Geographical variation in the penetrance of CDKN2A mutations for melanoma

Background: Germline mutations in the CDKN2A gene, which encodes two proteins (p16INK4A and p14ARF), are the most common cause of inherited susceptibility to melanoma. We examined the penetrance of such mutations using data from eight groups from Europe, Australia and the United States that are part of The Melanoma Genetics Consortium Methods: We analyzed 80 families with documented CDKN2A mutations and multiple cases of cutaneous melanoma. We modeled penetrance for melanoma using a logistic regression model incorporating survival analysis. Hypothesis testing was based on likelihood ratio tests. Covariates included gender, alterations in p14APF protein, and population melanoma incidence rates. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The 80 analyzed families contained 402 melanoma patients, 320 of whom were tested for mutations and 291 were mutation carriers. We also tested 713 unaffected family members for mutations and 194 were carriers. Overall, CDKN2A mutation penetrance was estimated to be 0.30 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.12 to 0.62) by age 50 years and 0.67 (95% CI = 0.31 to 0.96) by age 80 years. Penetrance was not statistically significantly modified by gender or by whether the CDKN2A mutation altered p14ARF protein. However, there was a statistically significant effect of residing in a location with a high population incidence rate of melanoma (P = .003). By age 50 years CDKN2A mutation penetrance reached 0.13 in Europe, 0.50 in the United States, and 0.32 in Australia; by age 80 years it was 0.58 in Europe, 0.76 in the United States, and 0.91 in Australia. Conclusions: This study, which gives the most informed estimates of CDKN2A mutation penetrance available, indicates that the penetrance varies with melanoma population incidence rates. Thus, the same factors that affect population incidence of melanoma may also mediate CDKN2A penetrance.

Technical, allocative, cost and scale efficiencies in Bangladesh rice cultivation: A non-parametric approach

Applying programming techniques to detailed data for 406 rice farms in 21 villages, for 1997, produces inefficiency measures, which differ substantially from the results of simple yield and unit cost measures. For the Boro (dry) season, mean technical efficiency was efficiency was 56.2 per cent and 69.4 per cent, allocative efficiency was 81.3 per cent, cost efficiency was 56.2 per cent and scale efficiency 94.9 per cent. The Aman (wet) season results are similar, but a few points lower. Allocative inefficiency is due to overuse of labour, suggesting population pressure, and of fertiliser, where recommended rates may warrant revision. Second-stage regressions show that large families are more inefficient, whereas farmers with better access to input markets, and those who do less off-farm work, tend to be more efficient. The information on the sources of inter-farm performance differentials could be used by the extension agents to help inefficient farmers. There is little excuse for such sub-optimal use of survey data, which are often collected at substantial costs.

Testing insect movement theory: empirical analysis of pest data routinely collected from agricultural crops

Observations of an insect's movement lead to theory on the insect's flight behaviour and the role of movement in the species' population dynamics. This theory leads to predictions of the way the population changes in time under different conditions. If a hypothesis on movement predicts a specific change in the population, then the hypothesis can be tested against observations of population change. Routine pest monitoring of agricultural crops provides a convenient source of data for studying movement into a region and among fields within a region. Examples of the use of statistical and computational methods for testing hypotheses with such data are presented. The types of questions that can be addressed with these methods and the limitations of pest monitoring data when used for this purpose are discussed. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.