Application of Biomarkers in Cancer Epidemiology
Edited by P. Toniolo, P. Boffetta, D.E.G. Shuker, N. Rothman, В. Hulka and N. Pearce
'ARC Scientific Publications No.142
International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, 1997
Foreword
Although biological markers have been used in epidemiology for decades, it is oniy in recent years, that advances in cellular and molecular biology have greatly expanded their potential. Biomarkers have possibilities in measuring whole-body or organ-specific exposures, as indicators of biological change or of early disease, and in assessing indi- vidual susceptibility to exposure, These developments foster the incorporation of a more biological thinking into studies of cancer epidemiology aid open up new perspectives for elucidating the mechanisms of pathogenesis in vivo at the cellular and molecular level. Although the promise that biological markers hold in expanding the boundaries of epi- demiological research is enormous, the criteria for their effective use in human observa- tional research are as yet poorly understood, as are their limitations. Biomarkers have many useful future applications in cancer prevention and public health; particularly in the monitoring of exposure to hazardous substances, in identifying individuals at increased risk of disease, and in risk assessment at the population level. This volume aims to provide a set of state-of-the-art reviews of methodological issues iп the use of biological markers in cancer epidemiology. In addition, it provides a brief expert statement of our present understanding of these issues under three broad headings: study design and analysis; development of biomarkers; and application of bio- markers. The support of the United Kingdom Department of the Environment and the collabora- tion of the New York University are gratefully acknowledged. We thank Fred Garber for kindly designing the artwork for the cover of the book.
P. Kleihues Director, IAFIC International Agency For Research On Cancer The International Agency for Research on Cancer ('ARC) was established in 1965 by the World Health Assembly, as an independently financed organization within the framework of the World Health Organization. The headquarters of the Agency are in Lyon, France. The Agency conducts a programme of research concentrating particularly on the epi- demiology of cancer and the study of potential carcinogens in the human environment. Its field studies are supplemented by biological and chemical research carried out in the Agency's laboratories in Lyon and, through collaborative research agreements, in national research institutions in many countries. The Agency also conducts a programme for the education and training of personnel for cancer research. The publications of the Agency contribute to the dissemination of authoritative infor- mation on different aspects of cancer research. А complete list is printed at the back of this book. Information about 'ARC publications, and how to order them, is also available via the Internet at: http:llwww.iarc.frl Workshop on the Application of Biomarkers to Cancer Epidemiology, Lyon, 20-23 February 1996 List of participants
R.J. Albertini S. Gaгte F, Perera E.Taioli Genetics Laboratory, Program in Environmental Division of Environmental Department of Environmental University of Vermont, 32 Carcinogenesis, NY University Sciences, Columbia University Medicine, NYU School of North Prospect St, Burlington, Medical Center, MSB Room Sсhool of Public Health Medicine, 341 East 25th VT 05401-0508, USA 209, 550 First Avenue Room 8109, 60 Haven Avenue Street, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10010, USA New York, NY-10032, USA New York, NY 10010, USA B.K. Armstrong Cancer Control Information D. Gompertz J.D. Potter P Toniolo Centre, NSW Cancer Council MRC Institute for Environment Head, Cancer Prevention Head, Unit of Cancer P.O. Box 572, Kings Cross, and Health, University of Research Program Epidemiology, New York NSW 2011, Australia Leicester, 94 Regent Street Fred Hutchinson Cancer University School of Medicine, Leicester LEI 91N, UK Research Center 341 East 25th St, New York, Н. Bartsch 1124 Columbia Street NY 10010-2598, USA German Cancer Research K. Hemminki Seattle, WA 98104, USA Centre, Center for Nutrition and E. White 1m Neuenheimer Feld 280 Toxicology, Karolinka Institute, N. Rothman Cancer Prevention Research 69120 Heidelberg, Germany НdlSovagen 7, 14157 Environmental Epidemiology Program, Fred Hutchinson Huddinge, Sweden Branch, National Cancer Cancer Research Center С.W. Boone Institute, EPN 418, 6130 1124 Columbia Street, МP-702 Chemoprevention Branch B. Hulka Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, Seattle, WA 98104, USA Division of Cancer Prevention Department of Epidemiology MD 20892-7364, USA and Control, National Cancer School of Public Health T.F. Zhang Institute, Bldg 31, Am 10А52 University of North Carolina R. Saracci Department of Epidemiology 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, СВ NO. 7400 McGavran» lstituto Fisiologia Clinica CNR and Biostatistics, Memorial MD 20892-2580, USA Greenberg Hall, Chapel Hill, Epidemiology Section Sloan Kettering Cancer Center NC 27599.7400, USA Via Trieste, 41 1275 York Avenue, B ox 44 F.X. Bosch 56106 Pisa, Italy New York, NY 10021, USA Servei d'Epidemiologia D.J. Hunier Hospital Duran i Reynals Channing Laboratory, Harvard A. Schatzkin Autovia de CastelldeteIs, Km 2.7 School of Public Health Division of Cancer Prevention Observers 08907 Hospitalet de Llobregat 677 Huntington Avenue Studies Branch, National H. Auirup Barcelona, Spain Boston, MA 02115, USA Cancer Institute, 6130 Department of Environmental Executive Boulevard, and Occupational Medicine N. Caporaso M.T. Landi Bethesda, MD 20852, USA Aarhus University, Genetic Epidemiology Branch Genetic Epidemiology Branch Universitetsparken bygriing 180, National Cancer Institute, National Cancer Institute P.A. 5сhulte 8000 Aarhus C., Denmark EPN 439, 6130 Executive Executive Plaza North, Am Screening and Notification Boulevard, Bethesda, 439, 6130 Executive Section T. Ballard MD 20892-7377, USA Boulevard, Msc 7372, National Institute for Venetian Tumour Registry Bethesda, Occupational Safety and Via Giustiniaiii, 2, D. Coggon MD 20892-7372, USA Health 35100 Padua, Italy MRC Environmental 4678 Columbia Parkway, Epidemiology Unit A.J. McMichael Room 42, Cincinnati, University it Southampton Department of Epidemiology OH 45226-1998, USA Southampton General Hospital London School of Hygiene and 'ARC participants Southampton 5016 6YD, UK Tropical Medicine, Keppel D. 5huker R Boffetla Street, London WC1 E lIT, UK Toxicology Unit M.Freisen R Farmer University of Leicester P. Hainaut MRC Toxicology Unit. N. Pearce Hodgkin Building, Lancaster J. Hall R. Montesano University of Leicester, Wellington Asthma Research Road, Р.O. Box 138 Hodgkin Building, Lancaster Group, Department of Leicester LEI 91N, UK N.Munoz P. Pisani Road, Р.O. Box 138, Medicine, Wellington School of Leicester LE1 9HN, UK Medicine, P.O. Box 7343 E. Riboli Wellington South, New Zealand C. Wild Contents
Application of biomarkers to cancer epidemiology 1 Workshop report Transitional studies 19 P.A. Schulte and F.P. Perera Logistics and design issues ïn the use of biological samples in 31 observational epidemiology J.D. Potter
Methodological issues in the use of biological markers in cancer 39 epidemiology: cohort studies D.J. Hunter General issues of study design and analysis in the use of biomarkers in 47 cancer epidemiology N. Pearce and P Boffetta Saurces of variation in biomarkers 59 R Vineis Effects of biomarker measurement error on epidemiological studies 73 Е. White Markers of internal dose: chemical agents 95 D. Coggon and M.D. Friesen Biochemical markers of dietary intake 103 R. Kaaks, Е. Riboli and R. Sinha Biomarkers for biological agents 127 N. Mилог and EX. Bosch Carcinogen-DNA and carcinogen-protein adducts in molecular 143 epidemiology С.P. Wild and P Pisani Somatïc cell mutations in cancer epidemiology 159 R.J. Albertini and R.B. Hayes Cytogenetic end-points as biological dosimeters and predictors 185 of risk in epidemiological studies J.D. Tucker, D.A. Eastmorid and L.G. Littlefield Methodological issues in the use of tumour markers in cancer epidemiology 201 Z-F, Zhang, C. Cordon-Cardo, N. Rothman, A.N. Freedman and J.A. Taylor Quality control of biomarker measurement in epidemiology 215 D. Gompertz vi sample collection' processing and storage 223 M.T. Landi and N. Caporaso issues involving biomarkers in the study of the genetics of human cancer 237 N. Caporaso and A. Goldstein Gene-environment interactions iп the application of biomarkers of cancer 251 susceptibility in epidemiology S. Garte, C. Zocchetti and E. Taioli
Using and interpreting surrogate end-points иn cancer research 265 A. Schatzk;n, L.S. Freedman, J Dorgan, L. МсShапе, M.H. Sсhiffтаn and S.M. Dawsey Biomarker end-points in cancer chemoprevention trials 273 C. W. Boone and G.J. Kelloff The use of biological markers as predictive early-outcome measures 281 in epidemiological research A.J. Mclichael and A.J. Hall The use of biomarkers to study pathogenesis and mechanisms of cancer; 291 oesphagus and skin cancer as models R. Montesano, R Hainaut and J. Hall Comparing measurements of biomarkers with other measurements of 303 exposure R. Sаraссi Ethical and social issues in the use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies 313 P.A. Schulte, D. Hunter and N. Rothman
vii Application of Biomarkers in Cancer Epidemiology
(IARC Scientгfic Pubications No. 142) Errata
• List of participants attending the Workshop on the Application of Biomarkers to Cancer Epidemiology, Lyon, 20-23 February 1996, page v, should include the following participants:
R. Sinha Nutritional Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer Institute, EPN 443, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
