MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract PR05: Does a comprehensive family history of colorectal cancer improve risk prediction?

2017· article· en· W2627053527 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yingye Zheng, Xinwei Hua, Aung Ko Win, Mark A. Jenkins, Robert J. MacInnis, Polly A. Newcomb

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily historyMedicineColorectal cancerPopulationDemographyInternal medicineOncologyGynecologyCancerGerontologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a strong and well-established risk factor for CRC. To date, however, family history (FH) of the disease is generally only broadly categorized (usually as present or absent) in most risk prediction models (Freedman et al. 2009). These approaches fail to fully utilize information on family history and may lead to suboptimal predictive performance of CRC risk. We investigated the utility of a CRC risk model that incorporates a comprehensive family history of CRC as well as information on known genetic and environmental risk factors and personal characteristics. Methods: We used data from the Colon Cancer Family Registry (CCFR), a large, international consortium of six study centers. Prediction models were developed based on incident invasive CRC cases (N = 4445) and population-based controls (N = 3967) that were recruited from three study sites (Seattle, USA; Ontario, Canada; and Melbourne, Australia). A familial risk profile (FRP) score, a probability index of absolute risk for lifetime CRC was estimated based on family structure, age of onset for affected relatives and the polygenic effect of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 and MUTYH using modified segregation analysis, an approach adapted from Antoniou et al (2002)). Two sets of gender-specific logistic regression models were built: (I) the FRP models, which included FRP and other known risk factors (e.g., BMI, consumption of red meat, calcium and NSAID use duration, smoking amount (pack-years), a history of polyps, and history of FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, fruit intake, and use of hormone replacement therapy for female); and (II) binary FH models, which replaced FRP with a binary indicator (yes/no) for any self-reported first-degree family member with CRC. 5-year absolute risks were calculated based on the estimated odds ratios (OR), country-, sex- and age-specific CRC incidence rate and mortality due to causes other than CRC. Model validation was conducted with unaffected relatives (N=12,120) and population-based controls (N=1,899) from five study sites based on the follow-up information on incident CRC and death status. The primary endpoint was CRC diagnosis within 5-year after baseline. We used calibration plots to compare the predicted 5-year absolute risks with the observed cumulative incidence rates. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were conducted and areas under the ROC curve (AUC) were used to assess the discriminatory capacity for separating subjects with and without a CRC diagnosis within 5 years, accounting for censoring and competing risk. Results: The ORs (95% confidence interval [CI]) using the FRP per 10% increase were 1.16 (1.11-1.20) for males, and 1.09 (1.06-1.12) for females in the FRP models, while the ORs for the binary FH model were 2.32 (1.88- 2.85) for men and 1.70 (1.38-2.09) for women. The FRP models provided slightly better calibration, with average predicted risks falling within the 95% CIs of the empirical cumulative rates. The binary FH models, by comparison, tended to yield higher estimated CRC risks compared with the observed risks among individuals whose risks were above the top10% of the risk distribution. Both models yielded comparable AUCs using the full validation set. Among individuals with at least one first-degree family member affected with CRC, the FRP model performed significantly better (AUC = 0.71) than the FH model (AUC = 0.63) for male participants; difference equaled 0.09 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.16). The models were comparable for females. Conclusion: Our CRC prediction model that incorporates more comprehensive family history of CRC can provide improved calibration and discrimination of risks compared with the simple FH model, especially in populations with higher underlying risk. The models developed may potentially further improve screening decision making among subgroups with elevated CRC risk. References: 1. Freedman AN, Slattery ML, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Colorectal cancer risk prediction tool for white men and women without known susceptibility . J Clin Oncol 2009;27(5):686-693. 2. Antoniou AC, Pharoah PDP, McMullan G, et al. A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes. Br J Cancer, 2002; 86(1), 76-83. Citation Format: Yingye Zheng, Xinwei Hua, Aung Ko Win, Mark Jenkins, Robert Macinnis, Polly Newcomb. Does a comprehensive family history of colorectal cancer improve risk prediction? [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PR05.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207