Recommendations and proposed guidelines for assessing the cumulative evidence on joint effects of genes and environments on cancer occurrence in humans

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 686-704

  Boffetta, Paolo ^a,b   Winn, Deborah M ^c   Ioannidis, John P ^d,e,f,g   Thomas, Duncan C ^h   Little, Julian ⁱ   Smith, George Davey ^j   Cogliano, Vincent J ^k   Hecht, Stephen S ^l   Seminara, Daniela ^c   Vineis, Paolo ^m,n   Khoury, Muin J ^o  

^a MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b INTERNATIONAL PREVENTION RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (France)

^c NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF IOANNINA   (Greece)

^g TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^j UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^k INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER   (France)

^l UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^m IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

ⁿ HuGeF Foundation   (Italy)

^o NATIONAL CENTER ON BIRTH DEFECTS AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Environment; Evaluations; Genetics; Interactions

Indexed keywords

CANCER; EPIDEMIOLOGY; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOTYPE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; GUIDELINE; HEALTH RISK; NUMERICAL MODEL; POLYMORPHISM; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK FACTOR; SMOKING; TOBACCO;

ARTICLE; BLADDER CANCER; CANCER RISK; CARCINOGENESIS; CHRONIC DISEASE; DNA POLYMORPHISM; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; GENOTYPE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; HEREDITY; HUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK FACTOR; SMOKING;

ARYLAMINE N-ACETYLTRANSFERASE; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; GENE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NEOPLASMS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; SMOKING; URINARY BLADDER NEOPLASMS;

NICOTIANA TABACUM;

EID: 84864513556     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: 14643685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dys010     Document Type: Article

References (118)

