Original Paper

Estimating Disease Risk Associated with Mutated Genes in Family-Based Designs
Yun-Hee Choi^a, Karen A. Kopciuk^b, Laurent Briollais<sup>a

a</sup>Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont.,
^bDivision of Population Health and Information, Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, Alta., Canada

Address of Corresponding Author

Hum Hered 2008;66:238-251 (DOI: 10.1159/000143406)

  Key Words

• Penetrance function
• Efficient study designs
• Ascertainment correction
• Likelihood methods
• Age-at-onset

  Abstract

Objective: Many clinical decisions require accurate estimates of disease risk associated with inherited gene mutations. While several family-based designs have been proposed, their relative advantages remain unclear. Methods: We considered four commonly-used family-based designs and evaluated their performance in terms of accuracy and efficiency under several genetic models via simulation studies. We also derived and assessed several ascertainment-corrected likelihood methods for analyzing the simulated data and real data from 12 HNPCC pedigrees from Newfoundland. Results: We found that the design efficiency depends on the question of interest: the clinic-based family design with random probands yields the most efficient estimate of genetic relative risks, whereas the population-based family design with mutation carrier probands provides the most efficient penetrance estimates. For a particular question, an ascertainment correction seems possible using regular likelihood methods but the presence of genetic heterogeneity due to a strong second gene effect can lead to some bias in the risk estimation. Conclusions: This work gives a general methodological framework for analyzing family-based designs in gene characterization studies and provides more rationale for the choice of an efficient design and an appropriate likelihood method to estimate the risk associated with an inherited gene mutation.

Copyright © 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel

  References

1.

Gong G, Whittemore AS: Optimal designs for estimating penetrance of rare mutations of a disease-susceptibility gene. Genet Epidemiol 2003;24:173-180.

2.

Gail MH, Benichou J, Carroll R: Designing studies to estimate the penetrance of an identified autosomal dominant mutation: cohort, case-control, and genotyped-proband design. Genet Epidemiol 1999;16:15-39.

3.

Kraft P, Thomas DC: Bias and efficiency in family-based gene-characterization studies: conditional, prospective, retrospective, and joint likelihoods. Am J Hum Genet 2000;66:1119-1131.

4.

Begg CB: On the use of familial aggregation in population-based case probands for calculating penetrance. J Nat Cancer Inst 2002;94:1221-1226.

5.

Thomas DC: Statistical Methods in Genetic Epidemiology. New York, Oxford University Press, 2004.

6.

Le Bihan C, Moutou C, Brugiµeres L, Feunteun J, Bonaïti-Pellié C: ARCAD: a method for estimating age-dependent disease risk associated with mutation carrier status from family data. Genet Epidemiol 1995;12:13-25.

7.

Carayol J, Bonaïti-Pellié C: Estimating penetrance from family data using a retrospective likelihood when ascertainment depends on genotype and age of onset. Genet Epidemiol 2004;27:109-117.

8.

Whittemore AS, Halpern J: Multi-stage sampling designs in genetic epidemiology. Stat Med 1997;16:153-167.

9.

Siegmund KD, Whittemore AS, Thomas DC: Multi-stage sampling for disease family registries. J Nat Cancer Inst Monogr 1999;26:43-48.

10.

Iversen ES, Chen S: Population-calibrated gene characterization: estimating age at onset distributions for cancer genes. J Am Stat Assoc 2005;100:399-409.

11.

Ewens WJ, Shute NCE: A resolution of the ascertainment sampling problem. I: Theory. Theo Pop Biol 1986;30:388-412.

12.

Hodge S: Conditioning on subsets of the data: Application to ascertainment and other genetic problems. Am J Hum Genet 1988;43:364-373.

13.

Green J, O'Driscoll M, Barnes A, Maher ER, Bridge P, Shields K, Parfrey PS: Impact of gender and parent of origin on the phenotypic expression of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer in a large Newfoundland kindred with a common MSH2 mutation. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45:1223-1232.

14.

Lange K, Weeks D, Boehnke M: Programs for pedigree analysis: MENDEL, FISHER, AND dGENE. Genet Epidemiol 1998;5:471-472.

15.

Thomas DC: Design of gene characterization studies: an overview. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999;26:17-23.

16.

John EM, Hopper JL, Beck JC, Knight JA, Neuhausen SL, Senie RT, Ziogas A, Andrulis IL, Anton-Culver H, Boyd N, Buys SS, Daly MB, O'Malley FP, Santella RM, Southey MC, Venne VL, Venter DJ, West DW, Whittemore AS, Seminara D: The Breast Cancer Family Registry: an infrastructure for cooperative multinational, interdisciplinary and translational studies of the genetic epidemiology of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2004;6:R375-R389.

17.

Chen S, Wang W, Broman K, Katki HA, Parmigiani G: BayesMendel: An R environment for Mendelian risk prediction. Johns Hopkins University Dept. of Biostatistics Working Papers 2004; Paper 39. http://www.bepress.com/jhubiostat/paper39.

18.

Kim JS, Proschan F: Piecewise Exponential Estimator of the Survivor Function. IEEE Trans Reliability 1991;40:134-139.

19.

Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL: The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data. New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1980, p 37.

20.

Gail MH, Pee D, Carroll R: Effects of violations of assumptions on likelihood methods for estimating the penetrance of an autosomal dominant mutation from kin-cohort studies. J Stat Plan Inference 2001;96:167-177.

21.

Chatterjee N, Kalaylioglu Z, Shih JH, Gail MH: Case-control and case-only designs with genotype and family history data: estimating relative risk, residual familial aggregation, and cumulative risk. Biometrics 2006;62:36-48.

22.

Antoniou AC, Pharoah PDP, McMullen G, Day NE, Ponder BAJ, Easton DF: Evidence for further breast cancer susceptibility genes in addition to BRCA1 and BRCA2 in a population based study. Genet Epidemiol 2001;21:1-18.

23.

Choi YH, Matthews DE: Accelerated life regression modeling of dependent bivariate time-to-event data. Can J Stat 2005;33:449-464.

  Author Contacts

Laurent Briollais
Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital
600 University Avenue
Toronto, ONT, M5G 1X5 (Canada)
Tel. +1 416 586 8863, Fax +1 416 586 8404, E-Mail laurent@mshri.on.ca

  Article Information

Received: July 9, 2007
Accepted after revision: November 15, 2007
Published online: July 9, 2008
Number of Print Pages : 14
Number of Figures : 3, Number of Tables : 5, Number of References : 23

  Publication Details

Human Heredity (International Journal of Human and Medical Genetics)

Vol. 66, No. 4, Year 2008 (Cover Date: October 2008)

Journal Editor: Devoto M. (Philadelphia, Pa.)
ISSN: 0001-5652 (Print), eISSN: 1423-0062 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/HHE

  Drug Dosage / Copyright

Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.