Data quality and autism : issues and potential impacts

Introduction Large healthcare datasets can provide insight that has the potential to improve outcomes for patients. However, it is important to understand the strengths and limitations of such datasets so that the insights they provide are accurate and useful. The aim of this study was to identify data inconsistencies within the Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) dataset for autistic patients and assess potential biases introduced through these inconsistencies and their impact on patient outcomes. The study can only identify inconsistencies in recording of autism diagnosis and not whether the inclusion or exclusion of the autism diagnosis is the error. Methods Data were extracted from the HES database for the period 1st April 2013 to 31st March 2021 for patients with a diagnosis of autism. First spells in hospital during the study period were identified for each patient and these were linked to any subsequent spell in hospital for the same patient. Data inconsistencies were recorded where autism was not recorded as a diagnosis in a subsequent spell. Features associated with data inconsistencies were identified using a random forest classifiers and regression modelling. Results Data were available for 172,324 unique patients who had been recorded as having an autism diagnosis on first admission. In total, 43.7 % of subsequent spells were found to have inconsistencies. The features most strongly associated with inconsistencies included greater age, greater deprivation, longer time since the first spell, change in provider, shorter length of stay, being female and a change in the main specialty description. The random forest algorithm had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.864 (95 % CI [0.862 – 0.866]) in predicting a data inconsistency. For patients who died in hospital, inconsistencies in their final spell were significantly associated with being 80 years and over, being female, greater deprivation and use of a palliative care code in the death spell. Conclusions Data inconsistencies in the HES database were relatively common in autistic patients and were associated a number of patient and hospital admission characteristics. Such inconsistencies have the potential to distort our understanding of service use in key demographic groups

A comprehensive evaluation of interaction between genetic variants and use of menopausal hormone therapy on mammographic density.

INTRODUCTION: Mammographic density is an established breast cancer risk factor with a strong genetic component and can be increased in women using menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). Here, we aimed to identify genetic variants that may modify the association between MHT use and mammographic density. METHODS: The study comprised 6,298 postmenopausal women from the Mayo Mammography Health Study and nine studies included in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. We selected for evaluation 1327 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) showing the lowest P-values for interaction (P int) in a meta-analysis of genome-wide gene-environment interaction studies with MHT use on risk of breast cancer, 2541 SNPs in candidate genes (AKR1C4, CYP1A1-CYP1A2, CYP1B1, ESR2, PPARG, PRL, SULT1A1-SULT1A2 and TNF) and ten SNPs (AREG-rs10034692, PRDM6-rs186749, ESR1-rs12665607, ZNF365-rs10995190, 8p11.23-rs7816345, LSP1-rs3817198, IGF1-rs703556, 12q24-rs1265507, TMEM184B-rs7289126, and SGSM3-rs17001868) associated with mammographic density in genome-wide studies. We used multiple linear regression models adjusted for potential confounders to evaluate interactions between SNPs and current use of MHT on mammographic density. RESULTS: No significant interactions were identified after adjustment for multiple testing. The strongest SNP-MHT interaction (unadjusted P int <0.0004) was observed with rs9358531 6.5kb 5' of PRL. Furthermore, three SNPs in PLCG2 that had previously been shown to modify the association of MHT use with breast cancer risk were found to modify also the association of MHT use with mammographic density (unadjusted P int <0.002), but solely among cases (unadjusted P int SNP×MHT×case-status <0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The study identified potential interactions on mammographic density between current use of MHT and SNPs near PRL and in PLCG2, which require confirmation. Given the moderate size of the interactions observed, larger studies are needed to identify genetic modifiers of the association of MHT use with mammographic density.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BioMed Central via http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13058-015-0625-

Novel Associations between Common Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants and Risk-Predicting Mammographic Density Measures.

