Spatialtemporal analysis of nonHodgkin lymphoma in the NCISEER NHL casecontrol study
 David C Wheeler^{1}Email author,
 Anneclaire J De Roos^{2},
 James R Cerhan^{3},
 Lindsay M Morton^{4},
 Richard Severson^{5},
 Wendy Cozen^{6} and
 Mary H Ward^{1}
DOI: 10.1186/1476069X1063
© Wheeler et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011
Received: 19 April 2011
Accepted: 30 June 2011
Published: 30 June 2011
Abstract
Background
Exploring spatialtemporal patterns of disease incidence through cluster analysis identifies areas of significantly elevated or decreased risk, providing potential clues about disease risk factors. Little is known about the etiology of nonHodgkin lymphoma (NHL), or the latency period that might be relevant for environmental exposures, and there are no published spatialtemporal cluster studies of NHL.
Methods
We conducted a populationbased casecontrol study of NHL in four National Cancer Institute (NCI)Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) centers: Detroit, Iowa, Los Angeles, and Seattle during 19982000. Using 20year residential histories, we used generalized additive models adjusted for known risk factors to model spatially the probability that an individual had NHL and to identify clusters of elevated or decreased NHL risk. We evaluated models at five different time periods to explore the presence of clusters in a time frame of etiologic relevance.
Results
The best model fit was for residential locations 20 years prior to diagnosis in Detroit, Iowa, and Los Angeles. We found statistically significant areas of elevated risk of NHL in three of the four study areas (Detroit, Iowa, and Los Angeles) at a lag time of 20 years. The two areas of significantly elevated risk in the Los Angeles study area were detected only at a time lag of 20 years. Clusters in Detroit and Iowa were detected at several time points.
Conclusions
We found significant spatial clusters of NHL after allowing for disease latency and residential mobility. Our results show the importance of evaluating residential histories when studying spatial patterns of cancer.
Background
From 1975 to 2000 in the United States, the annual ageadjusted incidence rate of nonHodgkin lymphoma (NHL) increased more than 75% from 11.1 to 19.8 per 100,000 personyears [1]. The incidence rate has leveled recently, to 19.6 per 100,000 personyears between 20032007 [2]. An increase in incidence also occurred in other developed countries; for example, incidence increased across Europe since the 1960s [3]. The cause of the increases is largely undetermined and little is known in general about the etiology of NHL.
Incidence of NHL increases with age, is 4070% higher in whites compared to blacks, and is higher in men [4]. Established risk factors include specific viruses, immune suppression, and a family history of hematolymphoproliferative cancers [5]. Other putative risk factors include specific genetic polymorphisms [6–8], certain occupations [9], and environmental exposures such as pesticides [10], polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) [11, 12], and organic solvents [13]. Previous studies have found higher risk of NHL among persons living in areas with industrial waste exposure [14–17]. Associations with these risk factors are generally moderatetoweak in strength or inconsistent in the literature. Taken together, the established and putative risk factors account only for a small proportion of the total annual NHL cases [5]. In addition, little is known about the latency period that might be relevant for environmental exposures. Novel approaches are needed to generate insights into the etiology of NHL.
Investigating spatialtemporal patterns of disease incidence through cluster detection analysis identifies areas with significantly different disease risks than the overall population under study. A cluster is typically considered to be an area of significantly elevated disease risk, but it could also be an area of significantly lowered risk. We note the distinction in goals between detecting local clusters and approaches to describe global clustering of disease, the general tendency for cases to occur nearer other cases than one might expect under equal risk [18–20]. The identification of local clusters can lead to the development of specific hypotheses to explain the pattern of risk and reveal important clues about disease etiology [21].
However, limitations in existing methods for evaluating clusters in space and time in epidemiologic studies have hindered cluster analyses. No previous cluster analyses of NHL has adjusted for individuallevel risk factors and modeled disease latency in one unified statistical framework. Existing cluster detection techniques as applied to casecontrol or cohort studies [22–24] do not allow for simple adjustment of confounding variables using all data simultaneously in the cluster detection model. Typically, either a preprocessing regression analysis must be done before the cluster analysis to adjust for risk factors or several cluster analyses must be performed on strata of the data, where stratified analyses will be limited by small sample sizes. In a cluster analysis, the residential locations of study subjects at time of diagnosis are typically considered a surrogate for environmental exposures defined broadly to include lifestyle factors such as diet, in addition to pollutants, and spatiallyvarying socioeconomic factors. Using the diagnosis location makes the unrealistic assumption that individuals do not migrate and that the latency between causal exposures and diagnosis of disease is negligible [25]. Cluster studies that make use of residential history data in epidemiologic studies typically assume one latency period with little empirical justification. Some studies have included all historical residential locations for each subject in one statistical model with an assumption of independent observations, which can bias model results by ignoring many correlated records in the model for each subject [26–28].
