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.

THE ROLE OF AN EXPLICIT CAUSAL FRAMEWORK IN AFFECTED SIB PAIR DESIGNS WITH COVARIATES

The affected sib/relative pair (ASP/ARP) design is often used with covariates to find genes that can cause a disease in pathways other than through those covariates. However, such "covariates" can themselves have genetic determinants, and the validity of existing methods has so far only been argued under implicit assumptions. We propose an explicit causal formulation of the problem using potential outcomes and principal stratification. The general role of this formulation is to identify and separate the meaning of the different assumptions that can provide valid causal inference in linkage analysis. This separation helps to (a) develop better methods under explicit assumptions, and (b) show the different ways in which these assumptions can fail, which is necessary for developing further specific designs to test these assumptions and confirm or improve the inference. Using this formulation in the specific problem above, we show that, when the "covariate" (e.g., addiction to smoking) also has genetic determinants, then existing methods, including those previously thought as valid, can declare linkage between the disease and marker loci even when no such linkage exists. We also introduce design strategies to address the problem.