Abstract
Recent studies have reported novel cancer risk associations with incidentally tested genes on cancer risk panels using clinically ascertained cohorts. Clinically ascertained pedigrees may have unknown ascertainment biases for both patients and relatives. We used a method to assess gene and variant risk and ascertainment bias based on comparing the number of observed disease instances in a pedigree given the sex and ages of individuals with those expected given established population incidence. We assessed the performance characteristics of the method by simulating families with varying genetic risk and proportion of individuals genotyped. We implemented this method using SEER cancer incidence data to assess clinical ascertainment bias in a set of 42 pedigrees with clinical testing ordered for either breast/ovarian cancer or colorectal/endometrial cancer at the University of Washington and negative sequencing results. In addition to expected biases consistent with the stated testing purpose, there were trends suggesting increased colorectal and endometrial cancer in pedigrees tested for breast cancer risk and trends suggesting increased breast cancer in families tested for colon cancer risk. There was no observed selection bias for prostate cancer in this set of families. This analysis illustrates that clinically ascertained data sets may have subtle biases. In the future, researchers seeking to explore risk associations with clinical data sets could assess potential ascertainment bias by comparing incidence of disease in families that test negative under given ordering criteria to expected population disease frequencies. Failure to assess for ascertainment bias increases the risk of false genetic associations.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Shirts BH, Pritchard CC, Walsh T. Family-specific variants and the limits of human genetics. Trends Mol Med. 2016;22:925–34.
Espenschied CR, LaDuca H, Li S, McFarland R, Gau C-L, Hampel H. Multigene panel testing provides a new perspective on lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2568–75.
Rana HQ, Gelman R, LaDuca H, McFarland R, Dalton E, Thompson J, et al. Differences in TP53 mutation carrier phenotypes emerge from panel-based testing. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110:863–70.
Roberts ME, Jackson SA, Susswein LR, Zeinomar N, Ma X, Marshall ML, et al. MSH6 and PMS2 germ-line pathogenic variants implicated in Lynch syndrome are associated with breast cancer. Genet Med. 2018;20:1167–74.
Shimelis H, LaDuca H, Hu C, Hart SN, Na J, Thomas A, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer risk genes identified by multigene hereditary cancer panel testing. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110:855–62.
Couch FJ, Shimelis H, Hu C, Hart SN, Polley EC, Na J, et al. Associations between cancer predisposition testing panel genes and breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1190–6.
Lu H-M, Li S, Black MH, Lee S, Hoiness R, Wu S, et al. Association of breast and ovarian cancers with predisposition genes identified by large-scale sequencing. JAMA Oncol. 2018.
Sutcliffe EG, Bartenbaker Thompson A, Stettner AR, Marshall ML, Roberts ME, Susswein LR, et al. Multi-gene panel testing confirms phenotypic variability in MUTYH-associated polyposis. Fam Cancer 2019;18:203–9.
Chen S, Parmigiani G. Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1329–33.
Siegmund K, McKnight B. Modeling hazard functions in families. Genet Epidemiol 1998;15:147–71.
Gong G, Whittemore AS. Optimal designs for estimating penetrance of rare mutations of a disease-susceptibility gene. Genet Epidemiol 2003;24:173–80.
Wang Y, Ottman R, Rabinowitz D. A method for estimating penetrance from families sampled for linkage analysis. Biometrics 2006;62:1081–8.
Kraft P, Thomas DC. Bias and efficiency in family-based gene-characterization studies: conditional, prospective, retrospective, and joint likelihoods. Am J Hum Genet. 2000;66:1119–31.
ten Broeke SW, Brohet RM, Tops CM, van der Klift HM, Velthuizen ME, Bernstein I, et al. Lynch syndrome caused by germline PMS2 mutations: delineating the cancer risk. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:319–25.
Goodenberger ML, Thomas BC, Riegert-Johnson D, Boland CR, Plon SE, Clendenning M, et al. PMS2 monoallelic mutation carriers: the known unknown. Genet Med J Am Coll Med Genet. 2016;18:13–9.
Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med J Am Coll Med Genet. 2015;17:405–24.