To date, there have been no published spatialtemporal cluster studies of NHL using residential history data. We evaluated residential histories for NHL cases and controls in the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) NHL (NCISEER NHL) casecontrol study to determine if there were statistically significant spatial clusters of NHL using several time windows of residential location. The NCISEER NHL study is a large, multicenter, populationbased casecontrol study of NHL in four areas of the United States (Detroit, Los Angeles, Seattle, Iowa). We developed a statistical approach for cluster analysis based on the established generalized additive model (GAM) framework. We extended previous work [26–29] applying GAMs to model spatial variability in disease risk by considering the temporal aspect of disease risk as a model selection problem in a GAM. We hypothesized that after adjusting for NHL risk factors there would be significant spatial clusters of NHL cases due to unmeasured environmental risk factors, and that earlier residential locations, up to 20 years before diagnosis, would model NHL risk better than residence at diagnosis.
Methods
Study population
The study population, described in detail previously [5, 6, 30], included 1,321 NHL cases diagnosed between July 1, 1998 and June 30, 2000, aged 20 to 74 years, from four SEER registries. The four SEER areas were: Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne counties for Detroit; Los Angeles County; King and Snohomish counties for Seattle, and the state of Iowa. Selfreported HIVpositive cases were excluded from the study. Population controls (n = 1,057) were selected from residents of the four SEER areas using random digit dialing (< 65 years) or Medicare eligibility files (≥ 65 years), frequency matching to cases by age (within 5year groups), sex, race, and SEER area. Controls with a history of NHL or known HIV infection were excluded. Among eligible subjects contacted for an interview, 76% of cases and 52% of controls participated in the study.
Interviews were conducted in 1998 to 2000. A computerassisted personal interview was administered that contained questions about various potential risk factors for NHL, including occupation, home and garden use of pesticides, diet, hair dyes, alcohol and tobacco, and viruses [5, 6, 30]. All participants were sent a lifetime residential calendar in advance of the inperson interview. They were asked to provide their complete address for every home they lived in from birth to the current year, indicating the year they moved in and out by a vertical line between each home; they were also asked to provide information about temporary or summer homes where they lived for a total of two years or longer. Interviewers reviewed the residential calendar with respondents and probed to obtain missing information.
Residential addresses were matched to geographic address databases to yield geographic coordinates. Address matching was done using ArcView 3.2 software (ESRI, Inc., Redlands, California) and Geographic Data Technology's MatchMaker SDK Professional Version 4.3 street database (Geographic Data Technology, Inc., Lebanon, New Hampshire). After address matching, there were 1,166 (88%) participating cases and 943 participating controls (89%) with geographic coordinates for the residence at diagnosis (similar reference date for controls).
Descriptive statistics for analysis population and NCISEER NHL study population
Cases (n = 842)  Controls (n = 680)  Analysis Total (n = 1522)  Study Total (n = 2378)  

Study Center, %  
Detroit  25  21  24  22 
Iowa  32  31  31  27 
Los Angeles  23  24  23  25 
Seattle  20  24  22  26 
Age, mean years  
Detroit  57  61  59  56 
Iowa  61  63  62  59 
Los Angeles  60  60  60  56 
Seattle  60  61  61  57 
Males, %  
Detroit  53  45  50  52 
Iowa  50  52  51  51 
Los Angeles  55  52  54  55 
Seattle  49  51  50  53 
White, %  
Detroit  82  75  79  76 
Iowa  98  99  99  98 
Los Angeles  77  61  70  66 
Seattle  94  93  93  90 
Statistical models
We used generalized additive models [31, 32] to model spatially the probability that an individual had NHL within each SEER center study area. GAMs have been used to model the probability of disease in other casecontrol cluster analyses [26–28]. Our GAMbased approach is different from previous approaches in how we modeled multiple residence periods, treating selection of the optimal residential time period as a model selection problem. The optimal time period can be considered as the time in years before diagnosis of NHL or reference date (controls) when etiologicallyrelevant exposure(s) occurred and we hereafter refer to it as the lag time. We fitted crude models and models adjusted for several factors associated with NHL in our study population and available for all cases and controls in our analysis, including age, gender, race, education, and home treatment for termites before 1988 as a surrogate for exposure to the pesticide chlordane. Other NHL risk factors for this study population, such as PCB levels in the current home and levels of PCBs and furans in the blood, were available for only a subset of the subjects and were omitted in this analysis to maximize the number of subjects studied.
