and its precursor lesions. HIV is associated with a higher prevalence and persistence of a broader range of high-risk HPV genotypes, which in turn results in a higher risk of cervical disease. Recent WHO HPV vaccination schedule recommendations, along with the roll out of HAART at an earlier CD4 count within the female HIV-infected population, may have programmatic implications for sub Saharan Africa. This communication identifies research areas, which will need to be addressed for determining a HPV vaccine schedule for this population in sub Saharan Africa. A review of WHO latest recommendations and the evidence concerning one-dose HPV vaccine schedules was undertaken. Conclusion: For females >= 15 years at the time of first dose and immunocompromised and/or HIV-infected, a 3-dose schedule (0, 1-2, 6 months) is recommended for all three vaccines. There is some evidence that there is similar protection against HPV 16 and 18 infection from a single vaccination than from two or three doses, however there is no cross protection conferred to other genotypes. There is a need for periodic prevalence studies to determine the vaccination coverage of bivalent, quadrivalent and nonavalent vaccine targeted oncogenic HPV genotypes in women with CIN 3 or ICC at national level. In light of the increasing number of sub Saharan HIV-infected girls initiating HAART at a CD4 count above 350 mm(3), there are a number of clinical, virological and public health research gaps to address before a tailored vaccine schedule can be established for this population

Development and validation of risk models to select ever-smokers for ct lung cancer screening

IMPORTANCE: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends computed-tomography (CT) lung-cancer screening for ever-smokers ages 55-80 years who smoked at least 30 pack-years with no more than 15 years since quitting. However, selecting ever-smokers for screening using individualized lung-cancer risk calculations may be more effective and efficient than current USPSTF recommendations. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of modeled outcomes from risk-based CT lung-screening strategies versus USPSTF recommendations. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Empirical risk models for lung-cancer incidence and death in the absence of CT screening using data on ever-smokers from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO; 1993-2009) control group. Covariates included age, education, sex, race, smoking intensity/duration/quit-years, Body Mass Index, family history of lung-cancer, and self-reported emphysema. Model validation in the chest radiography groups of the PLCO and the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST; 2002-2009), with additional validation of the death model in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS; 1997-2001), a representative sample of the US. Models applied to US ever-smokers ages 50-80 (NHIS 2010-2012) to estimate outcomes of risk-based selection for CT lung-screening, assuming screening for all ever-smokers yields the percent changes in lung-cancer detection and death observed in the NLST. EXPOSURE: Annual CT lung-screening for 3 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Model validity: calibration (number of model-predicted cases divided by number of observed cases (Estimated/Observed)) and discrimination (Area-Under-Curve (AUC)). Modeled screening outcomes: estimated number of screen-avertable lung-cancer deaths, estimated screening effectiveness (number needed to screen (NNS) to prevent 1 lung-cancer death). RESULTS: Lung-cancer incidence and death risk models were well-calibrated in PLCO and NLST. The lung-cancer death model calibrated and discriminated well for US ever-smokers ages 50-80 (NHIS 1997-2001: Estimated/Observed=0.94, 95%CI=0.84-1.05; AUC=0.78, 95%CI=0.76-0.80). Under USPSTF recommendations, the models estimated 9.0 million US ever-smokers would qualify for lung-cancer screening and 46,488 (95%CI=43,924-49,053) lung-cancer deaths were estimated as screen-avertable over 5 years (estimated NNS=194, 95%CI=187-201). In contrast, risk-based selection screening the same number of ever-smokers (9.0 million) at highest 5-year lung-cancer risk (≥1.9%), was estimated to avert 20% more deaths (55,717; 95%CI=53,033-58,400) and was estimated to reduce the estimated NNS by 17% (NNS=162, 95%CI=157-166). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among a cohort of US ever-smokers age 50-80 years, application of a risk-based model for CT screening for lung cancer compared with a model based on USPSTF recommendations was estimated to be associated with a greater number of lung-cancer deaths prevented over 5 years along with a lower NNS to prevent 1 lung-cancer death