MULTIPLE DISEASES IN CARRIER PROBABILITY ESTIMATION: ACCOUNTING FOR SURVIVING ALL CANCERS OTHER THAN BREAST AND OVARY IN BRCAPRO

Mendelian models can predict who carries an inherited deleterious mutation of known disease genes based on family history. For example, the BRCAPRO model is commonly used to identify families who carry mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2, based on familial breast and ovarian cancers. These models incorporate the age of diagnosis of diseases in relatives and current age or age of death. We develop a rigorous foundation for handling multiple diseases with censoring. We prove that any disease unrelated to mutations can be excluded from the model, unless it is sufficiently common and dependent on a mutation-related disease time. Furthermore, if a family member has a disease with higher probability density among mutation carriers, but the model does not account for it, then the carrier probability is deflated. However, even if a family only has diseases the model accounts for, if the model excludes a mutation-related disease, then the carrier probability will be inflated. In light of these results, we extend BRCAPRO to account for surviving all non-breast/ovary cancers as a single outcome. The extension also enables BRCAPRO to extract more useful information from male relatives. Using 1500 familes from the Cancer Genetics Network, accounting for surviving other cancers improves BRCAPRO’s concordance index from 0.758 to 0.762 (p = 0.046), improves its positive predictive value from 35% to 39% (p < 10−6) without impacting its negative predictive value, and improves its overall calibration, although calibration slightly worsens for those with carrier probability < 10%. Copyright c 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A Data-Analytic Strategy for Protein-Biomarker Discovery: Profiling of High-Dimensional Proteomic Data for Cancer Detection

With recent advances in mass spectrometry techniques, it is now possible to investigate proteins over a wide range of molecular weights in small biological specimens. This advance has generated data-analytic challenges in proteomics, similar to those created by microarray technologies in genetics, namely, discovery of "signature" protein profiles specific to each pathologic state (e.g., normal vs. cancer) or differential profiles between experimental conditions (e.g., treated by a drug of interest vs. untreated) from high-dimensional data. We propose a data analytic strategy for discovering protein biomarkers based on such high-dimensional mass-spectrometry data. A real biomarker-discovery project on prostate cancer is taken as a concrete example throughout the paper: the project aims to identify proteins in serum that distinguish cancer, benign hyperplasia, and normal states of prostate using the Surface Enhanced Laser Desorption/Ionization (SELDI) technology, a recently developed mass spectrometry technique. Our data analytic strategy takes properties of the SELDI mass-spectrometer into account: the SELDI output of a specimen contains about 48,000 (x, y) points where x is the protein mass divided by the number of charges introduced by ionization and y is the protein intensity of the corresponding mass per charge value, x, in that specimen. Given high coefficients of variation and other characteristics of protein intensity measures (y values), we reduce the measures of protein intensities to a set of binary variables that indicate peaks in the y-axis direction in the nearest neighborhoods of each mass per charge point in the x-axis direction. We then account for a shifting (measurement error) problem of the x-axis in SELDI output. After these pre-analysis processing of data, we combine the binary predictors to generate classification rules for cancer, benign hyperplasia, and normal states of prostate. Our approach is to apply the boosting algorithm to select binary predictors and construct a summary classifier. We empirically evaluate sensitivity and specificity of the resulting summary classifiers with a test dataset that is independent from the training dataset used to construct the summary classifiers. The proposed method performed nearly perfectly in distinguishing cancer and benign hyperplasia from normal. In the classification of cancer vs. benign hyperplasia, however, an appreciable proportion of the benign specimens were classified incorrectly as cancer. We discuss practical issues associated with our proposed approach to the analysis of SELDI output and its application in cancer biomarker discovery.