where the lefthand side of the equation is the log of the disease odds for subject i, α is an intercept, β is a column vector of regression coefficients, X_{ i }is a row of the matrix of covariates, and Z _{ t }(s_{ t }) is a smooth function of the residential locations at a particular time t. The GAM framework is flexible, as the model in equation (1) becomes a crude spatial model when no covariates are specified, a logistic regression model when no spatial smoothing term is specified, and the null model when neither covariates nor a spatial smoothing term are specified (intercept only). Adjusting for known risk factors may explain a cluster observed in a crude analysis or may identify clusters not seen in a crude analysis. Any spatial cluster observed after adjustment for known risk factors would be the subject of further study to identify unknown spatially varying risk factors.
The function Z _{ t }(s) is a spatial smoothing of the locations and models spatial variation not explained by the covariates. The spatially smoothed term may be considered a surrogate for unmeasured environmental exposures at a specified time. The smoothing function is used as a measure of the density of cases relative to controls over space. This approach models cases and controls as a marked heterogeneous Poisson point process with intensity λ(s) = λ _{1}(s) + λ _{0}(s), where λ _{1}(s) is the intensity of cases and λ _{0}(s) is the intensity of controls. The related technique of kernel intensity estimation [33, 34] uses the ratio of the intensities of point processes for controls and cases to yield a spatial odds function, but because of its limitation to easily adjust for covariates, we selected the GAM framework.
Smoothing span values for the crude and adjusted models for the SEER study areas
Years Before Diagnosis  

Study Area  0  5  10  15  20 
Detroit  
crude  0.600  1.000  0.625  0.625  0.600 
adjusted  0.600  1.000  0.625  0.600  0.600 
Iowa  
crude  0.600  0.600  0.525  0.600  0.625 
adjusted  0.600  0.575  0.525  0.600  0.625 
Los Angeles  
crude  0.600  0.600  0.275  0.325  0.275 
adjusted  1.000  1.000  1.000  1.000  0.275 
Seattle  
crude  0.800  0.800  1.000  0.625  0.625 
adjusted  0.800  0.800  1.000  1.000  1.000 
We estimated the GAM model parameters in the statistical analysis software R [40] using the gam package, which is written by Trevor Hastie and is an implementation of the GAM framework of Hastie and Tibshirani [31]. While there are other options available for smoothing spline functions in gam and in the R package mgcv, we chose loess because its span parameter is the most readily interpreted.
Mapping risk
To produce a map of local odds ratios (ORs) of NHL from the GAM model, we first estimated all parameters for the model expressed in equation (1) using the study data. We then predicted the log odds over a rectangular grid over the study area using the estimated model parameters. We used a 50 × 50 grid (2,500 cells) based on the minimum and maximum coordinates of each study area. We assigned covariate values to the grid for adjusted models. To provide an interpretable odds ratio map, we used the analysis population for each SEER center as the reference and divided the odds from the spatial model at each grid point by the odds from the null model. This approach has been used previously [28] and yields a local odds ratio that is interpretable in relation to the overall study area. For example, an OR of 1.8 at a specific location means that the rate of NHL there is elevated 80% compared with the entire study area.
To evaluate the local odds ratios for statistical significance in crude and adjusted models, we used pointwise permutation distributions. This type of assessment is common practice in kernel density estimation [18, 34] and has also been used in other GAMbased approaches [26–28]. Informally, to identify areas of significantly elevated disease risk, or clusters, we determine if the observed elevated odds ratios are more extreme than we would expect under the null hypothesis that case status does not depend on location. Pointwise permutation distributions are built through iterative Monte Carlo randomization of case status to compare the observed local odds ratio at a location to the distribution of local odds ratios under the null hypothesis at that location [18]. The Monte Carlo randomization first conditions on the residential locations and then randomizes the case labels among the fixed locations. For each randomization of the case labels, the spatial model parameters are estimated and then used to predict the local odds ratios on the grid. This procedure is repeated 999 times to build a distribution of local odds ratios at each location on the grid. We identified areas of significantly elevated risk as those areas that had an observed odds ratio in the upper 2.5% of the ranked permutation distribution of odds ratios. Similarly, we identified areas of significantly lowered risk of NHL as those having an observed odds ratio in the lower 2.5% of the ranked permutation distribution. Clusters of elevated risk are identified with contours of the 97.5 percentile of the pointwise permutation distributions of local odds ratios, therefore they are significant at the 0.05 level (assuming a twotailed distribution).