1. Fletcher O, Houlston RS. Architecture of inherited susceptibility to common cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2010;10: 353-61.
2. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Preamble to the IARC Monographs (amended January 2006). Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2009.
3. Little J. Reporting and review of human genome epidemiology studies (Chapter 10). In: Khoury MJ, Little J, Burke W (eds). Human Genome Epidemiology: A Scientific Foundation for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 168-92.
4. Ioannidis JP, Boffetta P, Little J et al. Assessment of cumulative evidence on genetic associations: interim guidelines. Int J Epidemiol 2008;37:120-32.
5. Porta M. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. 5th edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 1-289.
6. Weinberg CR. Less is more, except when less is less: studying joint effects. Genomics 2009;93:10-12.
7. Thomas D. Gene-environment-wide association studies: emerging approaches. Nat Rev Genet 2010;11:259-72.
8. Clayton DG. Prediction and interaction in complex disease genetics: experience in type 1 diabetes. PLoS Genet 2009;5:e1000540.
9. Ottman R. Gene-environment interaction: definitions and study designs. Prev Med 1996;25:764-70.
10. Khoury MJ, Adams MJ Jr, Flanders WD. An epidemiologic approach to ecogenetics. Am J Hum Genet 1988;42: 89-95.
11. Haldane JB. The interaction of nature and nurture. Ann Eugenics 1946;13:197-205.
12. Yang Q, Khoury MJ. Evolving methods in genetic epidemiology. III. Gene-environment interaction in epidemiologic research. Epidemiol Rev 1997;19:33-43.
13. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Cox DR. Interpretation of interaction: a review. Ann Appl Stat 2007;1:371-85.
14. Clayton D, McKeigue PM. Epidemiological methods for studying genes and environmental factors in complex diseases. Lancet 2001;358:1356-60.
15. Le Marchand L, Hankin JH, Wilkens LR et al. Combined effects of well-done red meat, smoking, and rapid N-acetyltransferase 2 and CYP1A2 phenotypes in increasing colorectal cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001;10:1259-66.
16. Cook NR, Zee RY, Ridker PM. Tree and spline based association analysis of gene-gene interaction models for ischemic stroke. Stat Med 2004;23:1439-53.
17. Hahn LW, Ritchie MD, Moore JH. Multifactor dimensionality reduction software for detecting gene-gene and gene-environment interactions. Bioinformatics 2003;19: 376-82.
18. Ritchie MD, Motsinger AA. Multifactor dimensionality reduction for detecting gene-gene and gene-environment interactions in pharmacogenomics studies. Pharmacogenomics 2005;6:823-34.
19. Millstein J, Conti DV, Gilliland FD, Gauderman WJ. A testing framework for identifying susceptibility genes in the presence of epistasis. Am J Hum Genet 2006;78: 15-27.
20. Schwender H, Ickstadt K. Identification of SNP interactions using logic regression. Biostatistics 2008;9:187-98.
21. Motsinger AA, Lee SL, Mellick G, Ritchie MD. GPNN: power studies and applications of a neural network method for detecting gene-gene interactions in studies of human disease. BMC Bioinformatics 2006;7:39.
22. Chen SH, Sun J, Dimitrov L et al. A support vector machine approach for detecting gene-gene interaction. Genet Epidemiol 2008;32:152-67.
23. Thomas D. Methods for investigating gene-environment interactions in candidate pathway and genome-wide association studies. Annu Rev Public Health 2010;31:21-36.
24. Greenland S. Hierarchical regression for epidemiologic analyses of multiple exposures. Environ Health Perspect 1994;102(Suppl 8):33-39.
25. Witte JS. Genetic analysis with hierarchical models. Genet Epidemiol 1997;14:1137-42.
26. Hung RJ, Brennan P, Malaveille C et al. Using hierarchical modeling in genetic association studies with multiple markers: application to a case-control study of bladder cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13:1013-21.
27. Hung RJ, McKay JD, Gaborieau V et al. A susceptibility locus for lung cancer maps to nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunit genes on 15q25. Nature 2008;452:633-37.
28. Capanu M, Orlow I, Berwick M, Hummer AJ, Thomas DC, Begg CB. The use of hierarchical models for estimating relative risks of individual genetic variants: an application to a study of melanoma. Stat Med 2008;27: 1973-92.
29. Rebbeck TR, Spitz M, Wu X. Assessing the function of genetic variants in candidate gene association studies. Nat Rev Genet 2004;5:589-97.
30. Thomas PD, Mi H, Lewis S. Ontology annotation: mapping genomic regions to biological function. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2007;11:4-11.
31. Wakefield J, De VF, Hung RJ. Bayesian mixture modeling of gene-environment and gene-gene interactions. Genet Epidemiol 2010;34:16-25.
32. Conti DV, Cortessis V, Molitor J, Thomas DC. Bayesian modeling of complex metabolic pathways. Hum Hered 2003;56:83-93.
