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.

Multiple Lab Comparison of Microarray Platforms

Microarray technology is a powerful tool able to measure RNA expression for thousands of genes at once. Various studies have been published comparing competing platforms with mixed results: some find agreement, others do not. As the number of researchers starting to use microarrays and the number of crossplatform meta-analysis studies rapidly increase, appropriate platform assessments become more important. Here we present results from a comparison study that offers important improvements over those previously described in the literature. In particular, we notice that none of the previously published papers consider differences between labs. For this paper, a consortium of ten labs from the Washington DC/Baltimore (USA) area was formed to compare three heavily used platforms using identical RNA samples: Appropriate statistical analysis demonstrates that relatively large differences exist between labs using the same platform, but that the results from the best performing labs agree rather well. Supplemental material is available from http://www.biostat.jhsph.edu/~ririzarr/techcomp/

MULTIPLE MODEL EVALUATION ABSENT THE GOLD STANDARD VIA MODEL COMBINATION

We describe a method for evaluating an ensemble of predictive models given a sample of observations comprising the model predictions and the outcome event measured with error. Our formulation allows us to simultaneously estimate measurement error parameters, true outcome — aka the gold standard — and a relative weighting of the predictive scores. We describe conditions necessary to estimate the gold standard and for these estimates to be calibrated and detail how our approach is related to, but distinct from, standard model combination techniques. We apply our approach to data from a study to evaluate a collection of BRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutation prediction scores. In this example, genotype is measured with error by one or more genetic assays. We estimate true genotype for each individual in the dataset, operating characteristics of the commonly used genotyping procedures and a relative weighting of the scores. Finally, we compare the scores against the gold standard genotype and find that Mendelian scores are, on average, the more refined and better calibrated of those considered and that the comparison is sensitive to measurement error in the gold standard.