Skip Navigation


Journal of the National Cancer Institute Advance Access originally published online on September 9, 2008
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2008 100(18):1318-1325; doi:10.1093/jnci/djn290
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
100/18/1318    most recent
djn290v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Leu, M.
Right arrow Articles by Czene, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Leu, M.
Right arrow Articles by Czene, K.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article in JNCI
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press.

ARTICLES

Evaluation of Bias in Familial Risk Estimates: A Study of Common Cancers Using Swedish Population-based Registers

Monica Leu, Marie Reilly, Kamila Czene

Affiliation of authors: Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Correspondence to: Kamila Czene, PhD, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Box 281, SE-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden (e-mail: kamila.czene{at}ki.se).

Background: Bias in estimates of familial cancer may result if population-based registers fail to identify relatives as affected when disease occurs before the start-up of registration (ie, "left-truncation" of family history).

Methods: Apparent familial relative risks (among offspring of parents with cancer) of colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate cancers and melanoma in a Swedish cohort were compared with relative risks in a simulated population. The study cohort (approximately 7 million individuals) was based on the Swedish MultiGenerational Register linked to the Swedish Cancer Register for the period 1961–2002. A similar population of related individuals (approximately 7 million) with complete family information was simulated by using the R-package PopLab and used to estimate the sensitivity of the observed family history. This sensitivity was then used to calculate corrected age group–specific and overall risks, which were compared with the apparent familial risks of cancer in the cohort.

Result: The apparent familial risks for colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate cancers and melanoma were 1.99 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.85 to 2.14), 2.05 (95% CI = 1.86 to 2.26), 1.84 (95% CI = 1.76 to 1.92), 2.33 (95% CI = 2.19 to 2.48), and 2.68 (95% CI = 2.35 to 3.07), with corresponding absolute rates of 3.69, 2.59, 16.05, 10.38, and 2.96 per 10 000 person-years, among offspring of parents diagnosed with the same cancer. Corrected age group–specific and overall estimates of the familial risks were close to these apparent risks for all studied cancers (all approximately 2.0), except for melanoma. For melanoma, the corrected estimate of 3.18 (95% CI = 2.73 to 3.64) was somewhat larger than the apparent estimate and was not included in the confidence interval for the apparent estimate. When the exposure of interest was a parent affected at a younger age, this bias was more pronounced; the apparent estimate for melanoma changed from 4.07 (95% CI = 3.21 to 5.16) to 5.67 (95% CI = 4.51 to 6.83) after correction.

Conclusions: For common cancers, risk estimates from the Swedish MultiGenerational cohort do not generally appear to be biased by left-truncation.



CONTEXT AND CAVEATS

Prior knowledge

Bias in estimates of familial cancer risks may occur in population-based studies when family history is incomplete if relatives of study subjects are diagnosed with cancer before the beginning of cancer registration.

Study design

Corrected familial risks (due to a parent having cancer) of colorectal, lung, female breast, and prostate cancers and melanoma were calculated for 1961–2002 after comparing apparent risks among a Swedish cohort from the Swedish MultiGeneration Register linked to the national Cancer Register and risks from a simulated population, with complete family history, for this period.

Study contribution

Corrected familial risks were similar to the apparent risks for all cancers and were close to 2.0, except melanoma, for which the corrected value was approximately 3.2.

Implications

For most of the common cancers studied, the Swedish MultiGeneration Register provided unbiased familial risks.

Study limitations

The bias in familial risks of other types of cancer should be evaluated in this population and in other populations with national cancer registries before these results can be generalized to other types of cancer and to other populations.

From the Editors

 
Manuscript received February 11, 2008; revised June 23, 2008; accepted July 17, 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related Article in JNCI

In This Issue
J Natl Cancer Inst 2008 100: 1269. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am J EpidemiolHome page
A. E. Cust, H. Schmid, J. A. Maskiell, J. Jetann, M. Ferguson, E. A. Holland, C. Agha-Hamilton, M. A. Jenkins, J. Kelly, R. F. Kefford, et al.
Population-based, Case-Control-Family Design to Investigate Genetic and Environmental Influences on Melanoma Risk: Australian Melanoma Family Study
Am. J. Epidemiol., November 3, 2009; (2009) kwp307v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.