The impact of exposure-biased sampling designs on detection of gene–environment interactions in case–control studies with potential exposure misclassification

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Stephanie L. Stenzel ; Jaeil Ahn ; Philip S. Boonstra…
• 关键词：Sampling design ; Gene–environment interaction ; Interaction ; Genetic epidemiology ; Case–control ; Exposure misclassification
• 刊名：European Journal of Epidemiology
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：May 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：30
• 期：5
• 页码：413-423
• 全文大小：564 KB
• 参考文献：1.Hunter DJ. Gene–environment interactions in human diseases. Nat Rev Genet. 2005;6:287-8.PubMed View Article
  2.Thomas D. Gene–environment-wide association studies: emerging approaches. Nat Rev Genet. 2010;11:259-2.PubMed Central PubMed View Article
  3.Dai JY, Logsdon BA, Huang Y, et al. Simultaneously testing for marginal genetic association and gene–environment interaction. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176:164-3.PubMed Central PubMed View Article
  4.Kraft P, Yen YC, Stram DO, Morrison J, Gauderman WJ. Exploiting gene–environment interaction to detect genetic associations. Hum Hered. 2007;63:111-.PubMed View Article
  5.Piegorsch WW, Weinberg CR, Taylor JA. Non-hierarchical logistic models and case-only designs for assessing susceptibility in population-based case–control studies. Stat Med. 1994;13:153-2.PubMed View Article
  6.Chatterjee N, Carroll RJ. Semiparametric maximum likelihood estimation exploiting gene–environment independence in case–control studies. Biometrika. 2005;92:399-18.View Article
  7.Mukherjee B, Chatterjee N. Exploiting gene–environment independence for analysis of case–control studies: an empirical Bayes-type shrinkage estimator to trade-off between bias and efficiency. Biometrics. 2008;64:685-4.PubMed View Article
  8.Mukherjee B, Ahn J, Gruber SB, Chatterjee N. Testing gene–environment interaction in large-scale case–control association studies: possible choices and comparisons. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175:177-0.PubMed Central PubMed View Article
  9.Oexle K, Meitinger T. Sampling GWAS subjects from risk populations. Genet Epidemiol. 2011;35:148-3.PubMed View Article
  10.Chen J, Kang G, Vanderweele T, Zhang C, Mukherjee B. Efficient designs of gene–environment interaction studies: implications of Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium and gene–environment independence. Stat Med. 2012;31:2516-0.PubMed Central PubMed View Article
  11.Garcia-Closas M, Rothman N, Lubin J. Misclassification in case–control studies of gene–environment interactions: assessment of bias and sample size. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 1999;8:1043-0.
  12. Rothman N, Garcia-Closas M, Stewart WT, Lubin J. The impact of misclassification in case–control studies of gene–environment interactions. IARC Sci publ. 1999;148:89-6.
  13.Garcia-Closas M, Thompson WD, Robins JM. Differential misclassification and the assessment of gene–environment interactions in case–control studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;147:426-3.PubMed View Article
  14.Lindstrom S, Yen YC, Spiegelman D, Kraft P. The impact of gene–environment dependence and misclassification in genetic association studies incorporating gene–environment interactions. Hum Hered. 2009;68:171-1.PubMed Central PubMed View Article
  15.Carroll RJ, Gail MH, Lubin JH. Case–control studies with errors in covariates. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88:185-9.
  16.Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. p. 111-8.
  17.Breslow NE, Chatterjee N. Design and analysis of two-phase studies with binary outcome applied to Wilms tumour prognosis. J R Stat Soc Ser C (Appl Stat). 1999;48(4):457-8. doi:10.-111/-467-9876.-0165 .View Article
  18.Lee AJ, Scott AJ, Wild CJ. Efficient estimation in multi-phase case–control studies. Biometrika. 2010;97(2):361-4. doi:10.-093/?biomet/?asq009 .View Article
  19. Lumley T. Survey: analysis of complex survey samples. R package version 3.2.4. 2011. Available online at:http://?cran.?r-project.?org/?web/?packages/?survey/?index.?html .
  20.Cheng KF. Analysis of case-only studies accounting for genotyping error. Ann Hum Genet. 2007;71:238-8.PubMed View Article
  21.Wong MY, Day NE, Luan JA, Wareham NJ. Estimation of magnitude in gene–environment interactions in the presence of measurement error. Stat Med. 2004;23:987-8.PubMed View Article
  22.Greenland S. Statistical uncertainty due to misclassification: implications for validation substudies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41:1167-4.PubMed View Article
  23.Zhang L, Mukherjee B, Ghosh M, Gruber S, Moreno V. Accounting for error due to misclassification of exposures in case–control studies of gene–environment interaction. Stat Med. 2008;27:2756-3.PubMed View Article
  24.Rice K. Full-likelihood approaches to misclassification of a binary exposure in matched case–control studies. Stat Med. 2003;22:3177-4.PubMed View Article
  25.Spiegelman DRB, Logan R. Estimation and inference for logistic regression with covariate misclassification and measurement error, in main study/validation study designs. J Am Stat Assoc. 2000;95:51-1.View Article
  26.Lobach I, Fan R, Carroll RJ. Genotype-based association mapping of complex diseases: gene–environment interactions with multiple genetic markers and measurement error in environmental exposures. Genet Epidemiol. 2010;34:792-02.PubMed Central PubMed View Article
  27.Lobach I, Mallick B, Carroll RJ. Semiparametric Bayesian analysis of gene–environmen
• 作者单位：Stephanie L. Stenzel (1) (2) (5)
  Jaeil Ahn (3)
  Philip S. Boonstra (4)
  Stephen B. Gruber (5)
  Bhramar Mukherjee (4)
  
  1. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
  2. Department of Statistics, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
  5. Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
  3. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
  4. Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, M4166 SPH II, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA
  
• 刊物类别：Medicine
• 刊物主题：Medicine & Public Health
  Epidemiology
  Public Health
  Infectious Diseases
  Cardiology
  Oncology
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1573-7284

文摘

With limited funding and biological specimen availability, choosing an optimal sampling design to maximize power for detecting gene-by-environment (G–E) interactions is critical. Exposure-enriched sampling is often used to select subjects with rare exposures for genotyping to enhance power for tests of G–E effects. However, exposure misclassification (MC) combined with biased sampling can affect characteristics of tests for G–E interaction and joint tests for marginal association and G–E interaction. Here, we characterize the impact of exposure-biased sampling under conditions of perfect exposure information and exposure MC on properties of several methods for conducting inference. We assess the Type I error, power, bias, and mean squared error properties of case-only, case–control, and empirical Bayes methods for testing/estimating G–E interaction and a joint test for marginal G (or E) effect and G–E interaction across three biased sampling schemes. Properties are evaluated via empirical simulation studies. With perfect exposure information, exposure-enriched sampling schemes enhance power as compared to random selection of subjects irrespective of exposure prevalence but yield bias in estimation of the G–E interaction and marginal E parameters. Exposure MC modifies the relative performance of sampling designs when compared to the case of perfect exposure information. Those conducting G–E interaction studies should be aware of exposure MC properties and the prevalence of exposure when choosing an ideal sampling scheme and method for characterizing G–E interactions and joint effects.