33. Kooperberg C, Ruczinski I. Identifying interacting SNPs using Monte Carlo logic regression. Genet Epidemiol 2005; 28:157-70.
34. Baurley JW, Conti DV, Gauderman WJ, Thomas DC. Discovery of complex pathways from observational data. Stat Med 2010;29:1998-2011.
35. Chen GK, Witte JS. Enriching the analysis of genomewide association studies with hierarchical modeling. Am J Hum Genet 2007;81:397-404.
36. Lewinger JP, Conti DV, Baurley JW, Triche TJ, Thomas DC. Hierarchical Bayes prioritization of marker associations from a genome-wide association scan for further investigation. Genet Epidemiol 2007;31:871-82.
37. Conti DV, Lewinger JP, Tyndale RF, Benowitz NL, Swan GE, Thomas PD. Using ontologies in hierarchical modeling of genes and exposure in biological pathways. In: Swan GE, Baker TB, Chassin L, Conti DV, Lerman C, Perkins KA (eds). Monograph 20: Phenotypes and Endophenotypes Foundations for Genetic Studies of Nicotine Use and Dependence. NIH Publication No. 09-6366. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 2009, pp. 539-84.
38. De Roos AJ, Smith MT, Chanock S, Rothman N. Toxicological considerations in the application and interpretation of susceptibility biomarkers in epidemiological studies. IARC Sci Publ 2004;157:105-25.
39. Lin BK, Clyne M, Walsh M et al. Tracking the epidemiology of human genes in the literature: the HuGE Published Literature database. Am J Epidemiol 2006;164: 1-4.
40. Lunn DJ, Best N, Thomas A, Wakefield J, Spiegelhalter D. Bayesian analysis of population PK/PD models: general concepts and software. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2002;29:271-307.
41. Racine-Poon A, Wakefield J. Statistical methods for population pharmacokinetic modelling. Stat Methods Med Res 1998;7:63-84.
42. Wakefield J. The Bayesian analysis of population pharmacokinetic models. J Am Stat Assoc 1996;91:62-75.
43. Cortessis V, Thomas DC. Toxicokinetic genetics: an approach to gene-environment and gene-gene interactions in complex metabolic pathways. IARC Sci Publ 2004;157: 127-50.
44. Jonsson F, Johanson G. A Bayesian analysis of the influence of GSTT1 polymorphism on the cancer risk estimate for dichloromethane. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2001;174: 99-112.
45. Armitage P, Doll R. The age distribution of cancer and a multi-stage theory of carcinogenesis. Br J Cancer 1954;8: 1-12.
46. Moolgavkar SH, Knudson AG Jr. Mutation and cancer: a model for human carcinogenesis. J Natl Cancer Inst 1981; 66:1037-52.
47. Little MP, Li G. Stochastic modelling of colon cancer: is there a role for genomic instability? Carcinogenesis 2007; 28:479-87.
48. Mothersill C, Seymour C. Genomic instability, bystander effects and radiation risks: implications for development of protection strategies for man and the environment. Radiats Biol Radioecol 2000;40:615-20.
49. Thompson WD. Effect modification and the limits of biological inference from epidemiologic data. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:221-32.
50. Hunter DJ. Gene-environment interactions in human diseases. Nat Rev Genet 2005;6:287-98.
51. Burton PR, Hansell AL, Fortier I et al. Size matters: just how big is BIG?: quantifying realistic sample size requirements for human genome epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 2009;38:263-73.
52. Wong MY, Day NE, Luan JA, Chan KP, Wareham NJ. The detection of gene-environment interaction for continuous traits: should we deal with measurement error by bigger studies or better measurement? Int J Epidemiol 2003;32: 51-57.
53. Boffetta P, McLaughlin JK, La VC, Tarone RE, Lipworth L, Blot WJ. False-positive results in cancer epidemiology: a plea for epistemological modesty. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100:988-95.
54. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 2008;3:e3081.
55. Khoury MJ, Wacholder S. From genome-wide association studies to gene-environment-wide interaction studies- challenges and opportunities. Am J Epidemiol 2009;169: 227-30.
56. Knol MJ, Egger M, Scott P, Geerlings MI, Vandenbroucke JP. When one depends on the other: reporting of interaction in case-control and cohort studies. Epidemiology 2009;20:161-66.
57. Vandenbroucke JP, Von EE, Altman DG et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:W163-94.
58. Begg CB, Zhang ZF. Statistical analysis of molecular epidemiology studies employing case-series. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1994;3:173-75.
59. Khoury MJ, Flanders WD. Nontraditional epidemiologic approaches in the analysis of gene-environment interaction: case-control studies with no controls!. Am J Epidemiol 1996;144:207-13.
60. 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;13:153-62.
61. Schaid DJ. Case-parents design for gene-environment interaction. Genet Epidemiol 1999;16:261-73.
62. Albert PS, Ratnasinghe D, Tangrea J, Wacholder S. Limitations of the case-only design for identifying gene-environment interactions. Am J Epidemiol 2001; 154:687-93.
