A methodological note on the selection of friends as controls

Evaluating the use of friend or family controls in epidemiologic case-control studies

BACKGROUND

Traditional methodologies for identifying and recruiting controls in epidemiologic case-control studies, such as random digit dialing or neighborhood walk, suffer from declining response rates. Here, we revisit the feasibility and comparability of using alternative sources of controls, specifically friend and family controls.

METHODS

We recruited from a recently completed case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) among women in Los Angeles County where controls from the parent study were ascertained by neighborhood walk. We calculated participation rates and compared questionnaire responses between the friend/family controls and the original matched controls from the parent study.

RESULTS

Of the 182 NHL case patients contacted, 111 (61%) agreed to participate in our feasibility study. 70 (63%) provided contact information for potential friend and/or family member controls. We were able to successfully contact and recruit a friend/family member for 92% of the case patients. This represented 46 friend controls and 54 family controls. Family controls significantly differed from original matched controls by sex and household income. Other characteristics were similar between friend controls and the original study's neighborhood controls.

CONCLUSION

The apparent comparability of neighborhood controls to friend and family controls among respondents in this study suggests that these alternative methods of control identification can serve as a complementary source of eligible controls in epidemiologic case-control studies.

First degree relatives and familial aggregation of gastric cancer: who to choose for control in case-control studies?

Gastric carcinogenesis is a multifactorial process involving host gene and environmental interactions. Diverse case-control studies using different types of controls addressed the familial aggregation role for gastric cancer development. Our aim is to discuss the advantages and expected bias according to the different type of eligible controls. A PubMed search of papers on a query on first degree relatives of gastric cancer patients was conducted. The retrieved studies were evaluated regarding quality based on STROBE checklist. Data concerning risk of premalignant lesions and Helicobacter pylori infection was retrieved as the type of controls used on each study. Nine case-control studies were selected. A variety of controls were used ranging from general population to dyspeptic patients and spouses of the cases. We have observed that, independently of the type of control, the risk for the prevalence of premalignant lesions and H. pylori infection was higher for the cases. However, all of the evaluated case-control studies were average quality studies (mean 28 out of 45), with a small number of cases and controls (range from 39 to 300). Furthermore, concerning gene-environment interaction, each of the discussed type of control (general population, dyspeptic, spouse and neighbor) has potential advantages and disadvantages. The current data suggests that selection of any type of the aforementioned controls is feasible and seems to be mainly related to the feasibility of recruitment more than the genetic or environmental backgrounds. General population and dyspeptic patients would be equally appropriate for studies on familial aggregation of gastric cancer. Nevertheless, high-quality cohort studies are needed to validate this assumption.

Selecting a comparison group for 5-year oral and pharyngeal cancer survivors: two methods

BACKGROUND

To assess potential long-term consequences of cancer treatment, studies that include comparison groups are needed. These comparison groups should be selected in a way that allows the subtle long-range effects of cancer therapy to be detected and distinguishes them from the effects of aging and other risk factors. The purpose of this investigation was to test two methods of recruiting a comparison group for 5-year oral and pharyngeal cancer survivors (peer-nominated and listed sample) with emphasis on feasibility and the quality of the match.

METHODS

Participants were drawn from a pool of 5-year survivors treated at a large Southeastern hospital. A peer-nominated sample was solicited from the survivors. A listed sample matched on sex, age, and zip code was purchased. Telephone interviews were conducted by a professional call center.

RESULTS

The following represent our key findings: The quality of matching between survivors and listed sample was better than that between survivors and peer-nominated group in age and sex. The quality of matching between the two methods on other key variables did not differ except for education, with the peer method providing a better match for the survivors than the listed sample. The yield for the listed sample method was greater than for the peer-nominated method. The cost per completed interview was greater for the peer-nominated method than the listed sample.

CONCLUSION

This study not only documents the methodological challenges in selecting a comparison group for studies examining the late effects of cancer treatment among older individuals but also documents challenges in matching groups that potentially have disproportionate levels of comorbidities and at-risk health behaviors.

Practical and analytical aspects of using friend controls in case-control studies: experience from a case-control study of childhood cancer

We report empirical data on the use of friend controls, specifically response rates, case-control concordance and analytical approaches. The data derive from a North American multi-institutional study of childhood cancer that was conducted in 2002-07 and that focused on paternal exposures. Case parents nominated friends as potential controls; up to three controls participated per case. For 137 (69%) of the 199 case families, at least one control parent participated. Of 374 potential controls contacted, 247 (66%) participated. Case fathers with controls were markedly more likely to be non-Hispanic White, college graduates and non-smokers compared with case fathers without controls. Odds ratios adjusted for demographic characteristics were generally similar but occasionally differed between analyses that included only members of matched sets and those that included all participants, i.e., controls and cases with and without controls. For demographic characteristics, simulations demonstrated that the observed concordance of cases and controls within matched sets exceeded that expected under random ascertainment, indicating probable overmatching. However, the observed concordance of smoking and other exposures was similar to the expectation under random ascertainment, suggesting little overmatching on exposures. Although not ideal, friend controls were convenient, had a reasonably high response rate and provided controls closely matched on race/ethnicity, education and age.

Spouse controls in family case-control studies: a methodological consideration

In case-control studies on familial aggregation of disease, spouses may be chosen as convenient controls. In this article the pros and cons of this control group are discussed. It is argued that the use of spouse controls can be time- and cost-efficient, because of easy accessibility and their ability to provide proxy data on the patients' relatives if necessary. Furthermore, with spouse controls a higher response rate and less recall bias can be expected compared to population controls. A theoretical drawback is the possibility of assortative mating related to genetic susceptibility of the disease under study. Using a simulation study it is illustrated that even strong assortative mating on a factor, which is strongly correlated with a true risk factor under study, will have a negligible effect on the observed extent of familial aggregation.