Repeated occurrence of basal cell carcinoma of the skin and multifailure survival analysis: Follow-up data from the nambour skin cancer prevention trial

The aim of this study was to apply multifailure survival methods to analyze time to multiple occurrences of basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Data from 4.5 years of follow-up in a randomized controlled trial, the Nambour Skin Cancer Prevention Trial (1992-1996), to evaluate skin cancer prevention were used to assess the influence of sunscreen application on the time to first BCC and the time to subsequent BCCs. Three different approaches of time to ordered multiple events were applied and compared: the Andersen-Gill, Wei-Lin-Weissfeld, and Prentice-Williams-Peterson models. Robust variance estimation approaches were used for all multifailure survival models. Sunscreen treatment was not associated with time to first occurrence of a BCC (hazard ratio = 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 0.79, 1.45). Time to subsequent BCC tumors using the Andersen-Gill model resulted in a lower estimated hazard among the daily sunscreen application group, although statistical significance was not reached (hazard ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.59, 1.15). Similarly, both the Wei-Lin-Weissfeld marginal-hazards and the Prentice-Williams-Peterson gap-time models revealed trends toward a lower risk of subsequent BCC tumors among the sunscreen intervention group. These results demonstrate the importance of conducting multiple-event analysis for recurring events, as risk factors for a single event may differ from those where repeated events are considered.

Participants who left a multiple-wave cohort study had similar baseline characteristics to participants who returned

PURPOSE: Research on determinants of an individual's pattern of response, considered as a profile across time, for cohort studies with multiple waves is limited. In this prospective population-based pregnancy cohort, we investigated baseline characteristics of participants after partitioning them according to their history of response to different interview waves. METHODS: Data are from the Mater-University of Queensland Study of Pregnancy 1981 to 1983 cohort, Brisbane, Australia. Complete baseline information was collected for 7223 of 7535 eligible individuals (95.9%). Follow-up occurred at 6 months, 5 years, and 14 years. Response rates were 93.0%, 72.5%, and 71.8%. Participants were allowed to leave and reenter the study. Participants were categorized as always, intermittent, or never responders. Intermittent responders were categorized further as leavers (responded at least once before leaving the study) or returners (left the study before reentering). RESULTS: Participants who always responded were older, more educated, married, Caucasian, and nonsmokers and had higher incomes. Intermittent responders shared similar baseline characteristics. Relative risk for being an intermittent responder was located between risks for always or never responding. CONCLUSIONS: Participants who left and reentered the study had baseline characteristics similar to participants who responded at least once and then left the study.

Consistency of epidemiologic estimates

Background: The epidemiology of a disease describes numbers of people becoming incident, being prevalent, recovering, surviving, and dying from the disease or from other causes. As a matter of accounting principle, the inflow, stock, and outflows must be compatible, and if we could observe completely every person involved, the epidemiologic estimates describing the disease would be consistent. Lack of consistency is an indicator for possible measurement error. Methods: We examined the consistency of estimates of incidence, prevalence, and excess mortality of dementia from the Rotterdam Study. We used the incidence and excess mortality estimates to calculate with a mathematical disease model a predicted prevalence, and compared the predicted to the observed prevalence. Results: Predicted prevalence is in most age groups lower than observed, and the difference between them is significant for some age groups. Conclusions: The observed discrepancy could be due to overestimates of prevalence or excess mortality, or an underestimate of incidence, or a combination of all three. We conclude from an analysis of possible causes that it is not possible to say which contributes most to the discrepancy. Estimating dementia incidence in an aging cohort presents a dilemma: with a short follow-up border-line incident cases are easily missed, and with longer follow-up measurement problems increase due to the associated aging of the cohort. Checking for consistency is a useful strategy to signal possible measurement error, but some sources of error may be impossible to avoid.