Multiple imputation for estimating hazard ratios and predictive abilities in case-cohort surveys

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The weighted estimators generally used for analyzing case-cohort studies are not fully efficient and naive estimates of the predictive ability of a model from case-cohort data depend on the subcohort size. However, case-cohort studies represent a special type of incomplete data, and methods for analyzing incomplete data should be appropriate, in particular multiple imputation (MI).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed simulations to validate the MI approach for estimating hazard ratios and the predictive ability of a model or of an additional variable in case-cohort surveys. As an illustration, we analyzed a case-cohort survey from the Three-City study to estimate the predictive ability of D-dimer plasma concentration on coronary heart disease (CHD) and on vascular dementia (VaD) risks.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>When the imputation model of the phase-2 variable was correctly specified, MI estimates of hazard ratios and predictive abilities were similar to those obtained with full data. When the imputation model was misspecified, MI could provide biased estimates of hazard ratios and predictive abilities. In the Three-City case-cohort study, elevated D-dimer levels increased the risk of VaD (hazard ratio for two consecutive tertiles = 1.69, 95%CI: 1.63-1.74). However, D-dimer levels did not improve the predictive ability of the model.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>MI is a simple approach for analyzing case-cohort data and provides an easy evaluation of the predictive ability of a model or of an additional variable.</p

Male gynecomastia and risk for malignant tumours – a cohort study

BACKGROUND: Men with gynecomastia may suffer from absolute or relative estrogen excess and their risk of different malignancies may be increased. We tested whether men with gynecomastia were at greater risk of developing cancer. METHODS: A cohort was formed of all the men having a histopathological diagnosis of gynecomastia at the Department of Pathology, University of Lund, following an operation for either uni- or bilateral breast enlargement between 1970–1979. All possible causes of gynecomastia were accepted, such as endogenous or exogenous hormonal exposure as well as cases of unknown etiology. Prior to diagnosis of gynecomastia eight men had a diagnosis of prostate carcinoma, two men a diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer and one had Hodgkin's disease. These patients were included in the analyses. The final cohort of 446 men was matched to the Swedish Cancer Registry, Death Registry and General Population Registry. RESULTS: At the end of the follow up in December 1999, the cohort constituted 8375.2 person years of follow-up time. A total of 68 malignancies versus 66.07 expected were observed; SIR = 1.03 (95% CI 0.80–1.30). A significantly increased risk for testicular cancer; SIR = 5.82 (95% CI 1.20–17.00) and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin; SIR = 3.21 (95% CI 1.71–5.48) were noted. The increased risk appeared after 2 years of follow-up. A non-significantly increased risk for esophageal cancer was also seen while no new cases of male breast cancer were observed. However, in the prospective cohort, diagnostic operations for gynecomastia may substantially have reduced this risk CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant increased risk of testicular cancer and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin in men who have been operated on for gynecomastia