63. Gatto NM, Campbell UB, Rundle AG, Ahsan H. Further development of the case-only design for assessing gene-environment interaction: evaluation of and adjustment for bias. Int J Epidemiol 2004;33:1014-24.
64. Li D, Conti DV. Detecting gene-environment interactions using a combined case-only and case-control approach. Am J Epidemiol 2009;169:497-504.
65. Mukherjee B, Ahn J, Gruber SB, Rennert G, Moreno V, Chatterjee N. Tests for gene-environment interaction from case-control data: a novel study of type I error, power and designs. Genet Epidemiol 2008;32:615-26.
66. Murcray CE, Lewinger JP, Gauderman WJ. Geneenvironment interaction in genome-wide association studies. Am J Epidemiol 2009;169:219-26.
67. Lake SL, Laird NM. Tests of gene-environment interaction for case-parent triads with general environmental exposures. Ann Hum Genet 2004;68(Pt 1):55-64.
68. Starr JR, Hsu L, Schwartz SM. Performance of the log-linear approach to case-parent triad data for assessing maternal genetic associations with offspring disease: type I error, power, and bias. Am J Epidemiol 2005;161: 196-204.
69. Umbach DM, Weinberg CR. The use of case-parent triads to study joint effects of genotype and exposure. Am J Hum Genet 2000;66:251-61.
70. Gauderman WJ, Thomas DC, Murcray CE, Conti D, Li D, Lewinger JP. Efficient genome-wide association testing of gene-environment interaction in case-parent trios. Am J Epidemiol 2010;172:116-22.
71. Morimoto LM, White E, Newcomb PA. Selection bias in the assessment of gene-environment interaction in case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:259-63.
72. Wacholder S, Chatterjee N, Hartge P. Joint effect of genes and environment distorted by selection biases: implications for hospital-based case-control studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:885-89.
73. Thurigen D, Spiegelman D, Blettner M, Heuer C, Brenner H. Measurement error correction using validation data: a review of methods and their applicability in case-control studies. Stat Methods Med Res 2000;9:447-74.
74. Jurek AM, Greenland S, Maldonado G. How far from non-differential does exposure or disease misclassification have to be to bias measures of association away from the null? Int J Epidemiol 2008;37:382-85.
75. Garcia-Closas M, Rothman N, Lubin J. Misclassification in case-control studies of gene-environment interactions: assessment of bias and sample size. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:1043-50.
76. Garcia-Closas M, Wacholder S, Caporaso N, Rothman N. Inference issues in cohort and case-control studies of genetic effects and gene-environment interactions. In: Khoury MJ, Little J, Burke W (eds). Human Genome Epidemiology: A Scientific Foundation for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 127-44.
77. Cheng KF, Lin WJ. The effects of misclassification in studies of gene-environment interactions. Hum Hered 2009;67:77-87.
78. Guttmacher AE, Collins FS. Genomic medicine-a primer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1512-20.
79. Knoppers BM. Biobanking: international norms. J Law Med Ethics 2005;33:7-14.
80. Riboli E, Hunt KJ, Slimani N et al. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC): study populations and data collection. Public Health Nutr 2002; 5:1113-24.
81. Swede H, Stone CL, Norwood AR. National populationbased biobanks for genetic research. Genet Med 2007;9: 141-49.
82. Davey Smith G, Lawlor DA, Harbord R et al. Clustered environments and randomized genes: a fundamental distinction between conventional and genetic epidemiology. PLoS Med 2007;12:e352.
83. Davey Smith G. Use of genetic markers and gene-diet-interactions for interrogating population-levelcausal influences of diet on health. Genes Nutrition 2011; 6:27-43.
84. Brennan P, Lewis S, Hashibe M et al. Pooled analysis of alcohol dehydrogenase genotypes and head and neck cancer: a HuGE review. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:1-16.
85. Cui R, Kamatani Y, Takahashi A et al. Functional variants in ADH1B and ALDH2 coupled with alcohol and smoking synergistically enhance esophageal cancer risk. Gastroenterology 2009;137:1768-75.
86. Ioannidis JP, Loy EY, Poulton R, Chia KS. Researching genetic versus nongenetic determinants of disease: a comparison and proposed unification. Sci Transl Med 2009;1:7ps8.
87. Pearson TA, Manolio TA. How to interpret a genome-wide association study. JAMA 2008;299:1335-44.
88. Fortier I, Burton P, Robson P et al. Quality, quantity and harmony: the DataSHaPER approach to integrating data across bioclinical studies. Int J Epidemiol 2010;39: 1383-93.
89. PhenX: Consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures. www.phenx.org (27 March 2012, date last accessed).
90. Kipnis V, Midthune D, Freedman L et al. Bias in dietaryreport instruments and its implications for nutritional epidemiology. Public Health Nutr 2002;5:915-23.