Pharoah PD, Guilford P, Caldas C. International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium. Incidence of gastric cancer and breast cancer in CDH1 (E-cadherin) mutation carriers from hereditary diffuse gastric cancer families. Gastroenterology 2001;121:1348–53.
Lin KM, Shashidharan M, Thorson AG, Ternent CA, Blatchford GJ, Christensen MA, et al. Cumulative incidence of colorectal and extracolonic cancers in MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg J Soc Surg Aliment Tract. 1998;2:67–71.
Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, Narod S, Goldgar D, Devilee P, et al. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62:676–89.
Noone A, Howlader M, Krapcho M, Miller D, Brest A, Yu M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2015 [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2018 Apr. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2015/.
Pruss D, Morris B, Hughes E, Eggington JM, Esterling L, Robinson BS, et al. Development and validation of a new algorithm for the reclassification of genetic variants identified in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;147:119–32.
Morris B, Hughes E, Rosenthal E, Gutin A, Bowles KR. Classification of genetic variants in genes associated with Lynch syndrome using a clinical history weighting algorithm. BMC Genet. 2016;17:99.
Hong Y. On computing the distribution function for the Poisson binomial distribution. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2013;59:41–51.
Shirts BH, Casadei S, Jacobson AL, Lee MK, Gulsuner S, Bennett RL, et al. Improving performance of multigene panels for genomic analysis of cancer predisposition. Genet Med J Am Coll Med Genet. 2016;18:974–81.
McNicoll G World Population Prospects: The 1998 Revision. Volume I: Comprehensive Tables; Volume II: The Sex and Age Distribution of the World Population [Internet]. Population and Development Review. 1999 [cited 2019 Mar 25]. Available from: http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A63296795/AONE?sid=googlescholar.
Bell FC, Wade A, Goss SC. Life Tables for the United States Social Security Area: 1900–2080, Actuarial Study No. 107, US Department of Health and Human Services. Soc Secur Adm Off Actuary SSA Pub. 1992; (11–11536).
Quehenberger F, Vasen HFA, van Houwelingen HC. Risk of colorectal and endometrial cancer for carriers of mutations of the hMLH1 and hMSH2 gene: correction for ascertainment. J Med Genet. 2005;42:491–6.
Wei EK, Colditz GA, Giovannucci EL, Fuchs CS, Rosner BA. Cumulative risk of colon cancer up to age 70 years by risk factor status using data from the Nurses’ Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170:863–72.
Rañola JMO, Liu Q, Rosenthal EA, Shirts BH. A comparison of cosegregation analysis methods for the clinical setting. Fam Cancer. 2018;17:295–302.
R-Forge: Cosegregation Analysis: R Development Page [Internet]. [cited 2018 Sep 11]. Available from: https://r-forge.r-project.org/R/?group_id=2174.
Pritchard CC, Mateo J, Walsh MF, De Sarkar N, Abida W, Beltran H, et al. Inherited DNA-repair gene mutations in men with metastatic Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:443–53.
NCCN - Evidence-Based Cancer Guidelines, Oncology Drug Compendium, Oncology Continuing Medical Education [Internet]. [cited 2018 Sep 10]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/.
Easton DF, Deffenbaugh AM, Pruss D, Frye C, Wenstrup RJ, Allen-Brady K, et al. A systematic genetic assessment of 1,433 sequence variants of unknown clinical significance in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer-predisposition genes. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;81:873–83.
Acknowledgements
Primary funding for this project was provided by the University of Washington Department of Laboratory Medicine. In addition, the research group receives funding from the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation (DRR-33-15) and the Fred Hutchinson/University of Washington Cancer Consortium (NCI 5P30 CA015704-39).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ranola, J.M.O., Tsai, G.J. & Shirts, B.H. Exploring the effect of ascertainment bias on genetic studies that use clinical pedigrees. Eur J Hum Genet 27, 1800–1807 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0467-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0467-5
This article is cited by
-
The congenital hearing phenotype in GJB2 in Queensland, Australia: V37I and mild hearing loss predominates
European Journal of Human Genetics (2025)
-
Genomics and multiomics in the age of precision medicine
Pediatric Research (2025)
-
Addressing uncertainty in hereditary colorectal cancer: the role of a regional expert multidisciplinary team meeting
Familial Cancer (2025)
