| 1. |
- Fortner, Renee T., et al.
(författare)
-
Endometrial cancer risk prediction including serum-based biomarkers : results from the EPIC cohort
- 2017
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Cancer. - : Wiley. - 0020-7136 .- 1097-0215. ; 140:6, s. 1317-1323
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Endometrial cancer risk prediction models including lifestyle, anthropometric and reproductive factors have limited discrimina-tion. Adding biomarker data to these models may improve predictive capacity; to our knowledge, this has not been investigat-ed for endometrial cancer. Using a nested case-control study within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort, we investigated the improvement in discrimination gained by adding serum biomarker concentrations to risk estimates derived from an existing risk prediction model based on epidemiologic factors. Serum concentrations of sex steroid hormones, metabolic markers, growth factors, adipokines and cytokines were evaluated in a step-wise backward selec-tion process; biomarkers were retained at p < 0.157 indicating improvement in the Akaike information criterion (AIC). Improvement in discrimination was assessed using the C-statistic for all biomarkers alone, and change in C-statistic from addition of biomarkers to preexisting absolute risk estimates. We used internal validation with bootstrapping (1000-fold) to adjust for over-fitting. Adiponectin, estrone, interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, tumor necrosis factor-alpha and triglycerides were select-ed into the model. After accounting for over-fitting, discrimination was improved by 2.0 percentage points when all evaluated biomarkers were included and 1.7 percentage points in the model including the selected biomarkers. Models including eti-ologic markers on independent pathways and genetic markers may further improve discrimination.
|
|
| 2. |
- Gorasso, Vanessa, et al.
(författare)
-
Burden of disease attributable to risk factors in European countries: a scoping literature review
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Archives of Public Health. - 0778-7367 .- 2049-3258. ; 81:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: Within the framework of the burden of disease (BoD) approach, disease and injury burden estimates attributable to risk factors are a useful guide for policy formulation and priority setting in disease prevention. Considering the important differences in methods, and their impact on burden estimates, we conducted a scoping literature review to: (1) map the BoD assessments including risk factors performed across Europe; and (2) identify the methodological choices in comparative risk assessment (CRA) and risk assessment methods. Methods: We searched multiple literature databases, including grey literature websites and targeted public health agencies websites. Results: A total of 113 studies were included in the synthesis and further divided into independent BoD assessments (54 studies) and studies linked to the Global Burden of Disease (59 papers). Our results showed that the methods used to perform CRA varied substantially across independent European BoD studies. While there were some methodological choices that were more common than others, we did not observe patterns in terms of country, year or risk factor. Each methodological choice can affect the comparability of estimates between and within countries and/or risk factors, since they might significantly influence the quantification of the attributable burden. From our analysis we observed that the use of CRA was less common for some types of risk factors and outcomes. These included environmental and occupational risk factors, which are more likely to use bottom-up approaches for health outcomes where disease envelopes may not be available. Conclusions: Our review also highlighted misreporting, the lack of uncertainty analysis and the under-investigation of causal relationships in BoD studies. Development and use of guidelines for performing and reporting BoD studies will help understand differences, avoid misinterpretations thus improving comparability among estimates.
|
|