It is noteworthy that the Monte Carlo randomization technique for evaluating significance provides pointwise statistical inference, not overall inference due to the multiple locations of evaluation and the correlation in local odds ratios from the sharing of data in the smoothing function at nearby locations [19]. As a result, this method should be used to identify clusters of significantly elevated and decreased risk, but not to identify the most likely cluster in the study area.
Evaluation of residential lag time
To determine which residential location time period was most associated with NHL risk, we included in models for each center the smoothed spatial pattern of subject residences at the time of diagnosis and also at four time periods before diagnosis. We chose 5, 10, 15, and 20 years for both the crude and adjusted models. We tested the effect of different lag times on NHL risk through analysis of deviance (ANODEV), testing for significant differences between model deviances from the model with no smoothing term and from the five models with smoothing terms (one for time at diagnosis, four with lag times). Specifically, we estimated equation (1) for time at diagnosis (Z _{0}) and for each lag time of interest (Z _{ k }) and statistically tested the deviances from the models with a Z term and the deviance from the model with no Z term. The difference in deviances for two nested models approximately follows a chisquare distribution with an associated pvalue. The pvalue for each ANODEV test indicates the probability of achieving a reduction in deviance equal to the difference in model deviances for a number of degrees of freedom equal to the difference of model degrees of freedom when using one model nested in another model. These pvalues should be interpreted with caution, as recent work has shown that chisquare pvalues for smoothed terms in GAMs tend to have inflated type I error rates [41]. A significantly lower deviance from a model with a lag time of k years means that using the smoothed pattern of residential locations from k years ago significantly explains overall NHL risk. The lagtime model with the smallest pvalue from analysis of deviance best explains the risk of NHL. The test of the term for smoothed residential locations tests for an overall spatial pattern in NHL risk, and as such may be considered as a type of global test of spatial variation of disease. This global test evaluates a different property of the disease pattern than the Monte Carlo randomization process described earlier, which tests for local clusters of elevated NHL risk.
Evaluation of potential selection bias
Because response rates were relatively low for both cases and controls, we investigated the possibility that selection bias affected the results of our spatial cluster analysis. The concern was that clusters detected in study participants could be due to differential participation among cases and controls. For example, a high density of nonparticipating controls and low density of nonparticipating cases in an area could produce an artificial cluster of elevated risk. To explore this possibility, we performed additional cluster analyses among study participants and nonparticipants in each center using the GAM approach described above, but limited to a single time point.
Current addresses and demographics (age, race, gender) were available for all eligible cases (from the registry) and for controls 65 and older (from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). Eligibility of younger controls was determined by a telephone survey in which gender, age, and the residential address were obtained. We first performed a spatial cluster analysis for participants only with crude models and models adjusted for only age and gender. We then performed a cluster analysis for participants and nonparticipants together. We were primarily interested in clusters of elevated risk in participants that were not present in the analysis with participants and nonparticipants.
Because nonresponse to the telephone survey resulted in incomplete ascertainment of eligible controls less than 65 years of age, we also performed a separate evaluation of nonresponse bias restricted to participants aged 65 years or more.
Results
Analysis of deviance test pvalues for crude and adjusted models in the SEER study areas
Years Before Diagnosis  

Study Area  0  5  10  15  20 
Detroit  
crude  0.116  0.179  0.129  0.099  0.071 
adjusted  0.091  0.118  0.075  0.089  0.072 
Iowa  
crude  0.302  0.277  0.244  0.264  0.211 
adjusted  0.212  0.178  0.175  0.155  0.144 
Los Angeles  
crude  0.098  0.115  0.019  0.032  0.003 
adjusted  0.722  0.698  0.410  0.283  0.029 
Seattle  
crude  0.477  0.295  0.203  0.270  0.684 
adjusted  0.534  0.289  0.147  0.318  0.829 
Among the adjusted models, only the lag time of 20 years for Los Angeles was statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The lag time of 20 years for Detroit was marginally statistically significant (pvalue=0.07). It is worth noting that the pvalue for a lag time of 20 years for Los Angeles was an order of magnitude lower than for other lag times in this study center. Such a marked difference among lag times was not found in the other study centers. It is also noteworthy that whereas pvalues for the analysis of deviance of crude models in Los Angeles for the lag times of 10, 15, and 20 years were statistically significant at the 0.05 level, after adjusting for known risk factors the contribution of the residual spatial term to the log odds of NHL was no longer statistically significant for lag times of 10 and 15 years.
