Pooling biomarker data across multiple studies enables researchers to obtain precise estimates of the association between biomarker measurements and disease risks due to increased sample sizes. However, biomarker measurements often vary significantly across different assays and laboratories; therefore, calibration of the local laboratory measurements to a reference laboratory is necessary before pooling data. We propose two methods for estimating the dose-response curves that allow for a nonlinear association between the continuous biomarker measurements and log relative risk in pooling projects of matched/nested case-control studies. Our methods are based on full calibration and internalized calibration methods. The full calibration method uses calibrated biomarker measurements for all subjects, even for people with reference laboratory measurements, while the internalized calibration method uses the reference laboratory measurements when available and otherwise uses the calibrated biomarker measurements. We conducted simulation studies to compare these methods, as well as a naive method, where data are pooled without calibration. Our simulation and theoretical results suggest that, in estimating the dose-response curves for biomarker-disease relationships, the internalized and full calibration methods perform substantially better than the naive method, and the full calibration approach is the preferred method for calibrating biomarker measurements. We apply our methods in a pooling project of nested case-control studies to estimate the association of circulating Vitamin D levels with risk of colorectal cancer.
Keywords: between-study variation; calibration; dose–response curve; nested case–control study; pooling biomarker data; pooling project.