Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Bridging the etiologic and prognostic outlooks in individualized assessment of absolute risk of an illness: application in lung cancer

  • CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
  • Published:
European Journal of Epidemiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An ERRATUM to this article was published on 05 November 2016

Abstract

Assessment of individual risk of illness is an important activity in preventive medicine. Development of risk-assessment models has heretofore relied predominantly on studies involving follow-up of cohort-type populations, while case–control studies have generally been considered unfit for this purpose. To present a method for individualized assessment of absolute risk of an illness (as illustrated by lung cancer) based on data from a ‘non-nested’ case–control study. We used data from a case–control study conducted in Montreal, Canada in 1996–2001. Individuals diagnosed with lung cancer (n = 920) and age- and sex-matched lung-cancer-free subjects (n = 1288) completed questionnaires documenting life-time cigarette-smoking history and occupational, medical, and family history. Unweighted and weighted logistic models were fitted. Model overfitting was assessed using bootstrap-based cross-validation and ‘shrinkage.’ The discriminating ability was assessed by the c-statistic, and the risk-stratifying performance was assessed by examination of the variability in risk estimates over hypothetical risk-profiles. In the logistic models, the logarithm of incidence-density of lung cancer was expressed as a function of age, sex, cigarette-smoking history, history of respiratory conditions and exposure to occupational carcinogens, and family history of lung cancer. The models entailed a minimal degree of overfitting (‘shrinkage’ factor: 0.97 for both unweighted and weighted models) and moderately high discriminating ability (c-statistic: 0.82 for the unweighted model and 0.66 for the weighted model). The method’s risk-stratifying performance was quite high. The presented method allows for individualized assessment of risk of lung cancer and can be used for development of risk-assessment models for other illnesses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kannel W, Wolf P, Garrison R. The Framingham study: an epidemiological investigation of cardiovascular disease. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Miettinen OS, Karp I. Epidemiological research: an introduction. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Karp I, Miettinen OS. The essentials of etiological research for preventive medicine. Eur J Epidemiol. 2014;29:455–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Steyerberg EW. Clinical prediction models: a practical approach to development, validation, and updating. New York: Springer; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Machin D, Campbell MJ. The design of studies for medical research. New York: Wiley; 2005.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Fletcher GS. Clinical epidemiology: the essentials. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81:1879–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Langholz B, Borgan O. Estimation of absolute risk from nested case–control data. Biometrics. 1997;53:767–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Benichou J, Gail M. Methods of inference for estimates of absolute risk derived from population-based case–control studies. Biometrika. 1995;51:182–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pintos J, Parent ME, Richardson L, Siemiatycki J. Occupational exposure to diesel engine emissions and risk of lung cancer: evidence from two case–control studies in Montreal, Canada. Occup Environ Med. 2012;69:787–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Siemiatycki J, Day NE, Fabry J, Cooper JA. Discovering carcinogens in the occupational environment: a novel epidemiologic approach. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1981;66:217–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Siemiatycki J, Wacholder S, Richardson L. Discovering carcinogens in the occupational environment: methods of data collection and analysis of a large case–referent monitoring system. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1987;13:486–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Siemiatycki J, Fritschi L, Nadon L, Gerin M. Reliability of an expert rating procedure for retrospective assessment of occupational exposures in community-based case–control studies. Am J Ind Med. 1997;31:280–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/english/census01/info/census96.cfm. Accessed 15 Feb 2016.

  15. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. New York: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Leffondré K, Abrahamowicz M, Xiao Y, Siemiatycki J. Modelling smoking history using a comprehensive smoking index: application to lung cancer. Stat Med. 2006;25:4132–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJC, Habbema JDF. Application of shrinkage techniques in logistic regression analysis: a case study. Stat Neerl. 2001;55:76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Harrell FE. Regression modeling strategies: with application to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer; 2001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Freedman AN, Seminara D, Gail MH, et al. Cancer risk prediction models: a workshop on development, evaluation, and application. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:715–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tammemagi MC, Katki HA, Hocking WG, et al. Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:728–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kovalchik SA, Tammemagi M, Berg CD, et al. Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:245–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Cassidy A, Myles JP, van Tongeren M, et al. The LLP risk model: an individual risk prediction model for lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;98:270–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Raji OY, Duffy SW, Arbaje OF, et al. Predictive accuracy of the Liverpool Lung Project model for stratifying patients for computed tomography screening for lung cancer: a case–control and cohort validation study. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:242–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Tammemagi CM, Pinsky PF, Caporaso NE, et al. Lung cancer risk prediction: prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial models and validation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1058–68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Cassidy A, Duffy SW, Myles JP, et al. Lung cancer risk prediction: a tool for early detection. Int J Cancer. 2007;120:1–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Park S, Nam BH, Yang HR, et al. Individualized risk prediction model for lung cancer in Korean men. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e54823.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Spitz MR, Hong WK, Amos CI, et al. A risk model for prediction of lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:715–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Spitz MR, Etzel CJ, Dong Q, et al. An expanded risk prediction model for lung cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila Pa). 2008;1:250–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bach PB, Kattan MW, Thornquist MD. Variations in lung cancer risk among smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:470–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bach PB, Elkin EB, Pastorino U. Benchmarking lung cancer mortality rates in current and former smokers. Chest. 2004;126:1742–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Siemiatycki J. Synthesizing the lifetime history of smoking. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:2294–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P, Moons KG. Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model. BMJ. 2009;338:b605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by an operating grant from the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (Grant No. 019243). The authors thank Romain Pasquet and Mathieu Johnson for their help with the design of the on-line version of the risk-assessment tool.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Igor Karp.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0209-8.

Appendix

Appendix

Formula for calculation of the comprehensive smoking index (as per Ref. [16]):

$${\text{CSI}} = (1 - 0.5^{{{\text{dur}}*/\tau }} )(0.5^{{{\text{tsc}}*/\tau }} )\ln \left( {\text{int} + 1} \right),$$

where τ = 26, σ = 1 in males and 0.7 in females, tsc = time since cessation (in years), dur = total duration of smoking (in years), int = average smoking intensity (in cigarettes smoked per day), tsc* = max(tsc − σ, 0) and dur* = max(dur + tsc − σ, 0).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karp, I., Sylvestre, MP., Abrahamowicz, M. et al. Bridging the etiologic and prognostic outlooks in individualized assessment of absolute risk of an illness: application in lung cancer. Eur J Epidemiol 31, 1091–1099 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0180-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0180-4

Keywords

Navigation