Discussion
Our approach to modeling spatial variation in disease risk extends earlier work with generalized additive models by evaluating several residential time windows as a model selection problem using residential histories in a casecontrol study. The spatial analysis of NHL risk in the NCISEER NHL study provided evidence that residential location at 20 years, the longest lag time we evaluated, explained NHL risk better than residence location at times closer to diagnosis. We found that there were areas of statistically significant risk of NHL in several of the study areas. Detroit and Iowa each had a cluster of elevated risk after adjusting for known individuallevel risk factors. The cluster in Iowa was found in five residential time periods and the cluster in Detroit was found in four time periods. The Los Angeles study area had two clusters that were present only at a lag time of 20 years. The Seattle study area had no clusters. Despite the presence of local clusters, there was not consistent evidence across the study areas for significant overall spatial variation in NHL risk. It is possible to have local clusters without an overall pattern of clustering [18, 19, 43, 44]. Our results demonstrate the importance of considering past residential locations in a cluster analysis. Here, we elaborate on some features of our analysis, including the evaluation of various lag times, adjustment for risk factors, and some specific considerations of the modeling approach.
To our knowledge, this is the first spatial cluster analyses of a casecontrol study of NHL using residential histories to account for residential mobility. Cluster studies often use the residence location at time of diagnosis, thereby assuming the relevant environmental exposure or risk factor occurred at the diagnosis address. This will be true for some subjects, but certainly not for others. Previous cluster studies [26–28] using generalized additive models included in one model all possible residences for each subject before a lag time of interest, resulting in a biased model with several correlated records per subject. With such an approach, a detected cluster could be the result of a few cases moving around within a small area over time [27]. A previous study restricted one analysis to the residence of longest duration and found somewhat different results in cancer cluster locations than when using multiple addresses per subject with a latency of 20 years [27]. Previous studies have also assumed certain lag times without quantitative justification of the particular choice. In contrast, we treated the selection of the lag time as a model selection problem, where the smoothed functions of the residences at specific lag times are treated as model terms; the term that best explains disease risk suggests the most relevant lag time. While our modeling approach allows for testing the significance of different time periods, the model assumes one relevant residential lag time, i.e. one location for exposure. It is possible, however, that exposures occur at more than one residential location. In other words, exposure could be cumulative over time and space. To consider this, in future work we will develop methods to include several residential locations for each person in one model. Such an approach is a step toward encompassing lifecourse environmental exposures, the idea of the "exposome" [45].
In our study, we adjusted for several potential confounding variables in a spatial cluster model. Often cluster studies do not adjust for known risk factors, aside from basic demographics. Any covariate that has a spatial pattern and is associated with the outcome could cause confounding of the association of the outcome and unmeasured environmental exposure, as represented by the smoothed function of residential locations. After adjustment for confounders, an observed cluster may become nonsignificant. Conversely, adjusting for known risk factors can also identify hidden clusters in a crude analysis. Other cluster detection techniques, such as the local scanning method in SaTScan [22, 23] and Qstatistics [24], do not allow for adjustment of confounding variables in a casecontrol or cohort study in a unified statistical clusteranalysis model. In our study, adjusting for known risk factors made certain clusters more prominent and revealed a pattern of increased risk for NHL in Detroit and Iowa. A cluster in Los Angeles decreased in size with adjustment. While we adjusted for several risk factors, our adjustment did not include all possible risk factors of NHL. In future work, we will explore the observed clusters for the presence of significant variables in other datasets, such as the U.S. Census, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxic Release Inventory, and the Census of Manufacturers and the Census of Agriculture.
There are several aspects of the generalized additive model framework to consider when performing cluster analysis, including the span selection and possible edge effects. Span selection is important because patterns in the local odds ratio maps derived from GAMs depend on the span. A small span will reveal more local variation in risk, while a larger span will produce a smoother pattern of risk. Using an automatic search routine to select the span with the smallest Akaike information criterion may lead to selecting a span with a local minimum AIC and not a global minimum. To avoid this, we selected the span visually from a graph of AIC values for a range of spans. However, this approach can suggest several span values with local minima that are very close in AIC to the global minimum. We favored smaller values of the span when the difference in AIC for a local minimum and a global minimum was not meaningful to identify important features of the disease point process. Sensitivity analysis with larger spans did not change the presence and locations of observed clusters.
