Literature DB >> 22539605

Inference about causation from examination of familial confounding: application to longitudinal twin data on mammographic density measures that predict breast cancer risk.

Jennifer Stone1, Gillian S Dite, Graham G Giles, Jennifer Cawson, Dallas R English, John L Hopper.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer. It is unknown whether there are different causes of variation in mammographic density at different ages.
METHODS: Mammograms and questionnaires were obtained on average 8 years apart from 327 Australian female twin pairs (204 monozygous and 123 dizygous). Mammographic dense area and percentage dense area were measured using a computer-assisted method. The correlational structure of the longitudinal twin data was estimated under a multivariate normal model using FISHER. Inference about causation from examination of familial confounding was made by regressing each twin's recent mammographic density measure against one or both of her and her co-twin's past measures.
RESULTS: For square root dense area and percentage dense area (age- and body mass index-adjusted), the correlations over time within twins were 0.86 and 0.82, and the cross-twin correlations were 0.71 and 0.65 for monozygous pairs and 0.25 and 0.20 for dizygous pairs, respectively. As a predictor of a twin's recent dense area, the regression coefficient (SE) for the co-twin's past dense area reduced after adjusting for her own past measure from 0.84 (0.03) to 0.09 (0.03) for monozygous pairs and from 0.63 (0.04) to 0.04 (0.03) for dizygous pairs. Corresponding estimates for percentage dense area were 0.73 (0.04), 0.10 (0.03), 0.42 (0.05), and 0.03 (0.03).
CONCLUSION: Mammographic density measures are highly correlated over time and the familial/genetic components of their variation are established before mid-life. IMPACT: Mammographic density of young women could provide a means for breast cancer control. ©2012 AACR

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22539605     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  7 in total

1.  Longitudinal Study of Mammographic Density Measures That Predict Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Kavitha Krishnan; Laura Baglietto; Jennifer Stone; Julie A Simpson; Gianluca Severi; Christopher F Evans; Robert J MacInnis; Graham G Giles; Carmel Apicella; John L Hopper
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-01-06       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Novel Associations between Common Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants and Risk-Predicting Mammographic Density Measures.

Authors:  Jennifer Stone; Deborah J Thompson; Isabel Dos Santos Silva; Christopher Scott; Rulla M Tamimi; Sara Lindstrom; Peter Kraft; Aditi Hazra; Jingmei Li; Louise Eriksson; Kamila Czene; Per Hall; Matt Jensen; Julie Cunningham; Janet E Olson; Kristen Purrington; Fergus J Couch; Judith Brown; Jean Leyland; Ruth M L Warren; Robert N Luben; Kay-Tee Khaw; Paula Smith; Nicholas J Wareham; Sebastian M Jud; Katharina Heusinger; Matthias W Beckmann; Julie A Douglas; Kaanan P Shah; Heang-Ping Chan; Mark A Helvie; Loic Le Marchand; Laurence N Kolonel; Christy Woolcott; Gertraud Maskarinec; Christopher Haiman; Graham G Giles; Laura Baglietto; Kavitha Krishnan; Melissa C Southey; Carmel Apicella; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Giske Ursin; Grethe I Grenaker Alnaes; Vessela N Kristensen; Anne-Lise Borresen-Dale; Inger Torhild Gram; Manjeet K Bolla; Qin Wang; Kyriaki Michailidou; Joe Dennis; Jacques Simard; Paul Pharoah; Alison M Dunning; Douglas F Easton; Peter A Fasching; V Shane Pankratz; John L Hopper; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 12.701

Review 3.  Understanding variation in disease risk: the elusive concept of frailty.

Authors:  Odd O Aalen; Morten Valberg; Tom Grotmol; Steinar Tretli
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-12-12       Impact factor: 7.196

4.  The distribution and determinants of mammographic density measures in Western Australian aboriginal women.

Authors:  Kirsty McLean; Ellie Darcey; Gemma Cadby; Helen Lund; Leanne Pilkington; Andrew Redfern; Sandra Thompson; Christobel Saunders; Elizabeth Wylie; Jennifer Stone
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 6.466

5.  Cirrus: An Automated Mammography-Based Measure of Breast Cancer Risk Based on Textural Features.

Authors:  Daniel F Schmidt; Enes Makalic; Benjamin Goudey; Gillian S Dite; Jennifer Stone; Tuong L Nguyen; James G Dowty; Laura Baglietto; Melissa C Southey; Gertraud Maskarinec; Graham G Giles; John L Hopper
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2018-12-07

6.  Inference about causation from examination of familial confounding (ICE FALCON): a model for assessing causation analogous to Mendelian randomization.

Authors:  Shuai Li; Minh Bui; John L Hopper
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 7.196

7.  Causal effect of smoking on DNA methylation in peripheral blood: a twin and family study.

Authors:  Shuai Li; Ee Ming Wong; Minh Bui; Tuong L Nguyen; Ji-Hoon Eric Joo; Jennifer Stone; Gillian S Dite; Graham G Giles; Richard Saffery; Melissa C Southey; John L Hopper
Journal:  Clin Epigenetics       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 6.551

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.