Mammographic density measures adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI) are heritable predictors of breast cancer risk, but few mammographic density-associated genetic variants have been identified. Using data for 10,727 women from two international consortia, we estimated associations between 77 common breast cancer susceptibility variants and absolute dense area, percent dense area and absolute nondense area adjusted for study, age, and BMI using mixed linear modeling. We found strong support for established associations between rs10995190 (in the region of ZNF365), rs2046210 (ESR1), and rs3817198 (LSP1) and adjusted absolute and percent dense areas (all P < 10(-5)). Of 41 recently discovered breast cancer susceptibility variants, associations were found between rs1432679 (EBF1), rs17817449 (MIR1972-2: FTO), rs12710696 (2p24.1), and rs3757318 (ESR1) and adjusted absolute and percent dense areas, respectively. There were associations between rs6001930 (MKL1) and both adjusted absolute dense and nondense areas, and between rs17356907 (NTN4) and adjusted absolute nondense area. Trends in all but two associations were consistent with those for breast cancer risk. Results suggested that 18% of breast cancer susceptibility variants were associated with at least one mammographic density measure. Genetic variants at multiple loci were associated with both breast cancer risk and the mammographic density measures. Further understanding of the underlying mechanisms at these loci could help identify etiologic pathways implicated in how mammographic density predicts breast cancer risk.ABCFS: The Australian Breast Cancer Family Registry (ABCFR; 1992-1995) was supported by the Australian NHMRC, the New South Wales Cancer Council, and the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (Australia), and by grant UM1CA164920 from the USA National Cancer Institute. The Genetic Epidemiology Laboratory at the University of Melbourne has also received generous support from Mr B. Hovey and Dr and Mrs R.W. Brown to whom we are most grateful. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants and Mammographic Density 5 Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. BBCC: This study was funded in part by the ELAN-Program of the University Hospital Erlangen; Katharina Heusinger was funded by the ELAN program of the University Hospital Erlangen. BBCC was supported in part by the ELAN program of the Medical Faculty, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg. EPIC-Norfolk: This study was funded by research programme grant funding from Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council with additional support from the Stroke Association, British Heart Foundation, Department of Health, Research into Ageing and Academy of Medical Sciences. MCBCS: This study was supported by Public Health Service Grants P50 CA 116201, R01 CA 128931, R01 CA 128931-S01, R01 CA 122340, CCSG P30 CA15083, from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. MCCS: Melissa C. Southey is a National Health and Medical Research Council Senior Research Fellow and a Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium Group Leader. The study was supported by the Cancer Council of Victoria and by the Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium. MEC: National Cancer Institute: R37CA054281, R01CA063464, R01CA085265, R25CA090956, R01CA132839. MMHS: This work was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. (R01 CA128931, R01 CA 128931-S01, R01 CA97396, P50 CA116201, and Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA15083). Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants and Mammographic Density 6 NBCS: This study has been supported with grants from Norwegian Research Council (#183621/S10 and #175240/S10), The Norwegian Cancer Society (PK80108002, PK60287003), and The Radium Hospital Foundation as well as S-02036 from South Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. NHS: This study was supported by Public Health Service Grants CA131332, CA087969, CA089393, CA049449, CA98233, CA128931, CA 116201, CA 122340 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. OOA study was supported by CA122822 and X01 HG005954 from the NIH; Breast Cancer Research Fund; Elizabeth C. Crosby Research Award, Gladys E. Davis Endowed Fund, and the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of Michigan. Genotyping services for the OOA study were provided by the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR), which is fully funded through a federal contract from the National Institutes of Health to The Johns Hopkins University, contract number HHSN268200782096. OFBCR: This work was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the USA National Cancer Institute. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. SASBAC: The SASBAC study was supported by Märit and Hans Rausing’s Initiative against Breast Cancer, National Institutes of Health, Susan Komen Foundation and Agency for Science, Technology and Research of Singapore (A*STAR). Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants and Mammographic Density 7 SIBS: SIBS was supported by program grant C1287/A10118 and project grants from Cancer Research UK (grant numbers C1287/8459). COGS grant: Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study (COGS) that enabled the genotyping for this study. Funding for the BCAC component is provided by grants from the EU FP7 programme (COGS) and from Cancer Research UK. Funding for the iCOGS infrastructure came from: the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post- Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112 - the GAMEON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer, Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available via American Association for Cancer Research at http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2015/04/10/0008-5472.CAN-14-2012.abstract

Risk Analysis of Prostate Cancer in PRACTICAL, a Multinational Consortium, Using 25 Known Prostate Cancer Susceptibility Loci.