J.D. Tucker Biology and Biotechnology Research Program, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 808, L-452, Livermore, CA 94551-9900, USA
. The Technical Editor for the Workshop, page y, was: S. Garber Epidemiology Program, New York Univ. School of Medicine, 341 East 25th St, New York, NY 10010-2598, USA
. The following persons contributed to the Workshop proceedings, page v, but were unable to attend:
P. Vineis Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Turin, Via Santena, 7, l-10126 Turin, Italy
R. Kaaks NTR/IARC
• In line 12 of the first paragraph of p. 309, replace 95.7% with 9.75%. Applicaliоп or Biomarkers iп Career Epidemiology Тоыоlо, R, Botfetta, P., shuker, D.E.G., Rothman, N., HuIka, B. arid Pearce, N., ode 11~RC Ccieriidie Poblicalione No. 142 Иlсгпаtlопаl Agency or Research on Carnier, Lyori, 1997 Application of biomarkers in cancer epidemiology
Workshop report*
In epidemiology, а biological marker (commonly abbreviated, for convenience, to biomarker) is any substance, structure or process that can be measured in the human body or its products and may influence or predict the incidence or outcome of disease. Biomarkers can be broadly classified into markers of exposure, effect and susceptibility. Biomarkers may include the following: xenobiotic agents and their metabolites in tissues or body products; normally occurring body constituents whether in physiological or pathological amounts; endogenous compounds that are not present under normal conditions; and inherited and acquired abnormalities of body chemistry, structure or function, including pathological manifestations of precursors to disease. Biomarkers should be distinguished from biomarker assays, specific laboratory tests aimed at measuring particular biomarkers, and biomarker measurements, the amounts of particular biomarkers present in specified units of tissues or body products as measured by biomarker assays.
Biomarkers have been used in epidemiological et aL, 1995; Institute for Environment and Health, studies of cancer for many years. Early examples 1996) on the use of biomarkers in epidemiology, include the classic studies of B. Maclahon and there remains a substantial need for relevant coleagues on the geographical correlation of uri- methodological research, wider discussion and nary estrogen concentrations with cancer of the understanding of the methodological issues, aid breast (MacMahon et al., 1974; Dickinson et ai, their incorporation into the formal and informal 1974), subsequent studies of the relationship between training of cancer epidemiologists and other scien- urinary and blood estrogens and breast cancer in tists pursuing careers in biological research on case—control studies (Cole & McMahon, 1969; cancer. Maclahon et aL, 1982, 1983) and analyses of the The general objective of the use of biomarkers relationship of cancer mortality to serum choles- in cancer epidemiology is the same as that of can- terol concentrations in the Framingham and other cer epidemiology itself: to gain knowledge about cohort studies (McMichaet et al., 1984). Two the distribution aid determinants of disease occur- recent, таjот contributions of biomarkers to epi- rence and outcome that may be applied to reduce demiological studies are the demonstration of the the frequency and impact of disease in human carcinogenicity of aflatoxine in combination with populations. There are, however, several specific hepatitis B in humans through a cohort study of objectives for the use of biornarkers in cancer liver cancer, including measurements of urinary epidemiology which should guide the evaluation metabolites and nucleic acid adducts of aflatoxin of proposals to develop or apply biomarkers. (Ross et al., 1992; Qian et al., 1994), and the iden- Principally, they are to increase the accuracy of tification of the major role of human papilo- measurements of genetic or other acquired suscep- maviruses (HPVs) in causing cancer of the cervix tibility to disease; of exposures that may cause or worldwide (Munoz etal., 1992; Bosch etal., 1995). prevent disease; of exposures that confound or In spite of the quite extensive current use of modify the associations between risk and other biomarkers in cancer epidemiology, methodologi- exposures; of disease itself; and of fаctoтs that may cal aspects of their use have not been extensively determine the outcome of disease, such as disease elucidated or described. While there have been *This paper is the consensus report of the workshop important contributions to this subject, including Application of Biomarkers in Cancer Epidemiology, which was textbooks (Hulka et al., 1990; Schulte & Pererа,1993) held at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, and comprehensive meeting reports (Mendelsohn France, in February 1996. Application of Biomarkers iп Cancer Epidemiology
and disease. For example, the activity of an inducible, carcinogen-metabolizing enzyme is influenced by both exposure to inducing agents and the host genetic constitution; blood choles- terol concentration, an indirect indicator of fat nutrition, is almost certainly influenced by the presence of early cancer (International Collaborative Group, 1982; Sherwin et aL, 1987); presence of СС-ТТ mutations in the p53 gene in normal skin, a plausible marker of lifetime exposure to UV radiation (Nakazawa et a1., 1994), is also influenced by DNA repair enzymes (genetic susceptibility) arid may be influenced by the pathological conse- quences of p53 gene mutation (e.g. a proliferative advantage for the mutated cells). The practical consequences of this complexity have not yet been elucidated. In many cases, as measurements get closer Figure 1. Schematic representation showing how biomarkers to the biologically effective dose of an external may be used to measure phenomena that reflect the amount or agent at its target tissue, the relationship between effects of agents that influence or predict disease incidence or the biomarker and disease will be less likely to outcome. reflect the relationship between the amount of precursors and stages. Biomarkers may also be used external exposure to the agent and disease. to reduce, in the proposed study, the time interval However, exposures from multiple sources, such as between the relevant exposure and measurement nitrate, which may include exogenous pathways, of the putative effect and to increase the yield of may be better evaluated using biomarkers. information on disease pathogenesis. Ultimately, Because of the complexity of the interrelation- they should serve to increase the cost-effectiveness ship between biomarkers, their potential for of epidemiological studies, in the sense that, as a increasing knowledge about cancer epidemiology result of their use, more information is gained per and pathogenesis is now emerging. Research is unit cost. needed to explore the methodological characteris- Because of their origin in the structure and tics and biological functions of specific biomarkers function of the human body, biomarkers may pro- and how they relate to one another. Most particu- vide more complex measures of the underlying larly, their application in epidemiological studies exposure, process, etc. that they represent than should be undertaken after thorough preparation other measures that are common in epidemiology. and interdisciplinary collaboration. Even then, This complexity is illustrated in Fig. 1. The three interpretation of results must be undertaken with outer circles, genetic factors, environment (broadly appropriate caution. defined) and disease, represent the universe of phe- nomena that can be measured to reflect the Epidemiological study design and analysis amount or effects of exogenous or endogenous The use of biomarkers of exposure or dose, disease agents that may influence or predict the incidence or individual susceptibility aims to contribute to or outcome of disease. The inner cirde, biomarkers, the elucidation of the causal relationships in represents the subset of these phenomena that can human populations between diseases and factors be measured in the human body. That almost all of such as external exposures (via personal habits, the intersections between the three outer circles occupation and the ambient environment), genetic fall within the inner circle illustrates pictorially traits and interventions. that biomarkers, more than any other epidemio.. The types of epidemiological studies used in logical measure, may measure elements of any biomarker research closely parallel the types used two, or all three, of genetic factors, environment in other fields of epidemiology; biomarker studies,