Generalized additive models with spatial smoothing terms, and kernel density estimation more generally, are susceptible to edge effects, which can result in biased estimates of risk on the periphery of a study area. To minimize edge effects in this approach, we used a loess function for smoothing over residential locations. Loess uses a tricube weight function that gives less weight to data points farther from the estimation point [31, 35, 36]. Due to this weighting function, loess should exhibit smaller edge effects than an alternative smoother based on nearest neighbors with equal weights [28]. In a previous simulation study, Webster et al. [28] found little evidence of edge effects interfering with estimating the true odds ratio surface using loess as the spatial smoother in a generalized additive model. We also sought to minimize edge effects to some degree by including residential locations within 2 miles of each study area boundary.
In general, results of a cluster analysis should be interpreted carefully due to potential selection bias. Response rates were relatively low for both cases and controls in the NCISEER NHL study. Differences in the distributions of respondents and nonrespondents may make case and control groups unrepresentative of the base population in terms of exposure prevalence. However, the risk estimate will only be biased if a risk factor differentially influences participation among controls and cases [46]. Previously, we analyzed spatial patterns in nonresponse separately by study center and by case status using a spatial scan statistic [30]. Two significant elliptical clusters in Detroit and Los Angeles were nonsignificant after adjusting for demographic factors. We also found that the nonresponse bias in NHL risk associated with education level was not large. De Roos et al. [47] found evidence of selection bias in the NCISEER study when investigating proximity to industrial facilities and risk of NHL. Current residences of participants were less likely to be located within 2 miles of an industrial facility than were those of nonparticipants. The differences in proximity to industry by participation were accounted for by variation in select census block grouplevel demographic variables. Although proportions of participants and nonparticipants living within 2 miles of an industrial facility were significantly different, the association between proximity of current residence to one or more industry and NHL risk did not differ by participation. In our comparative cluster analyses of participants and all eligible cases and controls at time of study enrollment, we did not find substantial differences in patterns of elevated risk. Clusters of elevated risk in participants were not explained by including nonparticipants in the analysis. The results suggested that the response bias was not responsible for the clusters of elevated risk detected among study participants. Our assessment of bias, however, was limited to only residences at time of selection into the study.
Conclusions
After adjusting for several known risk factors, we found evidence of several clusters of elevated NHL risk in the NCISEER NHL study. We also found that long lag times of residential location were more likely than shorter lag times to result in significant clusters of elevated NHL risk in several study areas. Results of this study will lead to future investigations to evaluate possible reasons for the significant clusters, which may lead to new hypotheses about the etiology of NHL. We performed our cluster analyses using generalized additive models, which provide a unified statistical framework for estimating disease risk spatially and assessing significance of elevated risk for casecontrol and cohort data. It is straightforward to adjust for covariates and evaluate several temporal lags in this statistical framework. This study serves as an illustrative example for those interested in performing spacetime cluster analysis of diseases without wellknown etiologies and this approach can be useful in the generation of new hypotheses.
List of Abbreviations
 OR:

Odds Ratio
 NHL:

NonHodgkin Lymphoma
 EPA:

Environmental Protection Agency
 ANODEV:

Analysis of Deviance
 AIC:

Akaike Information Criterion
 PCB:

Polychlorinated Biphenyl
 NCI:

National Cancer Institute
 SEER:

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results
 GAM:

Generalized Additive Model
Declarations
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge Lonn Irish (Information Management Services, Inc., Silver Spring, MD) for assistance in data processing and preparation and Thomas M. Mack, MD, MPH (University of Southern California) for comments on a draft of the manuscript. This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program under contracts N01PC35139, N01 PC065064, NO1PC67008, N01PC71105, N01PC67009, P01 CA17054, P30 ES07048, P30 CA014089, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Program of Cancer Registries, under agreement #U55/CCR92193002.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Ries L, Eisner M, Kosary C, Hankey B, Miller B, Clegg L, Mariotto A, Fay M, Feuer E, Edwards B: SEER Cancer Statistics Review. 1975, Bethesda, MD: National Cancer InstituteGoogle Scholar
 Altekruse S, Kosary C, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Ruhl J, Howlader N, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Eisner M, Lewis D, Cronin K, Chen H, Feuer E, Stinchcomb D, Edwards B: SEER Cancer Statistics Review. 1975, Bethesda, MD: National Cancer InstituteGoogle Scholar
 Parkin D, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P: Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002, 55: 74108.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Jemal A, Tiwari R, Murray T, Ghafoor A, Samuels A, Ward E, Feuer E, Thun M: Cancer Statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004, 54:Google Scholar
 Chatterjee N, Hartge P, Cerhan J, Cozen W, Davis S, Ishibe N, Colt J, Goldin L, Severson R: Risk of nonHodgkin's lymphoma and family history of lymphatic, hematologic, and other cancers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004, 13: 14151421.Google Scholar
 Morton L, Wang S, Cozen W, Linet M, Chatterjee N, Davis S, Severson R, Colt J, Vasef M, Rothman N, Blair A, Bernstein L, Cross A, De Roos A, Engels E, Hein D, Hill D, Kelemen L, Lim U, Lynch C, Schenk M, Wacholder S, Ward M, Zahm S, Chanock S, Cerhan J, Hartge P: Etiologic heterogeneity among nonHodgkin lymphoma subtypes. Blood. 2008, 112: 51505160. 10.1182/blood200801133587.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Skibola C, Bracci P, Nieters A, BrooksWilson A, de Sanjosé S, Hughes A, Cerhan J, DR S, Purdue M, Kane E, Lan Q, Foretova L, Schenk M, Spinelli J, Slager S, De Roos A, Smith M, Roman E, Cozen W, Boffetta P, Kricker A, Zheng T, Lightfoot T, Cocco P, Benavente Y, Zhang Y, Hartge P, Linet M, Becker N, Brennan P, et al: Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and lymphotoxinalpha (LTA) polymorphisms and risk of nonHodgkin lymphoma in the InterLymph Consortium. Am J Epidemiol. 2010, 171: 267276. 10.1093/aje/kwp383.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Skibola C, Curry J, Nieters A: Genetic susceptibility to lymphoma. Haematologica. 2007, 92: 960969. 10.3324/haematol.11011.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Khuder S, Schaub E, KellerByrne J: Metaanalyses of nonHodgkin lymphoma and farming. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1998, 24: 255261.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zahm S, Weisenburger D, Babbitt P, Saal R, Vaught J, Cantor K, Blair A: A casecontrol study of nonHodgkin's lymphoma and the herbicide 2,4dicholorophenoxyacetic acids (2,4D) in eastern Nebraska. Epidemiology. 1990, 1: 349356. 10.1097/0000164819900900000004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 De Roos A, Hartge P, Lubin J, Colt J, Davis S, Cerhan J, Severson R, Cozen W, Patterson DJ, Needham L, Rothman N: Persistent organochlorine chemicals in plasma and risk of nonHodgkin's lymphoma. Cancer Res. 2005, 65: 1121411226. 10.1158/00085472.CAN051755.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Colt J, Severson R, Lubin J, Rothman N, Camann D, Davis S, Cerhan J, Cozen W, Hartge P: Organochlorines in carpet dust and nonHodgkin lymphoma. Epidemiology. 2005, 16: 516525. 10.1097/01.ede.0000164811.25760.f1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Fritschi L, Benke G, Hughes A, Kricker A, Turner J, Vajdic C, Grulich A, Milliken S, Kaldor J, Armstrong B: Occupational exposure to pesticides and risk of nonHodgkin's lymphoma. Am J Epidemiol. 2005, 162: 849857. 10.1093/aje/kwi292.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Goldberg M, Siemiatyck J, DeWar R, Desy M, Riberdy H: Risk of developing cancer relative to living near a municipal solid waste landfill site in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Arch Environ Health. 1999, 54: 291296. 10.1080/00039899909602488.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Dreiher J, Novack V, Barachana M, Yerushalmi R, Lugassy G, Shpilberg O: NonHodgkin's lympohma and residential proximity to toxic industrial waste in southern Israel. Haematologica. 2005, 90: 17091710.Google Scholar
 Floret N, Frederic M, Bruno C, Arveux P, Cahn J, Viel J: Dioxin emissions from a solid waste incinerator and risk of nonHodgkin lymphoma. Epidemiology. 2003, 14: 392398.Google Scholar
 Bithell J, Dutton S, Draper G, Neary N: Distribution of childhood leukaemias and nonHodgkin's lymphomas near nuclear installations in England and Wales. BMJ. 1994, 309:Google Scholar
 Waller L, Gotway C: Applied Spatial Statistics for Public Health Data. 2004, New York: John WileyView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Waller L: Detection of clustering in spatial data. The SAGE Handbook of Spatial Analysis. Edited by: Fotheringham A, Rogerson P. 2009, Sage Publications LtdGoogle Scholar
 Besag J, Newell J: The detection of clusters in rare diseases. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A. 1991, 154: 143155.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Blot W, Fraumeni J, Mason T, Hoover R: Developing clues to environmental cancer: a stepwise approach with the use of cancer mortality data. Environmental Health Perspectives. 1979, 32: 5358.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kulldorff M: SaTScan: software for the spatial and spacetime scan statistics. 2006, Silver Spring, MD: Information Management Services IncGoogle Scholar
 Kulldorff M: A spatial scan statistic. Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods. 1997, 26: 14871496.Google Scholar
 Jacquez G, Kaufmann A, Meliker J, Goovaerts P, AvRuskin G, Nriagu J: Global, local and focused geographic clustering for casecontrol data with residential histories. Environmental Health. 2005, 4:Google Scholar
 Jacquez G: Current practices in the spatial analysis of cancer: flies in the ointment. International Journal of Health Geographics. 2004, 3:Google Scholar
 Vieira V, Webster T, Weinberg J, Aschengrau A: Spatial analysis of bladder, kidney, and pancreatic cancer on upper Cape Cod: an application of generalized additive models to casecontrol data. Environmental Health. 2009, 8:Google Scholar
 Vieira V, Webster T, Weinberg J, Aschengrau A, Ozonoff D: Spatial analysis of lung, colorectal, and breast cancer on Cape Cod: an application of generalized additive models to casecontrol data. Environmental Health. 2005, 4:Google Scholar
 Webster T, Vieira V, Weinberg J, Aschengrau A: Method for mapping populationbased casecontrols studies: an application using generalized additive models. International Journal of Health Geographics. 2006, 5:Google Scholar
 Kelsall J, Diggle P: Spatial variation in risk of disease: a nonparametric binary regression approach. Applied Statistics. 1998, 47: 559573.Google Scholar
 Shen M, Cozen W, Huang L, Colt J, De Roos A, Severson R, Cerhan J, Bernstein L, Morton L, Pickle L, Ward M: Census and geographic differences between respondents and nonrespondents in a casecontrol study of nonHodgkin lymphoma. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2008, 167: 350361.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Hastie T, Tibshirani R: Generalized Additive Models. 1990, London: Chapman & HallGoogle Scholar
 Wood S: Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. 2006, Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRCGoogle Scholar
 Kelsall J, Diggle P: Kernel estimation of relative risk. Bernoulli. 1995, 1: 316. 10.2307/3318678.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kelsall J, Diggle P: Nonparametric estimation of spatial variation in relative risk. Statistics in Medicine. 1995, 14: 23352342. 10.1002/sim.4780142106.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Cleveland W: Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1979, 74: 829836. 10.2307/2286407.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Cleveland W, Devlin S: Locallyweighted regression: an approach to regression analysis by local fitting. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1988, 83: 596610. 10.2307/2289282.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Akaike H: Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. International Symposium on Information Theory. Edited by: Petran B, Csaaki F. 1973, Budapest, Hungary, 267281.Google Scholar
 Burnham K, Anderson D: Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Informationtheoretic Approach. 2002, New York: SpringerVerlag, 2Google Scholar
 Spiegelhalter D, Best N, Carlin B, van der Linde A: Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B. 2002, 64: 583639. 10.1111/14679868.00353.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 R Development Core Team: 2010, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
 Young R, Weinberg J, Vieira V, Ozonoff A, Webster T: Generalized additive models and inflated type I error rates of smoother significance tests. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. 2011, 55: 366374. 10.1016/j.csda.2010.05.004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Mack T: Cancers in the Urban Environment: Patterns of Malignant Disease in Los Angeles County and its Neighborhoods. 2004, San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic PressGoogle Scholar
 Waller L, Hill E, Rudd R: The geography of power: statistical performance of tests of clusters and clustering in heterogeneous populations. Statistics in Medicine. 2006, 25: 853865. 10.1002/sim.2418.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Wheeler D: A comparison of spatial clustering and cluster detection techniques for childhood leukemia incidence in Ohio, 1996  2003. International Journal of Health Geographics. 2007, 6:Google Scholar
 Wild C: Complementing the genome with an "exposome": the outstanding challenge of environmental exposure measurement in molecular epidemiology. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005, 14: 18471850. 10.1158/10559965.EPI050456.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Austin M, Criqui M, BarrettConnor E, Holdbrook M: The effect of response bias on the odds ratio. Am J Epidemiol. 1981, 114: 137143.Google Scholar
 De Roos A, Hartge P, Colt J, Blair A, Airola M, Severson R, Cozen W, Cerhan J, Davis S, Nuckols J, Ward M: Residential proximity to industrial facilities and risk of nonHodgkin lymphoma. Environ Res. 2010, 110: 7078. 10.1016/j.envres.2009.09.011.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.