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies have identified multiple genetic variants associated with prostate cancer risk which explain a substantial proportion of familial relative risk. These variants can be used to stratify individuals by their risk of prostate cancer. METHODS: We genotyped 25 prostate cancer susceptibility loci in 40,414 individuals and derived a polygenic risk score (PRS). We estimated empirical odds ratios (OR) for prostate cancer associated with different risk strata defined by PRS and derived age-specific absolute risks of developing prostate cancer by PRS stratum and family history. RESULTS: The prostate cancer risk for men in the top 1% of the PRS distribution was 30.6 (95% CI, 16.4-57.3) fold compared with men in the bottom 1%, and 4.2 (95% CI, 3.2-5.5) fold compared with the median risk. The absolute risk of prostate cancer by age of 85 years was 65.8% for a man with family history in the top 1% of the PRS distribution, compared with 3.7% for a man in the bottom 1%. The PRS was only weakly correlated with serum PSA level (correlation = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Risk profiling can identify men at substantially increased or reduced risk of prostate cancer. The effect size, measured by OR per unit PRS, was higher in men at younger ages and in men with family history of prostate cancer. Incorporating additional newly identified loci into a PRS should improve the predictive value of risk profiles. IMPACT: We demonstrate that the risk profiling based on SNPs can identify men at substantially increased or reduced risk that could have useful implications for targeted prevention and screening programs.D F. Easton was recipient of the CR-UK grant C1287/A10118. R A. Eeles was recipient of the CR-UK grant C5047/A10692 and B E. Henderson was recipient of the NIH grant 1U19CA148537-01This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available via AACR at http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2015/04/02/1055-9965.EPI-14-0317.long

DNA mismatch repair gene MSH6 implicated in determining age at natural menopause

The length of female reproductive lifespan is associated with multiple adverse outcomes, including breast cancer, cardiovascular disease and infertility. The biological processes that govern the timing of the beginning and end of reproductive life are not well understood. Genetic variants are known to contribute to ∼50% of the variation in both age at menarche and menopause, but to date the known genes explain <15% of the genetic component. We have used genome-wide association in a bivariate meta-analysis of both traits to identify genes involved in determining reproductive lifespan. We observed significant genetic correlation between the two traits using genome-wide complex trait analysis. However, we found no robust statistical evidence for individual variants with an effect on both traits. A novel association with age at menopause was detected for a variant rs1800932 in the mismatch repair gene MSH6 (P = 1.9 × 10−9), which was also associated with altered expression levels of MSH6 mRNA in multiple tissues. This study contributes to the growing evidence that DNA repair processes play a key role in ovarian ageing and could be an important therapeutic target for infertilit

Genetic predisposition to ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive form of breast cancer. It is often associated with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and is considered to be a non-obligate precursor of IDC. It is not clear to what extent these two forms of cancer share low-risk susceptibility loci, or whether there are differences in the strength of association for shared loci. METHODS: To identify genetic polymorphisms that predispose to DCIS, we pooled data from 38 studies comprising 5,067 cases of DCIS, 24,584 cases of IDC and 37,467 controls, all genotyped using the iCOGS chip. RESULTS: Most (67 %) of the 76 known breast cancer predisposition loci showed an association with DCIS in the same direction as previously reported for invasive breast cancer. Case-only analysis showed no evidence for differences between associations for IDC and DCIS after considering multiple testing. Analysis by estrogen receptor (ER) status confirmed that loci associated with ER positive IDC were also associated with ER positive DCIS. Analysis of DCIS by grade suggested that two independent SNPs at 11q13.3 near CCND1 were specific to low/intermediate grade DCIS (rs75915166, rs554219). These associations with grade remained after adjusting for ER status and were also found in IDC. We found no novel DCIS-specific loci at a genome wide significance level of P < 5.0x10(-8). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study provides the strongest evidence to date of a shared genetic susceptibility for IDC and DCIS. Studies with larger numbers of DCIS are needed to determine if IDC or DCIS specific loci exist