2 Workshop report however, raise specific methodological issues Like other studies using biomarkers, transitional which are addressed in the following sections. studies raise ethical issues when the meaning of the biomaikei results is not known. The objectives Transitional studies of the research generally are not to identify health Tтaпsitional studies provide a bridge between the risks but to identify characteristics of the bio- use of biomarkers in laboratory experiments and marker or distribution by population subtypes. their use in cancer epidemiology studies (Schulte & There is a need to anticipate the impact of transi- Perera, this volume). They have as their outcome tional studies on study participants and plan to the characterization of biomarkers and of the address their concerns (Hunter, this volume). problems in their use; thus, they yield preliminary Cohort and case-control studies results rather than end. results about cancer etiol- Cohort and case-control studies represent the two ogy and prevention. Their intent should be to lay most widely used types of observational study the groundwork for the use of a marker in full-scale (Potter, this volume). They can be population- epidemiological studies by addressing the follow- based or based on patients at a hospital, clinic or ing aspects: intra- and intersubject variability; practice. For simplicity, studies based on patients the feasibility of marker use in field conditions; will be referred to throughout as clinic-based stud- potential confounding and effect-modifying fac- ies. tors for the marker; and mechanisms reflected by In clinic-based cohort studies, of treated patients the biomarker. Transitional studies can be divided or screened populations, the inclusion of biologi- into three functional categories: developmental, cal measures of exposure and susceptibility is both characterization and applied studies. methodologically sound and logistically feasible. Developmental studies involve determining In population-based studies, collection of biologi- the biological relevance, pharmacokinetics, repro- cal material for such markers is feasible but logisti- ducibility of measurement of the marker and the cally more complex. For early outcome markers, optimal conditions for collecting, processing and collection of material (e.g. precancerous lesions) is storing biological specimens in which the marker logistically feasible in a hospital setting, but is to be measured. becomes more difficult in the population setting. Characterization studies involve assessing inter- End-points assessed routinely at a variety of individual variation aid the genetic and acquired institutes may produce major problems of stan- factors that influence the variation of biomarkers dardization of methods (e.g. histological diagnosis). in populations. This includes assessing the fre- Except for some routinely registered biological quency or level of a marker in populations, identi- characteristics (e.g. receptor status in breast сап fying factors that are potential confounders or cer), even greater problems attend the issue of effect modifiers, and establishing the components identification of biologically or pathologically of variance in the biomarker measurement, la- defined disease subsets. boratory variability, intra-individual variation and Most of the considerations that make pros- interindividual variation. The ratio of intra- pective cohort studies an attractive study design individual variation to interindividual variation apply to all methods of exposure assessment, has important implications for study size and including biomarkers. The strengths of such stud- power. ies include the fact that exposure is measured Applied transitional studies assess the relation- before the outcome, that the source population ship between a marker and the event that it marks, that gave rise to the cases is explicitly defined, and namely exposure, pre-clinical effects, disease or that participation can be as high as 100% if speci- susceptibility. Applied studies are often of cross- mens are available for all subjects and follow-up is sectional or short-term longitudinal design, and complete. Weaknesses of prospective cohort stud- are not intended to establish or refute a causal rela- ies involving biornarkers include the usually small tionship between a given exposure and disease. number of cases of each of many types of cancer, Rather, they are intended to assess whether rele- the lack of specimen if the biomarker requires large vant correlations exist and if they are strong amounts of specimen or unusual specimens, degra- enough to be useful in full epidemiological studies. dation of the biomarkers during long-term storage,
s Applicatioл of Biomarkers in Cancer Epidemiology and the lack of detail on other potentially con- lected from all cohort members and stored at the founding or interacting exposures. Cohort studies beginning of the study; the controls are then arе, in principle, the preferred method for studying selected throughout the course of the study, ideally the temporal sequence of intermediate end-points; at the time that each case is diagnosed. An advan- however, the costs and complexity of repeated tage of the nested case—control approach is that screening may often make this difficult. biomarkers can be measured in specimens matched Important issues in prospective cohort studies on storage duration and casecontrol sets can be involving biomarkers, especially of exposure, analysed in the same laboratory batch, reducing involve the frequency and timing of specimen the potential for bias introduced by sample degra- collections. А major concern in cohort studies of dation and laboratory drift. On the other hand, a short duration (as in case—control studies) is the case—cohort design may be used when sample col- possibility that the disease process has influenced lection from the entire cohort is not feasible, or the biornarker level among cases diagnosed within when the cost of storage or analysis of each sample 1-2 years of the specimen being collected. Iп stud- is prohibitive. This design involves collecting ies of longer duration, there may be considerable biological samples from the cohort at the begin- misclassification of the aetrologicallÿ relevant ning of follow-up and then collecting samples exposures if specimens have been collected only at from cases as they occur. However, as samples are baseline. This misclassification occurs not only being taken at different times for cases and 'controls' because an individual's exposure level may change (i.e. the reference sample from the entire cohort), systematically over time, but also because there bias will be introduced if sample degradation or may be considerable intra-individual variation laboratory drift occurs over time. Furthermore, (from day to day or even hour to hour) in bio- the case—cohort approach may lead to laboratory marker levels. The effects of intra-individual varia- personnel being unblinded to case and control tion can be reduced by taking multiple samples, status. but this greatly increases the expense of sample In case—control studies, biomarkers of internal collection and storage and the burden on study dose or effective dose are appropriate when they subjects; similar considerations apply to taking are stable over a long period of time (e.g. carrier samples at several points in time in an attempt to status for infectious agents, such as HBsAg) or estimate time-integrated exposures or exposure when exposures have been constant over the rele- change. An alternative approach is to estimate the vant exposure period; however, it is essential that extent of intra-individual variation, and the mis- they are not affected by the disease process, diag- dassification involved in taking single specimens, nosis or treatment (except in those circumstances by taking multiple specimens in a sample of the when it is possible to collect specimens prior to the cohort. This information can be used to correct for commencement of treatment). For genetic suscepti- bias to the null introduced if the misclassification bthty markers, case—control studies are highly appro- is non-differential, and therefore de-attenuate priate. Clinic-based case—control studies are partic- observed relative risks. ularly suitable for studies of intermediate end- Use of biomarkers of disease susceptibility in points, as these end-points can be systematically cohort studies raises significant ethical issues, par- measured. Population surveys (or screening) are a ticularly if there is repeated contact with study sub- prerequisite for the identification of cases in popu- jects. In particular, informing the cohort members lation-based case—control studies of intermediate of their biomarker level is problematic if the bio- end-points. marker is not considered to be sufficiently predic- Clinic-based case—control studies are of particu- tive of disease, and if there are rio known preven- lar value for studying the etiology of precancerous tive steps cohort members can take to reduce their lesions (e.g. early cervical intraepithelial neopla- risk of the disease. sia). None the less, the relation between these A nested case—control study or a case—cohort intermediate disease markers and the cancers of design can be used to reduce the expenses of data which they are precursors is usually difficult to collection and sample analysis. In a nested study for both ethical and logistical reasons. In case—control study, biological samples may be col- case—control studies involving cancer as the end-
4 Wойuhop report point, biomarkers of exposure (though not of any studies, in particular in the control of confounding. given genotype) are of limited value, as the disease Such studies often do not seek to make causal infer- itself, its therapy, or behaviour changes iii patients, ences about exposure– disease relationships; may alter any exposure marker or biological rather, they are aimed to elucidate plausible mech- process thought to be a precursor of disease. anisms (Kuopio et al., 1995). Case–case comparisons can be useful in the study of biologically defined disease subsets when Cross-sectional studies differences in the etiology of such subsets are being Cross-sectional study designs, with single or examined. However, if a control group is not in- repeated sampling, have been frequently used in cluded, any heterogeneity in the exposure associa- the validation of markers of exposure and of dis- tions among disease subsets may be the result ease. They can provide a useful snapshot of the of increased risk in one subset as opposed to a relationship between exposure and susceptibility decreased risk in another. factors, on the one hand, and the selected bio- marker, on the other, in populations whose expo- Intervention studies sure can be well characterized. Frequently, the Intervention studies (trials) assess prospectively studies have involved industrial populations, whether an intervention is efficacious in changing chemotherapy patients and smokers—all groups the frequency of a marker of exposure or dose (e.g. exposed tô 'model' carcinogens—and have com- measures to encourage smoking cessation and pared them to appropriate non-exposed groups. either serum cotinine or