gms | German Medical Science

54. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie e.V. (GMDS)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie

07. bis 10.09.2009, Essen

Individual data metaanalysis of case control studies with differing case entities, applied to the genetic assocation between a Tp53 SN-polymorphism and neoplasms of cervix uteri

Meeting Abstract

Suche in Medline nach

  • Jochem König - Universitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz
  • Meike Ressing - Universitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz
  • Maria Blettner - Universitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz
  • Stefanie Klug - Universitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie. 54. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie (gmds). Essen, 07.-10.09.2009. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2009. Doc09gmds143

doi: 10.3205/09gmds143, urn:nbn:de:0183-09gmds1435

Veröffentlicht: 2. September 2009

© 2009 König et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open Access-Artikel und steht unter den Creative Commons Lizenzbedingungen (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.de). Er darf vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden, vorausgesetzt dass Autor und Quelle genannt werden.


Gliederung

Text

Introduction: In a previous individual data based metaanalysis of 49 gene association studies analysis we checked whether the TP53 polymorphism PRO72ARG is associated with the risk of cervical neoplasms [1]. Various case definitions (invasive, high and low grad lesion) were considered by fitting separate logistic models to the respective case control status outcome while accounting for study, ethnic group and material used for genotyping (separate modelling approach).

In the present analysis, we investigated the benefits and drawbacks of a reverse modelling approach: The genotype distribution was modelled in dependence on the case control status and the covariates thus allowing for the inclusion of several case entities in one model.

Patients and methods: For the reverse approach all 49 studies could be analysed, but only 33 studies and 13419 individuals could be used in separate modelling. Separate modelling was based on binary, reverse modelling on generalized logistic regression. Solely controls confirmed by negative cytology were used in analyses.

Because less than half of the studies comprised all case entities, the reverse approach implicitly mixes direct and indirect comparisons. The role of indirect comparisons was investigated by definition of study level variables that reflect the types of cases contained in a study.

Results: In both approaches no significant association was found in studies using white blood cells for all entities, but a significant association between invasive cancer and genotype for studies using tumor specimen, reflecting loss of heterozygosity. Effect estimates were very similar in both approaches.

Standard errors for log odds ratios for all comparisons between case and control groups and for all genotype contrasts were consistently reduced by reverse modelling. But the gain in precision was small.

Conclusion: Reverse modelling allows for a comprehensive analysis of different case entities within a single model and yields more precise effect estimates.


References

1.
Klug SJ, Ressing M, König J, et al. TP53 codon 72 polymorphism and cervical cancer: pooled analysis of individual data of 15,834 women from 49 studies. submitted, 2009.
2.
Koushik A, Platt RW, Franco EL. p53 codon 72 polymorphism and cervical neoplasia: a meta-analysis review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13(1):11-22.
3.
Storey A, Thomas M, Kalita A, Harwood C, Gardiol D, Mantovani F, Breuer J, Leigh IM, Matlashewski G, Banks L. Role of a p53 polymorphism in the development of human papillomavirus- associated cancer. Nature. 1998;393(6682):229-34.
4.
Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Statistics in Medicine. 2004;23:3105–24.