91. Von EE, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007;370:1453-57.
92. Little J, Higgins JP, Ioannidis JP et al. Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:597-608.
93. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How Tobacco Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Tobacco-Attributable Disease. A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of Surgeon General, 2010.
94. World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of cancer: A global perspective. Washington DC: AICR, 2007.
95. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288:321-33.
96. Vineis P, Manuguerra M, Kavvoura FK et al. A field synopsis on low-penetrance variants in DNA repair genes and cancer susceptibility. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101: 24-36.
97. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. 'Mendelian randomization': can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol 2003;32:1-22.
98. Umbach DM, Weinberg CR. The use of case-parent triads to study joint effects of genotype and exposure. Am J Hum Genet 2000;66:251-61.
99. VanderWeele TJ, Hernández-Díaz S, Hernán MA. Caseonly gene-environment interaction studies: when does association imply mechanistic interaction? Genet Epidemiol 2010;34:327-34.
100. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. 'Mendelian randomization': can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol 2003;32:1-22.
101. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Aclohol consumption and ethyl carbamate (urethane). IARC Mongr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 2010;96:41-1284.
102. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 2004;83: 1-1452.
103. Rothman N, Garcia-Closas M, Hein DW. Commentary: reflections on G.M. Lower and colleagues' 1979 study associating slow acetylator phenotype with urinary bladder cancer: meta-analysis, historical refinements of the hypothesis, and lessons learned. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36: 23-28.
104. Rodrigues-Lima F, Dairou J, Dupret JM. Effect of environmental substances on the activity of arylamine N-acetyltransferases. Curr Drug Metab 2008;9:505-9.
105. Edenberg HJ. The genetics of alcohol metabolism: role of alcohol dehydrogenase and aldehyde dehydrogenase variants. Alcohol Res Health 2007;30:5-13.
106. Lewis SJ, Davey Smith G. Alcohol, ALDH2, and esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis which illustrates the potentials and limitations of a Mendelian randomization approach. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14: 1967-71.
107. Boccia S, Hashibe M, Galli P et al. Aldehyde dehydrogenase and head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis implementing a Mendelian randomization approach. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:248-54.
108. Concannon P, Haile RW, Borresen-Dale AL et al. Variants in the ATM gene associated with a reduced risk of contralateral breast cancer. Cancer Res 2008;68:6486-91.
109. El GF, Baan R, Straif K et al. A review of human carcinogens- part D: radiation. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:751-52.
110. Khanna KK, Chenevix-Trench G. ATM and genome maintenance: defining its role in breast cancer susceptibility. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2004;9:247-62.
111. Bernstein JL, Haile RW, Stovall M et al. Radiation exposure, the ATM Gene, and contralateral breast cancer in the women's environmental cancer and radiation epidemiology study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:475-83.
112. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Tobacco smoking. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 1986;38:1-592.
113. Secretan B, Straif K, Baan R et al. A review of human carcinogens - Part E: tobacco, areca nut, alcohol, coal smoke, and salted fish. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:1033-34.
114. Sanderson S, Salanti G, Higgins J. Joint effects of the N-acetyltransferase 1 and 2 (NAT1 and NAT2) genes and smoking on bladder carcinogenesis: a literature-based systematic HuGE review and evidence synthesis. Am J Epidemiol 2007;166:741-51.
115. Kiemeney LA, Thorlacius S, Sulem P et al. Sequence variant on 8q24 confers susceptibility to urinary bladder cancer. Nat Genet 2008;40:1307-12.
116. Wu X, Ye Y, Kiemeney LA et al. Genetic variation in the prostate stem cell antigen gene PSCA confers susceptibility to urinary bladder cancer. Nat Genet 2009;41: 991-95.
117. Figueroa JD, Garcia-Closas M, Rothman N. Bladder cancer. In: Khoury MJ, Bedrosian SR, Gwinn M, Higgins JPT, Ioannidis JPA, Little J (eds). Human Genome Epidemiology. 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 299-315.
118. Risch N, Herrell R, Lehner T et al. Interaction between the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTTLPR), stressful life events, and risk of depression. JAMA 2009;301:2462-71.