protein or DNA adducts) Such studies can also be used in healthy individu- or pre-clinical condition or disease (e.g. р53 mu- als to establish the possible range of measurements tation, dysplasia and cell proliferation in trials of protective factors, e.g. monitoring of vegetable using antioxidants to prevent second tumours). intake by measurement of caroterloids or phenolic Biomarkers can be particularly valuable in assess- compounds in plasma and urine. This design can ing compliance with the intervention (e.g. serum be used to establish an association between the R-carotene in a randomized trial of (3-carotene). biomarker and the exposure under study. Markers of susceptibility (e.g. GSTM1 polymor- phism) could be used to determine whether groups Family-based studies in various intervention arms are comparable. Family studies are intended to address scientific Intervention studies may also be conducted as questions related to four general areas of research: transitional studies when there aie stiff questions about the response of biomarkers following an 1. Does familial aggregation exist for a specific intervention. Critical in all types of intervention disease or characteristic? studies is the need to address those same issues 2. Is the aggregation due to genetic factors or that are important in cohort studies, including lab- environmental factors, or both? oratory drift, loss to follow-up, and intervening 3. If a genetic component exists, how many exposures that may affect the biomarker. genes are involved and what is their mode of inheritance? Ecological studies 4. What is the physical location of these genes Ecological studies use groups rather than individuals and what is their function? as units of observation. They include studies of geographical differences and tinte trends in disease Using linkage methods, biomarkers that charac- incidence and prevalence. While ecological studies terize known DNA haplotypes have been instru- provide useful information on exposure, disease mental in locating a number of cancer-related genes. and modifying factors, they are, in most cases, These studies require relatively large amounts of inadequate to establish causal relationships. germline DNA (usually represented by DNA ex- Although, in general, ecological studies based on tracted from white blood cells). This is because biourarkers have the same advantages and limita- there are multiple marker loci that require evalua- tions as the other types of ecological studies, it is tion. Once a locus is identified, further DNA is possible to conduct carefully planned ecological necessary to identify the gene. Often, fibroblast or
5 Application of Biomarkers in Cancer Epidemiology
Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-transformed cell lines are ships between exposure, marker and disease are, in required to provide adequate DNA for these studies. most cases, obscure, the capacity to establish the special concern must be paid to ethical and presence or absence of misclassification in the counselling issues in family studies in which bio- interpretation of the findings of biomarker-based marker results for an individual may also have pre- studies is limited. dictive value for other members of the family. The use of biomarkers of exposure does not reduce the need to control for confounding and, in General issues in study design and analysis some instances, the use of biomarkers may actually As with other epidemiological studies the design introduce confounding into a study (Pearce & and statistical analysis of a study involving bio- Boffetta, this volume). Confounding can be con- markers involves iп general: (1) relating a particular trolled in the analysis by stratifying the data into disease (or marker of early effect); (2) to а particular subgroups according to the levels of the con- exposure; while (3) minimizing bias; (4) controlling founder(s), or by the use of mathematical model- confounding; (5) assessing and minimizing ran- ling. However, problems of multicollinearity can dom error; and (6) assessing interactions (Pearce & occur when variables that are highly correlated Boffetta, this volume). (e.g. serum levels of various micronutrients) are Many studies using biomarkers of disease are of entered simultaneously into a model; this will cross-sectional design and measure the prevalence make the model unstable and can lead to invalid of the disease state, which is dependent on both its effect estimates. incidence and its duration. Thus, in a study exam- Some biomarkers may be surrogates for inter- ining markers of cell damage as an effect of expo- mediate stages in the disease process. For example, sure to known or suspected carcinogens, the results when the relationship between reproductive risk would depend on factors such as the turnover of factors and cervical cancer is adjusted for HPV sta- the cells in which the marker is measured and the tus, the relative risks for number of sexual partners capacity to repair the damage. are reduced. This suggests that HPV is a mediator When deciding whether to measure exposure of the relationship between the reproductive risk with biomarkers, it is important to consider how factor and cervical cancer, helping to substantiate useful and informative the biomаrkers are in rela- the causal role for HPV. In cases such as this, the tion to the study hypothesis. This is a particular biomarkers should not be treated as potential con- issue for exposures that change over tinge; for founders, i.e. they should not be adjusted for in the example, a biomarker may be more valid than analysis. None the less, analyses alternatively a questionnaire in assessing exposure to HPV, including and excluding the putative intermediate whereas a questionnaire will be more valid than a can be used to help determine causal pathways. biomarker in assessing cigarette smoking 10 years When choosing the method of exposure or dose previously. It should be stressed that the concept of assessment, it is important to consider their impli- useful and informative' depends on: (1) whether, cations on study size, particularly when an expen- in principle, it is most appropriate to study exter- sive or invasive method may be used. An additional nal exposure or internal dose (i.e. which hypothe- consideration in study size estimation is the ratio of sis is being tested); (2) what information is avail- the number of assays per individual and the number able for the etiologically relevant time period; (3) of individuals in the study. lany biomarkers show whether the exposure or dose measurement is sub- marked variation from day to day within the same ject to intra-individual variation; and (4) whether individual (in part from problems of repeatability it is desirable and possible to obtain (with a bio- of the laboratory tests, but also from genuine dif- marker) information on interindividual variation ferences), and in some cases the intra-individual in exposure or biological response. variation may be greater than the irnterindividual When exposure or disease is measured with bio- variation (e.g. 24-h urinary sodium measurements). markers, it is important to ensure that any mis- Thus, it is important to take into account the trade- classification is non-differential (i.e. it applies off between including more participants, on the equally to the groups being compared) and is as one hand, aid gathering multiple samples from small as possible. However, because the relation- each participant, on the other. It is essential that Workshop report the relative magnitude of intra-individual varia- processing, evaluating intra-individual and inter- tion of a biomarker is adеquately characterized. individual variation in the biomarker in target Biornarkers present better opportunities for populations, determining laboratory assay varia- assessing interactions between genetic and envi- tion, and studying the impact of exogenous and ronmental factors. In particular, to infer interac- endogenous influences on the biomarker. tion, biomarkers of genetic susceptibility should Regardless of the specific protocol used for the show a higher disease risk in exposed susceptible collection, processing and analysis of a specific bio- groups than in exposed non-susceptible and in marker, two important issues to consider are the non-exposed groups. None the less, such testing storage of biological samples and the evaluation of for interaction usually requires a substantial sources of variation in biomarker measurement. increase in study size. This section will therefore review storage and vari- As is the case for other aspects of epidemiological ation issues following the discussion of individual research, if the relative risk between a biomarker biomarkers. and exposure or outcome is not very strong (e.g. The following biomarkers have been selected to less than 10), then results from multiple studies demonstrate the wide range of assays available for will be required before agreement on the existence incorporation into epidemiological studies, and to of an association can be reached. It is critical, comment on their utility for various study designs therefore, that the results from all existing studies relevant to the study of cancer. This is not meant are available. Unfortunately, the tendency for to be a comprehensive list; other important cate- investigators and journals to publish only 'positive' gories of biomarkers in blood (e.g. immunological results may bias the literature in favor of positive markers) and in normal and preneoplastic tissue studies, a phenomenon often called 'report bias' are not addressed here. or 'puNicatiori bias'. Biomarker research may be even more prone to this bias than other fields of Biomarkers of biological agents epidemiological research, as multiple biomarkers Biological agents associated with chronic infection may be assessed, sometimes at relatively low cost. and subsequent development of cancer are mea- It