Literature DB >> 11750233

Potential for selection bias with tumor tissue retrieval in molecular epidemiology studies.

Jane A Hoppin1, Paige E Tolbert, Jack A Taylor, Jane C Schroeder, Elizabeth A Holly.   

Abstract

Molecular epidemiological studies of cancer generally require tumor tissue to evaluate somatic genetic alterations. Frequently this requires retrieval of fixed tissue blocks from hospital pathology archives. The availability of this material may be associated with disease severity, diagnostic practices, hospitals, or risk factors for disease. Tumor material is not available when the diagnosis is made clinically without histological confirmation. These characteristics create difficulties in defining the study base population. Incomplete access to tumor tissue has implications for description of the natural history of disease, estimates of the prevalence of mutation in the population, and evaluation of environmental exposures and critical target gene mutations. Differential diagnostic practices by age groups or across hospitals may create a biased population with respect to potential risk factors. However, this will not bias case-case comparisons unless the mutation of interest is associated both with the exposure of interest and the presence of a tumor block. When subjects with less severe disease are more likely to have biopsies, information regarding the natural history of the disease will be obscured. Investigation of the interaction of environmental agents and critical target gene mutations may be limited if, for example, an environmental agent is associated with a more aggressive form of the disease. Using an ongoing pancreatic cancer case-control study as an example, we discuss the potential for bias associated with differential availability of tumor blocks including consideration of tumor, patient, and hospital characteristics. Due to incomplete retrieval of tissue, the determinants of selection should be described in all studies using tumor tissue, and the implications for generalizability, power, and interpretation of findings in population-based studies should be considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11750233     DOI: 10.1016/s1047-2797(01)00250-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Epidemiol        ISSN: 1047-2797            Impact factor:   3.797


  17 in total

Review 1.  Molecular pathological epidemiology of colorectal neoplasia: an emerging transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary field.

Authors:  Shuji Ogino; Andrew T Chan; Charles S Fuchs; Edward Giovannucci
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Timing of blood extraction in epidemiologic and proteomic studies: results and proposals from the PANKRAS II Study.

Authors:  Miquel Porta; José Pumarega; Olga Ferrer-Armengou; Tomàs López; Joan Alguacil; Núria Malats; Esteve Fernàndez
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-07-18       Impact factor: 8.082

3.  Correlation between Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System and Bethesda System of Reporting of Thyroid Cytopathology of Thyroid Nodule: A Single Center Experience.

Authors:  Ananya Biswas; Keya Basu; Suparna De; Subhrajyoti Karmakar; Debanu De; Moumita Sengupta; Sujoy Ghosh
Journal:  J Cytol       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 4.  Reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers: a review of published articles in relation to REMARK guidelines.

Authors:  S Mallett; A Timmer; W Sauerbrei; D G Altman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-12-08       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 5.  Reporting methods in studies developing prognostic models in cancer: a review.

Authors:  Susan Mallett; Patrick Royston; Susan Dutton; Rachel Waters; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 8.775

6.  Methodological deficits in diagnostic research using '-omics' technologies: evaluation of the QUADOMICS tool and quality of recently published studies.

Authors:  Lucy A Parker; Noemí Gómez Saez; Blanca Lumbreras; Miquel Porta; Ildefonso Hernández-Aguado
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-07-02       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Intake of Dietary Fruit, Vegetables, and Fiber and Risk of Colorectal Cancer According to Molecular Subtypes: A Pooled Analysis of 9 Studies.

Authors:  Akihisa Hidaka; Tabitha A Harrison; Yin Cao; Lori C Sakoda; Richard Barfield; Marios Giannakis; Mingyang Song; Amanda I Phipps; Jane C Figueiredo; Syed H Zaidi; Amanda E Toland; Efrat L Amitay; Sonja I Berndt; Ivan Borozan; Andrew T Chan; Steven Gallinger; Marc J Gunter; Mark A Guinter; Sophia Harlid; Heather Hampel; Mark A Jenkins; Yi Lin; Victor Moreno; Polly A Newcomb; Reiko Nishihara; Shuji Ogino; Mireia Obón-Santacana; Patrick S Parfrey; John D Potter; Martha L Slattery; Robert S Steinfelder; Caroline Y Um; Xiaoliang Wang; Michael O Woods; Bethany Van Guelpen; Stephen N Thibodeau; Michael Hoffmeister; Wei Sun; Li Hsu; Daniel D Buchanan; Peter T Campbell; Ulrike Peters
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2020-08-14       Impact factor: 12.701

8.  Aurora kinase A outperforms Ki67 as a prognostic marker in ER-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  H R Ali; S-J Dawson; F M Blows; E Provenzano; P D Pharoah; C Caldas
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-04-26       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Cancer stem cell markers in breast cancer: pathological, clinical and prognostic significance.

Authors:  H Raza Ali; Sarah-Jane Dawson; Fiona M Blows; Elena Provenzano; Paul D Pharoah; Carlos Caldas
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2011-11-23       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Influence of KRAS mutations, persistent organic pollutants, and trace elements on survival from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Miquel Porta; José Pumarega; André F S Amaral; Jeanine M Genkinger; Judit Camargo; Lorelei Mucci; Juan Alguacil; Magda Gasull; Xuehong Zhang; Eva Morales; Mar Iglesias; Shuji Ogino; Lawrence S Engel
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 6.498

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.