BACKGROUND: Polytomous logistic regression models are commonly used in case-control studies of cancer to directly compare the risks associated with an exposure variable across multiple cancer subtypes. However, the validity, accuracy, and efficiency of this approach for prospective cohort studies have not been formally evaluated. METHODS: We investigated the performance of the polytomous logistic regression model and compared it with an alternative approach based on a joint Cox proportional hazards model using simulation studies. We then applied both methods to a prospective cohort study to assess whether the association of breast cancer with body size differs according to estrogen and progesterone receptor-defined subtypes. RESULTS: Our simulations showed that the polytomous logistic regression model but not the joint Cox regression model yielded biased results in comparing exposure and disease subtype associations when the baseline hazards for different disease subtypes are nonproportional. For this reason, an analysis of a real data set was based on the joint Cox proportional hazards model and showed that body size has a significantly greater association with estrogen- and progesterone-positive breast cancer than with other subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the limitations of the polytomous logistic regression model for the comparison of exposure-disease associations across disease subtypes, the joint Cox proportional hazards model is recommended over the polytomous logistic regression model in prospective cohort studies. IMPACT: The article will promote the use of the joint Cox model in a prospective cohort study. Examples of SAS and S-plus programming codes are provided to facilitate use by nonstatisticians.
BACKGROUND: Polytomous logistic regression models are commonly used in case-control studies of cancer to directly compare the risks associated with an exposure variable across multiple cancer subtypes. However, the validity, accuracy, and efficiency of this approach for prospective cohort studies have not been formally evaluated. METHODS: We investigated the performance of the polytomous logistic regression model and compared it with an alternative approach based on a joint Cox proportional hazards model using simulation studies. We then applied both methods to a prospective cohort study to assess whether the association of breast cancer with body size differs according to estrogen and progesterone receptor-defined subtypes. RESULTS: Our simulations showed that the polytomous logistic regression model but not the joint Cox regression model yielded biased results in comparing exposure and disease subtype associations when the baseline hazards for different disease subtypes are nonproportional. For this reason, an analysis of a real data set was based on the joint Cox proportional hazards model and showed that body size has a significantly greater association with estrogen- and progesterone-positive breast cancer than with other subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the limitations of the polytomous logistic regression model for the comparison of exposure-disease associations across disease subtypes, the joint Cox proportional hazards model is recommended over the polytomous logistic regression model in prospective cohort studies. IMPACT: The article will promote the use of the joint Cox model in a prospective cohort study. Examples of SAS and S-plus programming codes are provided to facilitate use by nonstatisticians.
Authors: Linda E Kelemen; James R Cerhan; Unhee Lim; Scott Davis; Wendy Cozen; Maryjean Schenk; Joanne Colt; Patricia Hartge; Mary H Ward Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Ross L Prentice; Bette Caan; Rowan T Chlebowski; Ruth Patterson; Lewis H Kuller; Judith K Ockene; Karen L Margolis; Marian C Limacher; JoAnn E Manson; Linda M Parker; Electra Paskett; Lawrence Phillips; John Robbins; Jacques E Rossouw; Gloria E Sarto; James M Shikany; Marcia L Stefanick; Cynthia A Thomson; Linda Van Horn; Mara Z Vitolins; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Robert B Wallace; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller; Evelyn Whitlock; Katsuhiko Yano; Lucile Adams-Campbell; Garnet L Anderson; Annlouise R Assaf; Shirley A A Beresford; Henry R Black; Robert L Brunner; Robert G Brzyski; Leslie Ford; Margery Gass; Jennifer Hays; David Heber; Gerardo Heiss; Susan L Hendrix; Judith Hsia; F Allan Hubbell; Rebecca D Jackson; Karen C Johnson; Jane Morley Kotchen; Andrea Z LaCroix; Dorothy S Lane; Robert D Langer; Norman L Lasser; Maureen M Henderson Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-02-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J D Potter; J R Cerhan; T A Sellers; P G McGovern; C Drinkard; L R Kushi; A R Folsom Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Andrew P Morris; Cecilia M Lindgren; Eleftheria Zeggini; Nicholas J Timpson; Timothy M Frayling; Andrew T Hattersley; Mark I McCarthy Journal: Genet Epidemiol Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.135
Authors: Rhonda Arthur; Theodore M Brasky; Tracy E Crane; Ashley S Felix; Andrew M Kaunitz; Aladdin H Shadyab; Lihong Qi; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller; Thomas E Rohan Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Heather A Ward; Petra A Wark; David C Muller; Annika Steffen; Mattias Johansson; Teresa Norat; Marc J Gunter; Kim Overvad; Christina C Dahm; Jytte Halkjær; Anne Tjønneland; Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault; Guy Fagherazzi; Sylvie Mesrine; Paul Brennan; Heinz Freisling; Kuanrong Li; Rudolf Kaaks; Antonia Trichopoulou; Pagona Lagiou; Salavatore Panico; Sara Grioni; Rosario Tumino; Paolo Vineis; Domenico Palli; Petra H M Peeters; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Elisabete Weiderpass; Antonio Agudo; Jose Ramón Quirós; Nerea Larrañaga; Eva Ardanaz; José María Huerta; María-José Sánchez; Göran Laurell; Ingegerd Johansson; Ulla Westin; Peter Wallström; Kathryn E Bradbury; Nicholas J Wareham; Kay-Tee Khaw; Clare Pearson; Heiner Boeing; Elio Riboli Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Katie M O'Brien; Shelley S Tworoger; Holly R Harris; Garnet L Anderson; Clarice R Weinberg; Britton Trabert; Andrew M Kaunitz; Aimee A D'Aloisio; Dale P Sandler; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mia M Gaudet; Brian D Carter; Louise A Brinton; Roni T Falk; Inger T Gram; Juhua Luo; Roger L Milne; Sarah J Nyante; Elisabete Weiderpass; Laura E Beane Freeman; Dale P Sandler; Kim Robien; Kristin E Anderson; Graham G Giles; Wendy Y Chen; Diane Feskanich; Tonje Braaten; Claudine Isaacs; Lesley M Butler; Woon-Puay Koh; Alicja Wolk; Hans-Olov Adami; Emily White; Karen L Margolis; Michael J Thun; Susan M Gapstur Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Audrey Mauguen; Emily C Zabor; Nancy E Thomas; Marianne Berwick; Venkatraman E Seshan; Colin B Begg Journal: J Am Stat Assoc Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Reiko Nishihara; Molin Wang; Zhi Rong Qian; Yoshifumi Baba; Mai Yamauchi; Kosuke Mima; Yasutaka Sukawa; Sun A Kim; Kentaro Inamura; Xuehong Zhang; Kana Wu; Edward L Giovannucci; Andrew T Chan; Charles S Fuchs; Shuji Ogino; Eva S Schernhammer Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Katie M O'Brien; Jenny Sun; Dale P Sandler; Lisa A DeRoo; Clarice R Weinberg Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 2.506