is important that investigators publish, or sured using serological or nucleic acid markers make available in abstract form, all their results (Munoz & Bosch, this volume). An example of from studies in which the results are reliable, nucleic acid-based biomarker is HPV DNA detec- even if these results are 'null'. Publication bias tion where the presence of type-specific DNA at a can be particularly relevant when several analyses given time is measured by PCR-based assays. of the data are done on subgroups of the study Cohort studies having high-grade squamous population, defined according to сhaгaсtегistiсs intraepithelial lesions as the end-point have shown such as tumour markers or susceptibility gene that the infection preceded the disease. HPV DNA polymorphisms. Such multiple analyses increase infections are often transient, especially in young the probability to obtain significant results by women. Therefore, repeated sampling is required to chance only. Although these analyses may provide assess persistent HPV infections. Accurate serologi- useful information on effect modifiers, the selec- cal assays aimed at distinguishing transient from tive reporting of significant or 'positive' results persistent infections need to be developed. should be discouraged. Another example is the hepatitis B virus (HBV), for which there are serological markers that distin- Incorporation of biomarkers into epidemiological guish between past and persistent infections. HBV studies DNA detection in sera further refines the assessment Biological markers undergo a process of discovery, of exposure. These markers have been used in all characterization and refinement before use in types of epidemiological design (cross-sectional, epidemiological studies. Animal studies contribute case—control, cohort arid intervention studies). to the development and validation of biomarkers and provide insights into the mechanisms of the Biomarkers of internal dose for chemical exposures multistage process of carcinogenesis. TraпsitioпaI Biomarkers of internal dose of external chemical studies assist in this process by optimizing sample exposures are measurements of a parent compound
7 Application of Biomarkers in Cancer Epidemiology or its metabolite(s) in an accessible biological in using this approach. Biomarkers can be useful in matrix, such as serum or urine (Institute for nutritional epidemiological studies at two different Environment and Health, 1996). They have poten- levels (Kaaks et al., this volume). First, biomarkers tial applications in several types of epidemiological may be of interest as potentially more precise, studies (Coggon & Friesen, this volume). These more specific or more objective measurements (or include studies to establish the importance of dif- correlates) of the intake levels of specific foods or ferent sources of exposure as determinants of total food constituents, compared to measurements dose; studies to validate other methods of expo- obtained with questionnaire and interview methods. sure assessment such as the use of questionnaires; Secondly, most biomarkers can also be seen as indi- studies to establish that a chemical reaches a sus- cators of a nutritional/metabolic status, which may pected target tissue; cross-sectional studies relating be intermediate between `exogenous' nutritional exposure/dose to biomarkers further downstream in lifestyle factors (e.g. the composition of diet, phys- the exposure—disease continuum; and case—control ical activity) and disease risk. When used as an and cohort studies relating exposure/dose to disease. indicator of intake, they are useful in four different The utility of an internal dose marker in types of study: validation (comparison of a mea- case—control and prospective cohort studies surement against a gold standard), calibration depends, in part, upon the half-Iife of the external (comparison of two measurements), observational agent от its metabolites in the body; the pattern epidemiological and intervention studies. They are of the exposure it is measuring (e.g. regular, daily especially important in validation or calibration exposure versus infrequent, episodic exposure); studies where biomarkers represent an additional whether secular trends have occurred in that expo- category of measurement, the `random' errors (i.e. sure (e.g. smoking cessation); and direct or indirect variations that are independent of individuals' true influences of the disease process. The information habitual intake levels) of which can be assumed to that a biomarker of internal dose provides must be be statistically independent of those of the ques- compared to the availability and quality of other tionnaire and other methods. The factors that are sources of data (e.g. questionnaires, environmental important in deciding whether to use a given bio- measurements, medical records). Essentially, all marker in a particular study include whether it is exposure measures misclassify some subjects on a good indicator of intake; whether it is a long- or their usual pattern of exposure; it is the relative short-term marker; whether there is need for ability of different sources of data to place individ- multiple measurements; whether it is acceptable uals correctly into exposure categories that is to the researcher and the subject; and whether it is important. In case—control studies, questionnaires compatible with the design of the study itself remain the primary source of exposure data. There (case—control of early disease, case—control of late are, however, a few instances where a measure of disease, or a cohort study). Biomarkers can also be internal dose may be a more suitable measure of informative if they provide an integrated biologi- cumulative exposure, particularly in the study of cal measure of intake, lifestyle and metabolic cases with preneoplastic lesions or early disease. processes. For example, measurements of red cell The ideal biomarker should persist over time (e.g. folate coupled with serum homocysteine would fat-soluble substances such as DDT metabolites) offer a picture of medium-term intake of folic acid, and should not be affected by disease status. which is distinguishable from transient fluctua- Markers of internal dose may be useful in prospec- tions in dietary intake (Green & Jacobsen, 1995). tive cohort studies as long as components of vari- ance of the biomarker are well characterized, since Biomarkers for endogenous hormones the problem of reverse causality (i.e. disease status Biomarkers are available to measure specific` affects the level of the biomarker) is minimized. endogenous hormones (Lemaster & Schulte, 1993; Hulka et al., 1994). Cross-sectional studies, where Biomarkers of dietary intake and nutritional status the biomarker is the outcome measure, are impor- Dietary intake is usually assessed by various types tant for the assessment of differences in marker of questionnaire and other methods (e.g. diaries); levels between subjects with different characteris- however, there are many sources of error involved tics (e.g. sex, race, anthropometry, geographical Workshop report location). A case—control study is not an appropri- Cross-sectional studies evaluate exposure— ate study design to asséss associations between adduct relationships in populations currently metabolic and hormone markers and disease out- exposed to agents of concern. Elevated adduct come, since marker sampling occurs after the levels in an 'exposed' versus 'unexposed' popula- clinical appearance of disease. This problem may tion may suggest that the exposure is associated be less significant от insignificant if the outcome is with a higher cancer risk, given the increasing evi- a pre-clinical condition or a very early lesion. dence that DNA damage represents a primary Cohort studies including case—control studies mechanism of carcinogenesls. In this instance, the nested within cohort studies, are ideally suited for adduct is not being used as a dosimeter, but rather evaluating thé association between hormone bio- as evidence of a potentially harmful response in markers and disease. sampling issues important in vivo. Such studies should be regarded as providing cohort studies are the frequency of sampling and supporting evidence only, until the association of the timing of collection in relation to events which adducts with subsequent development of cancer may influence measurement (e.g. stage of men- has been demonstrated. It is relevant to note, how- strual cycle, menopause, oophorectomy, ageing, ever, that in the presence of limited epidemiological medications). evidence of a chemical's carcinogenicity, the demonstration in humans that the chemical causes Macromolecular adducts as biomarkers of exposure a dose-dependent increase in macromolecular to reactive chemicals adducts or in other biomarkers that reflect geno- Chemicals can bind covalently to cellular macro- toxic damage provides supporting evidence that molecules such as nucleic acids and proteins (Wild the chemical is carcinogenic to humans. This type of & Pisani, this volume). The product of this addi- evidence has been used, for example, in the recent tion of a chemical moiety to a macromolecule is IARC evaluation of carcinogenicity of ethylene termed an `adduct'. The adduct may be highly spe- oxide within the Monographs programme (IARC, cific for the carcinogen of interest, but not neces- 1994). sarily specific for a given exposure because of mul- The utility of using adducts as markers of bio- tiple sources of the carcinogen within the envi- logically effective dose is limited in case—control ronment. Adduct formation normally occurs after studies due to the relatively short half-life of most the metabolic activation of the carcinogen; DNA adducts evaluated to date. They may have utility in prospective cohort studies, again with the caveats repair znлу follow adduct formation. As a result, measured adducts represent an integration over previously described for all exposure markers. time of carcinogen exposure and interindividual variations in carcinogen metabolism, DNA repair Biomarkers of somatic сеll mutations and other host factors. The persistence of adducts Somatic mutations provide evidence of irreversible is determined by the chemical stability of the genetic damage (Albertini & Hayes, this volume). adduct itself and the turnover of the macromole- Furthermore, specific mutations (mutation spec- cule to which the chemical is bound. In practice, trа) may, in principle, identify exposures to specific this gives a half-life of adducts on proteins (haemo- agents or mechanisms; however, measurements of globin and albumin) of a few weeks to months, mutations are usually less sensitive in this regard while DNA adducts may have half-lives of a few than are other biomarkers of exposure (e.g. hours to several years depending on the cell type metabolites, adducts). 5отаtiс mutations should concerned. Adducts of more remote exposure have their greatest utility in epidemiological stud- (such as modified amino acids in histone proteins ies when it is possible to establish a qualitative from non-dividing cells) would represent a major association between exposure and specific muta- advance in the utilization of these markers in epi- tions, thus identifying the agents of concern. They demiological studies. Adduct measurements can be also have promise as surrogate markers of out- made in blood and exfoliated cells, and metabo- come. It must be emphasized, however, that for Iites of adducts can be measured in urine. The this last purpose, mutations must initially be quantity of material required is dependent on the assumed to be associated with increased risk of can- assay sensitivity for a given adduct. cer. In-vivo mutational response may also be used
9 Application ы Biomarkers in Cancer Epidemiology to define interindividual differences iп sensitivity to painted arid unpainted chromosomes. Improve- mutagens or carcinogens. rпents in the techniques of molecular cytogenetics Somatic mutations have potential application continue to be made, and new DNA probes are in case control studies when the exposures of con- being developed iii a regular basis. Cytogenetic cern are chronic and stable, and the disease does assays have been performed on metaphase cells, not alter mutagenic responses in the test cells. but the more recent applications of F151 to inter- Their greatest utility, however, may be in studies phase cells means that cell culture is no longer that use mutations as an intermediate end-point required and that relevant target tissues can be to evaluate genetic responses under various expo- examined directly for chromosome reanange- sure conditions and in studies concerned with pre- ments. The analysis of interphase cells appears vention. There is a need in the future for rapid, iriex- to have significant promise for use in future epi- pensive and sensitive molecular assays that may demiological studies and may make the banking of increase the range of genes and tissues amenable for the relevant tissues from a large numbers of sub- study; this, in turn, should facilitate the evaluation jects feasible. and potential use of those biomarkers as surrogates of disease-relevant genotoxic responses. Biomarkers of genetic susceptibility Biomarkers have increasingly played a role in Biornarkers of cytogenetic damage studies that evaluate the role of genes in cancer Chromosomal aberrations are commonly found in (Caporaso & Goldstein, this volume). Family-based tumour cells and, in some cases, there is very good studies have led to the mapping of several cancer- evidence that they play a causative role in carcino- related genes characterized by high penetrance, genesis (Tucker et aL, this volume). Two prospec- high absolute and relative risk, but low attributable tive cohort studies have shown that chromosomal fraction for the most common cancers. The envi- aberrations measured in peripheral lymphocytes ronment plays a variable but arguably small role in were associated with an increased risk of cancer the manifestation of these genes. Other genes (e.g. (Hagmar et a1., 1994; Bonassi et aL, 1995). Non- metabolic polymorphism genes that lie in the target cells may be appropriate tissue for this metabolic pathways of carcinogens and therefore marker. Translocations, in particular, are useful for have a mechanistically plausible role) are charac- quantifying certain types of acute and chronic terized by modest relative risks, low absolute risks exposure, as well as exposure that occurred many and high attributable risks. The environment is years previously. Translocations are therefore a rea- crucial in determining the effects of these genes. A sonable and appropriate biomarker for use in cross- major contrast between these two is the low preva- sectional studies because they provide a direct and lence of the former and the high prevalence of the quantifiable indication of DNA damage. In case— latter. control studies, the analysis of stable transloca- For a given genotype, the phenotype is deter- tions in early, local disease may provide an insight mined by the penetrance. The use of phenotype or into accumulated cytogenetic damage and its link genotype in a specific study depends on numerous with cancer. It is possible, however, that the fre- factors. In general, the methodology of genotyping quency of translocations is affected by advanced has increased because of rapidly improving tech- disease, but this remains to be established. The use nology. Recent advances in the analysis of genetic of translocations in prospective cohort studies polymorphisms using DNA present in serum, in could have substantial utility but is limited by the formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded pathology sam- logistic constraints of culturing or cryopreserving ples and in material collected non-invasively by lymphocytes from a large number of subjects. buccal swabs and oral rinses will provide new The analysis of translocations by fluorescent in- opportunities for incorporating biomarkers of situ hybridization (FISH) with probes that paint genetic susceptibility into epidemiological studies. whole chromosomes represents an important advance in cytogenetics; FISН is a rapid, sensitive Tumour biomarkers and highly reproducible technique which relies Tumour markers include characteristics of tumours on the detection of colour `junctions' between at the anatomical, histological, serum, chromosomal
10 Workshop report and molecular levels (Zhang et al., this volume). way that the error in one measure is not repeated Using tumour markers in the assessment of etio- in another, e.g. the two specimens are collected at logicaI heterogeneity represents а progression from different times over the relevant etiological time these previous studies and may have greater speci- period, and handled, stored and analysed with the ficity for particular patterns of exposure. Tumour variation in specimen collectors, laboratory tech- markers can readily be incorporated into case series nicians or batches that would occur in the parent and case—control studies, as well as into prospec- epidemiological study. tive studies that study the relationship between Similarly, reliability studies could be designed to biomarkers in an initial tитоит and the risk of partition the specific components of error: the developing second primary tumours or the rela- effects of handling and storage; laboratory varia- tionship between precursor lesions and subsequent tion; and short-, medium- and long-term biologi- malignancies. There is a rapidly increasing ability cal variation. In any case, researchers should not to evaluate а range of tumour markers in formalin- assume that small laboratory error implies that a fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. Frozen tissues are measure is good, because these other sources of easier to assay, but more difficult and costly to error introduced by the design and needs of the obtain and store for epidemiological purposes. epidemiological study can be far greater than the laboratory measurement component of error. Evaluating sources of variation in biomarkers Before embarking on an epidemiological study storage of biological samples that uses a biomarker, it is important to under- The use of biological markers in epidemiological stand the potential measurement error in the bio- studies often requires storage of the relevant bio- marker (Gompertz, this volume; Vineis, this vol- logical samples for a period of time, which may ume; White, this volume). The researcher's first vary from a few weeks up to years or even decades, concern should be to prevent or rule out, as far as depending on the study design (i.e. cross-sectional, is practicable, differential measurement error. prospective) and the timing of the laboratory Because differential measurement error can bias analysis (Landi & Caporaso, 1997, this volume). the odds ratio in either direction, its presence to Factors that can be considered in the choice of any appreciable degree in a biomarker will invali- storage method include the type of biological date its use in an epidemiological study. material; the type of laboratory analysis planned; Differential measurement error is a particular con- the duration of storage and spread over time of cern in case—control studies and among the early laboratory analysis; and the logistical and practical cases in cohort studies when the marker may be conditions. For long-term storage of a large collec- influenced by pre-clinical disease, by the effects of tion of blood samples, the safest and, in most cases, the disease after diagnosis or by treatment. the most efficient method of storage is at liquid When differential measurement error is not nitrogen temperature. likely to be present, the researchers should focus storage temperature should be as low as possible, on assessment of the non-differential error, or at depending. on the biological material, and should least some of the major components of error in the ensure stability of all potential analyses over long biomarker. Error components include laboratory periods of time. For very long-term storage, it is variation, variation from specimen collection and worthwhile to store pools of biological specimens storage, and biological variation. The latter may be containing known concentrations of the aпalytes short-term (e.g. day to day), medium-term (e.g. of interest in order to be able to monitor possible seasonal), or long-term (e.g. variation over an etio- degradation over time. A stable isotope standard logically relevant period of years). Ideally, one may be useful in such cases. would conduct a validity study in which the bio- marker to be used was compared to a perfect (true) Application of biomarkers measure. However, much of the total error can be Biomarkers may be used in epidemiological studies measured in a well-designed reliability study to increase the information obtained from classical which requires the collection and analysis of two study designs and to expand the areas of scientific (or more) specimens from a group of subjects in a inquiry to which epidemiology can contribute. Use of Application of Biomarkers in Cancer Epidemiology biomarkers in epidemiological research has grown response rate with respect to collection of biologi- significantly in recent years and can be expected to cal samples than community-based studies, and increase rapidly in the years ahead. The areas of differential participation by cases and controls is application include research on etiology of disease; less of a problem. For casе-сontrol studies of pre- correlation between external exposure and internal cursor lesions, no population-based registries exist dose; susceptibility and gene- nvironment inter- from which to identify cases, whereas such cases action; clinical trials; disease mechanisms and can be identified in the health care setting and, pathogenesis; and cancer prevention. given appropiate survey conditions, in random samples of the population. In cohort studies, Etiological epidemiological research where the biomarker is the exposure of interest, In etiological research, biomarkers of exposure rep- uriexposed subjects, defined as people not carry- resent the independent variable and are used to ing the biomarker, may be identified through the predict disease occurrence. Research of this type health care setting. Tissue specimens may be avail- has been limited in the past because of the need for aЫe only through pathology departments associ- transitional studies to develop, characterize and ated with hospitals. Opportunities to obtain speci- evaluate biomarkers in their application. When mens may be enhanced if health care providers are biomarkers are tested as outcome variables they are co-investigators in the research. The method for useful in often being much more prevalent in selecting study subjects is an important potential the population than cancer itself and they occur source of bias in clinic-based studies. In studies much closer in time to the exposure than does can- based on biomarkers, however, it may be less cer; exposure will therefore be measurable more important than in other types of epidemiological accurately by whatever method is used. The major- studies, because the characteristics of the subject ity of epidemiological biomarker research reported measured by the biomarker (e.g. genetic polymor- to date has been from transitional studies. As this phism status) may not be linked to the probability body of literature has accumulated, it is now of inclusion in the study. similarly, it is unlikely becoming possible to use selected biomarkers in that markers of exposure and effect are affected by the context of classical etiological research. referral and detection, since the individual's bio- At current levels of development of biomarkers, marker status prior to the study is not known. In there will still be many circumstances in which most cases, however, it is unknown how subjects questionaire methods of assessing exposure are are selected with respect to the biomarker, and the complementary or preferable to technically sophis- passibility of selection bias should always be ticated biomarkers of the same exposure. Assays considered. of urinary levels of metabolites of tobacco compo- nents such as nicotine, for example, reflect only Exposure-internal dose and exposure-biological short-term consumption. 5uсh assays tell us about response correlations smoking habits in the relatively short time before Transitional studies of exposure frequently corre- measurement; questionnaires are still preferable to late external exposure measured in a traditional determine long-term exposure. fashion (e.g. interview or ambient monitoring) Etiological studies using biomarkers generally with internal dose measured in body fluids or employ case-control or cohort epidemiological tissues. These studies are generally cross-sectional designs. Modifications of these are the case-case or short-duration longitudinal in design. The design and the applied transitional study. The exogenous measure is considered the independent case-control study nested within a cohort offers variable, and the internal dose the dependent vari- distinctive opportunities by using blood or tissue able. Rather than an internal dose measure, the collected in the past. dependent variable can be a biological response The use of biomarkers in case-control studies may marker, e.g. a p53 signature mutation associated necessitate greater use clinic-based (or hospital- with aflatox1rn exposure (Links et al., 1995). Such based) studies (Potter, this volume), Clinic-based transitional studies frequently focus on heavily studies of biomarkers may be more feasible, practi- exposed (and unexposed) persons in order to min- cal and economical. They also have a higher imize sample size aid maximize the opportunity
12 Workshop report to identify arid characterize the biomarker. If the exposure', increasing risk of disease in the entire correlation between the two types of exposure study population. Usually, however, susceptibility measurements is high and can be quantified with is manifested as an effect modifier of exposure. If good precision, future studies may be able to the population is stratified into two groups, based employ the more easily obtained and inexpensive on presence or absence of the susceptibility gene, exposure measurement. the effect of the exposure variable may be more evident in the susceptible group. It may also be susceptibility and gene—environment interaction useful to stratify on levels of the exposure variable, Studies of susceptibility and gene environment e.g. smoking or age groups, to identify qualitative interaction are emerging as an important compo- and quantitative aspects of the association nent of epidemiological research (Garte et ai., this between the susceptibility marker and disease volume). This represents a significant development across levels of the exposure. in epidemiology; it emphasizes the importance of individual differences and the combined influence Cancer prevention of genes and environment in determining disease In cancer epidemiology, biomarkers can be used to risk. Although relevant genes lie in a continuum offer quantitative insights about biological events with iespect to prevalence and expressivity, a dis- occurring at different stages of the pathologic tinction should be made between single gene process (McMichael & Hal, this volume). The mutations of large effect and polymorphisms of improved knowledge of the natural history of can- small effect. BRCA1 exemplifies the former, and cer should have application to research aiming at metabolizing enzymes for substrates that form cancer prevention and control. At least three carcinogenic metabolites illustrate the latter. aspects of cancer prevention or cancer prevention Intermediate situations exist in individuals research may make use of biological maikers. They heterozygous for some genes, such as ataxia telang- are screening, community-based intervention tri- iectasia, which may affect a large proportion of the als and the monitoring of biomarkers as risk factors population, aid for which there is some evidence for disease. Screening may concentrate on the of increased risk of various cancers, including identification of precursor lesions or early stage breast cancer (Easton, 1994). Because estimates of disease (e.g. cervical cytology), high-risk individu- cancer risk in relation to single gene mutations als (e.g. prostate-specific antigen, PSA) or suscepti- have been derived from high-risk families, it is not bility markers (e.g. BRCA1). Cervical cytology is yet known what the cancer risk is for gene carriers well established as an effective tool to reduce within the general population. There is a need for mortality from invasive cervical cancer. PSA is con- epidemiological studies of cancer in the general troversial because it is not specific to invasive pro- population to study risk in single gene carriers who static cancer or its precursors. It cannot distinguish are not members of high-risk families. between precursor lesions that will invade and the Several methodological issues have arisen in majority that will not, resulting in a significant the context of these studies. Lack of concordance amount of over-treatment and morbidity. Further- between genotype and phenotype has been re- more, and crucially, there is no evidence that ported and it is not easy to discern which is more screening reduces mortality from prostatic cancer. informative with respect to disease effects. However, Screening for BRCA1 became possible only recently some advantages of studies of susceptibility and when the gene was cloned and sequenced (Futreal gene—environment interactions are the potential et aL, 1994; Miki еi аL, 1994). Currently, testing for for case—case studies (Begg & Zhang, 1994) and for BRCAI has been suggested only foi women in studying 'exposed' subjects only. high-risk families in whom the gene is known to Khoury etaI. (1988) has described six models for segregate, or for women with multiple first-degree gene—environment interaction. These concepts relatives who have had an early age at diagnosis of may be simplified by considering the possibility of breast cancer. Even in these situations, screening is a main effect and effect modification for both the not universally accepted because of the limited risk susceptibility marker and the exposure. For some and disease management options, which markediy genes, the susceptibility marker can behave as an reduce the utility of the genetic information. Even
13 Application of Biomarkers io Cancer Epidemiology
in the cases of high penetrance cancer genes, how- Certain laboratory and pathology studies may also ever, there is the possibility to contribute to cancer yield pertinent evidence, as in the case of the colon prevention by modifying the environmental fac- adenoma to carcinoma sequence. With markers tors that interact in the carcinogenic process. having attributable fractions substantially less Community-based intervention trials for risk than 1, there may exist alternative pathways to reduction may benefit from biological markers. For cancer that bypass the marker in question. An example, smoking cessation trials have found that exposure or intervention may operate through the urinary cotinine levels may be a better indicator alternative pathway(s) in a way that offsets the of smoking status, when measuring the trial cancer effect mediated by the original marker. For outcome, than reports on interview or question- such markers, inferences to cancer are problematic naire. (Schatzkin et al., 1990, and this volume). Monitoring biomarkers of exposure to carcino- Although there are well-recognized difficulties in genic agents in populations may reveal trends and extrapolation of carcinogenesis and chemopreven- assist in risk assessment in high-risk groups. hon data from animal experiments to humans, ani- mal models provide opportunities for biomarker Clinical prevention trials research. Linkages between mechanistic pathways The use of biornarkers in chemopreventive trials in different species may ultimately be useful in raises important methodological issues. The test- resolving problems in inter-species extrapolation. ing of chemopreventive agents in clinical trials using the end-point of cancer incidence requires a Ethical aspects of biomarkers in cancer study period of many years, very large sample sizes epidemiology and great expense. Therefore, short-term, smaller The use of biological markers presents potential clinical trials that use surrogate end-point bio- ethical issues because Ыошarkеrs are obtained markers (5EB) have had to be developed. A SEB from an individual's unique tissues and can be may be defined as an early change during the used to provide important data about exposures, intraepithelial, pre-invasive phase of neoplastic biological effects and susceptibility to cancer progression, at the molecular, cellular or tissue (Schulte et al., this volume). The ethical issues arise level, whose response to a chemopreventive agent from the possibility of abuse or misuse of bio- predicts the effectiveness that the agent would marker data and failure to respect the rights of per- have in a large clinical trial using the end-point of sons participating in research. Biomarker data can cancer incidence reduction (Boone & Kelloff, this be misused by failing to keep data confidential and volume). Examples of SEBs include computer- by using it, or allowing it to be used, to stigmatize assisted quantitative image analysis of pathological research subjects. Research subjects have a right to specimens, which measures nuclear features privacy as well as a right to be told of risks of par- (altered size, shape, and chromatin texture), aid ticipating in biomarker studies and of any clini- cytological features by binding to chromages—anti- cally important findings. There remains a range of body conjugates. Markers and indices of prolifera- opinion whether banked specimens collected for tion (e.g. Ki-67, PCNA), oncogene mutation or one study or purpose may be used for another. amplification, and allelic loss and other alterations Generally, the degree of risk in participation and may also be useful SEBs. the extent to which the results are cknicaiy impor- Studies are needed, however, to evaluate the tant should be considered when using banked validity of SEBs. To be suitable for use as an SEB, specimens and determining whether subэects need there should be evidence that the marker is a nec- to be notified. essary step on the pathway to cancer, or at least very highly correlated with cancer occurrence, i.e. Recommendations for future studies of cancer the attributable fraction for the marker in relation epidemiology involving biomarkers to cancer must approach 1. This evidence may be The Workshop considered the main issues regard- obtained primarily from observational epidemio- ing the use of biomarkers in future studies in can- logical studies and clinical trials that incorporate cer epidemiology, and agreed a set of recommen- the marker and have explicit cancer end-points. dations. These are presented in Box 1.
14 Workshop report
2 в • в .
1. Biomarkers should be chosen because of their biologi- study population, a similar population should be used be- cal relevance to the question and on the basis of the sci- cause the ratio of within-person to between-person variance ence, not the technology. may vary substantially between populations due to differ- епсеs in the range of exposure, or fluctuations in exposure. 2. Biomarkers should be evaluated by transitional studies before use in full-scale studies. Regulatory and funding 7.. There should be strong and open communication agencies should become aware of the importance of transi- between laboratory scientists and epidemiologists with tional studies for the conduct of epidemiological studies regard to identification, investigation and control of specific based on biomarkers. sources of measurement error in the biomarker assay. Such issues. would include the need for replicate measurements 3. In addition to etiological research, appropriately validat- and standardized non-variable experimental protocols dur- ed biomarkers should be used in prevention: in screening, . ing the study; internal controls; operator blindness; monitor- as biomarkers of neoplasia or susceptibility, in clinical trials ing expérimental drift; sample handling; and development of (e.g.. Ыоmarkетs of dietary modification and compliance, study design by both epidemiologists and laboratory scien- and biomarkers of surrogate end points) and in monitoring tists to deal with these issues. exposure to carcinogenic agents (e.g. trends in biomarker status fn general populations and subgroups, .exposure sta- B: Epidemiologists .should work closely with laboratory tus and risk assessment iп high-risk populations, and expo investigators when developing protocols for the collection, sure/susceptibility interactions). processing and storage of biological samples to ensure that the samples can be analysed for the main biomarkers of 4. Epidemiological studies based oh biomarkers should interest and that the requisite quality control procedures are satisfy. thé requirements of good epidemiological research implemented. design, including identification and minimization of potential sources of bias and confounding. Research should be con 9. standardized procedures should be developed for the ducted on methodological aspects to clarify advantages and collection, handling, processing and storage of biological disadvantages of different options in the design of biomark- samples. A biospecirimen documentation sheet should be er based studies, in particular 10 determine wehfher, in the generated for each biological sample collected, document- clinic based (or hospital based) setting, studies of biomark ing critical variables that may affect biomarkers ers of exposure or susceptibility are less subject to selection biases than traditional studies of behavioural and enviroп- 10. storage of blood samples in multiple aliquots, and ide- mentâl risk factors of disease. ally in separate freezers, is advisable whenever long-term storage and multiple measurements spread over long time 5. Studies should be designed with appropriate statistical periods are planned The samples should be stored at the power to minimize the problem of random error and maxi- lowest feasible temperature. Assessment of sample stability mize the capacity to establish the presence and strength of would be facilitated by storage of aliquots of a pool prepared interactions, particularly between markers of susceptibility specially for this purpose and exposure. 11 samples should be collected not only for the main bio 6. It is important to define the components of variance in markers of interest in a particular study; rather, they should order to establish the capacity of the biomarker to measure, be processed and stored in a way that allows a wide range as precisely. as possible, the relevant exposure, process and of biomarkers to be tested in the future. In particular; con- outcome. For continuous measurements, it is highly desir sideration should be given to collecting a source of genom able that tha amount of random error due to within person is DNA in epidemiological studies to allow the evaluation of variability in the measurement be estimated in a subset of the genetic markers.: While this is optimally obtained from study population. If this cannot be estimated directly ih the peripheral blood samples, various non invasive methods for
15 Application of Biomarkers in Cancer Epidemiology