European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp 557–567 | Cite as

Competing risk bias to explain the inverse relationship between smoking and malignant melanoma

  • Caroline A. Thompson
  • Zuo-Feng Zhang
  • Onyebuchi A. Arah
CANCER

Abstract

The relationship between smoking and melanoma remains unclear. Among the different results is the paradoxical finding that smoking was shown to be inversely associated with the risk of malignant melanoma in some large cohort and case-control studies, even after control for suspected confounding variables. Smoking is a known risk factor for many non-communicable diseases, including coronary heart disease, stroke, as well as other malignancies; it has been shown to be positively associated with other types of skin cancer, and there remains no clear biologic explanation for a possible protective effect on malignant melanoma. In this paper, we propose a plausible mechanism of bias from smoking-related competing risks that may explain or contribute to the inverse association between smoking and melanoma as spurious. Using directed acyclic graphs for formalization and visualization of assumptions, and Monte Carlo simulation techniques, we demonstrate how published inverse associations might be compatible with selection bias resulting from uncontrolled or unmeasured common causes of competing outcomes of smoking-related diseases and malignant melanoma. We present results from various scenarios assuming a true null as well as a true positive association between smoking and malignant melanoma. Under a true null assumption, we find inverse associations due to the biasing mechanism to be compatible with published results in the literature, especially after the addition of unmeasured confounding variables. This study could be seen as offering a cautionary note in the interpretation of published smoking-melanoma findings.

Keywords

Bias (Epidemiology) Melanoma Smoking 

Abbreviations

CA

Cancer

COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

CR

Competing risk

DAG

Directed acyclic graph

HD

Heart disease

MM

Malignant melanoma

OR

Odds ratio

SM

Smoking

References

  1. 1.
    Williams RR, Horm JW. Association of cancer sites with tobacco and alcohol consumption and socioeconomic status of patients: interview study from the Third National Cancer Survey. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1977;58(3):525–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Green A, et al. Risk factors for cutaneous melanoma in Queensland. Recent Results Cancer Res. 1986;102:76–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Osterlind A, et al. The Danish case-control study of cutaneous malignant melanoma. IV. No association with nutritional factors, alcohol, smoking or hair dyes. Int J Cancer. 1988;42(6):825–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Siemiatycki J, et al. Associations between cigarette smoking and each of 21 types of cancer: a multi-site case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 1995;24(3):504–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Westerdahl J, et al. Risk of malignant melanoma in relation to drug intake, alcohol, smoking and hormonal factors. Br J Cancer. 1996;73(9):1126–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Veierod MB, Thelle DS, Laake P. Diet and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma: a prospective study of 50,757 Norwegian men and women. Int J Cancer. 1997;71(4):600–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Hertog SAE, et al. Relation between smoking and skin cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(1):231–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shors AR, et al. Melanoma risk in relation to height, weight, and exercise (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2001;12(7):599–606.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freedman DM, et al. Risk of melanoma in relation to smoking, alcohol intake, and other factors in a large occupational cohort. Cancer Causes Control. 2003;14(9):847–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Odenbro Å, et al. The risk for cutaneous malignant melanoma, melanoma in situ and intraocular malignant melanoma in relation to tobacco use and body mass index. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156(1):99–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kessides MC, et al. Cigarette smoking and malignant melanoma: a case-control study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64(1):84–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeLancey J, et al. Cigarette smoking and the risk of incident and fatal melanoma in a large prospective cohort study. Cancer Causes Control. 2011;22(6):937–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Song F, et al. Smoking and risk of skin cancer: a prospective analysis and a meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(6):1694–705.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calle EE, et al. The American cancer society cancer prevention study II nutrition cohort: rationale, study design, and baseline characteristics. Cancer. 2002;94(9):2490–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Warren GW, et al. Smoking at diagnosis and survival in cancer patients. Int J Cancer. 2013;132(2):401–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gooley TA, et al. Estimation of failure probabilities in the presence of competing risks: new representations of old estimators. Stat Med. 1999;18(6):695–706.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Neyman N, Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA (eds), SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2010. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2013. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2010/.
  18. 18.
    Members WG, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2009 update. Circulation. 2009;119(3):e21–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brown DW, et al. Average age at death from COPD in the United States: 1980–85, 1990–95, 2000–05. COPD. 2009;6(3):152–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pearl J. Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika. 1995;82(4):669–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins JM. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology. 1999;10(1):37–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hernan MA, et al. Causal knowledge as a prerequisite for confounding evaluation: an application to birth defects epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155(2):176–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Greenland S. Quantifying biases in causal models: classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias. Epidemiology. 2003;14(3):300–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology. 2004;15(5):615–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thun MJ, Apicella LF, Henley SJ. Smoking vs other risk factors as the cause of smoking-attributable deaths: confounding in the courtroom. JAMA. 2000;284(6):706–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grodstein F, Speizer FE, Hunter DJ. A prospective study of incident squamous cell carcinoma of the skin in the nurses’ health study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87(14):1061–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vaupel JW, Yashin AI. Heterogeneity’s ruses: some surprising effects of selection on population dynamics. Am Stat. 1985;39(3):176–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Howard G, Goff DC. A call for caution in the interpretation of the observed smaller relative importance of risk factors in the elderly. Ann Epidemiol. 1998;8(7):411–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mohtashemi M, Levins R. Qualitative analysis of the all-cause black-white mortality crossover. Bull Math Biol. 2002;64(1):147–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Matsuyama Y, Yamaguchi T. Estimation of the marginal survival time in the presence of dependent competing risks using inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) methods. Pharm Stat. 2008;7(3):202–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Howe CJ, et al. Limitation of inverse probability-of-censoring weights in estimating survival in the presence of strong selection bias. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(5):569–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    VanderWeele TJ, Hernan MA, Robins JM. Causal directed acyclic graphs and the direction of unmeasured confounding bias. Epidemiology. 2008;19(5):720–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Horwitz RI, Feinstein AR. Alternative analytic methods for case-control studies of estrogens and endometrial cancer. N Engl J Med. 1978;299(20):1089–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hernan MA, Robins JM. Method for conducting sensitivity analysis. Biometrics. 1999;55(4):1316–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94(446):496–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lau B, Cole SR, Gange SJ. Competing risk regression models for epidemiologic data. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(2):244–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline A. Thompson
    • 1
  • Zuo-Feng Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Onyebuchi A. Arah
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of EpidemiologyUCLA Fielding School of Public HealthLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer CenterLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.UCLA Center for Health Policy ResearchLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Department of Public Health, Academic Medical CenterUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations