3.9 Article

Case-Control Study on Risk Factors for Leukaemia and Brain Tumours in Children under 5 Years in Germany

期刊

KLINISCHE PADIATRIE
卷 221, 期 6, 页码 362-368

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1239531

关键词

case control study; childhood cancer; epidemiology; immune system; leukemia; risk factor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the context of a case control study on the cancer risk for children under five by distance to the nearest nuclear power plant, we collected information on other risk factors in a subset. We present the interview study as if it had been an independent study. Parents of 471 cases with Leukaemia, Lymphoma or CNS (Central Nervous System)-tumour from the German Childhood Cancer Registry, diagnosed at age under 5 in the years 1993-2003, and 1457 matched controls were to be interviewed. For Leukaemia, 243 cases/604 controls, and for CNS 102 cases/246 controls participated, lymphoma cases were too few. Questions related to social status, ionizing radiation, pregnancy and birth, immune system, and selected toxins. The analysis is exploratory in nature; variables were selected by backward elimination. For leukaemia we found a significant protective effect of social contacts (OR = 0.50, 95% CI [0.29:0.87]) and a risk for high birth weight (OR=1.96 95% CI [1.12;3.41] comparing >4000 g to normal). We could not reproduce other associations reported in the literature such as a negative association with allergies. For CNS tumours we found a significant protective effect of social contacts (OR=0.30 95% CI [0.13;0.721), of pesticides and herbicides (OR=0.39 95% CI 10.18;0.83]) and an increased risk for low birth weight (p=0.0232). This study on risk factors for childhood leukaemia and brain tumours is relatively small and exploratory. We could reproduce some major associations reported in the literature (leukaemia: social contacts and high birth weight) but not others. Some observations may be reporting artefacts or self selection artefacts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据