DNA mismatch repair gene MSH6 implicated in determining age at natural menopause

notes: PMCID: PMC3976329This is a freely-available open access publication. Please cite the published version which is available via the DOI link in this record.The length of female reproductive lifespan is associated with multiple adverse outcomes, including breast cancer, cardiovascular disease and infertility. The biological processes that govern the timing of the beginning and end of reproductive life are not well understood. Genetic variants are known to contribute to ∼50% of the variation in both age at menarche and menopause, but to date the known genes explain <15% of the genetic component. We have used genome-wide association in a bivariate meta-analysis of both traits to identify genes involved in determining reproductive lifespan. We observed significant genetic correlation between the two traits using genome-wide complex trait analysis. However, we found no robust statistical evidence for individual variants with an effect on both traits. A novel association with age at menopause was detected for a variant rs1800932 in the mismatch repair gene MSH6 (P = 1.9 × 10(-9)), which was also associated with altered expression levels of MSH6 mRNA in multiple tissues. This study contributes to the growing evidence that DNA repair processes play a key role in ovarian ageing and could be an important therapeutic target for infertility.UK Medical Research CouncilWellcome Trus

Height, selected genetic markers and prostate cancer risk:Results from the PRACTICAL consortium

Background: Evidence on height and prostate cancer risk is mixed, however, recent studies with large data sets support a possible role for its association with the risk of aggressive prostate cancer. Methods: We analysed data from the PRACTICAL consortium consisting of 6207 prostate cancer cases and 6016 controls and a subset of high grade cases (2480 cases). We explored height, polymorphisms in genes related to growth processes as main effects and their possible interactions. Results: The results suggest that height is associated with high-grade prostate cancer risk. Men with height 4180cm are at a 22% increased risk as compared to men with height o173cm (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01–1.48). Genetic variants in the growth pathway gene showed an association with prostate cancer risk. The aggregate scores of the selected variants identified a significantly increased risk of overall prostate cancer and high-grade prostate cancer by 13% and 15%, respectively, in the highest score group as compared to lowest score group. Conclusions: There was no evidence of gene-environment interaction between height and the selected candidate SNPs. Our findings suggest a role of height in high-grade prostate cancer. The effect of genetic variants in the genes related to growth is seen in all cases and high-grade prostate cancer. There is no interaction between these two exposures.</p

Genetic predisposition to ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast

Background: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive form of breast cancer. It is often associated with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and is considered to be a non-obligate precursor of IDC. It is not clear to what extent these two forms of cancer share low-risk susceptibility loci, or whether there are differences in the strength of association for shared loci. Methods: To identify genetic polymorphisms that predispose to DCIS, we pooled data from 38 studies comprising 5,067 cases of DCIS, 24,584 cases of IDC and 37,467 controls, all genotyped using the iCOGS chip. Results: Most (67 %) of the 76 known breast cancer predisposition loci showed an association with DCIS in the same direction as previously reported for invasive breast cancer. Case-only analysis showed no evidence for differences between associations for IDC and DCIS after considering multiple testing. Analysis by estrogen receptor (ER) status confirmed that loci associated with ER positive IDC were also associated with ER positive DCIS. Analysis of DCIS by grade suggested that two independent SNPs at 11q13.3 near CCND1 were specific to low/intermediate grade DCIS (rs75915166, rs554219). These associations with grade remained after adjusting for ER status and were also found in IDC. We found no novel DCIS-specific loci at a genome wide significance level of P < 5.0x10-8. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study provides the strongest evidence to date of a shared genetic susceptibility for IDC and DCIS. Studies with larger numbers of DCIS are needed to determine if IDC or DCIS specific loci exist