3.8 Article

Birth characteristics and childhood malignant central nervous sytem tumors: The ESCALE study (French Society for Childhood Cancer)

期刊

CANCER DETECTION AND PREVENTION
卷 32, 期 1, 页码 79-86

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cdp.2008.02.003

关键词

epidemiology; risk factors; childhood CNS tumor; birth characteristics; France; population-based case-control study; maternal reproductive history; miscarriage; glial cell tumors

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Determining the role of pre- and perinatal factors in the aetiology of childhood malignant central nervous (CNS) tumors, using data from the French national case-control study, ESCALE. Methods: ESCALE included all children in France less than 15 years old with a diagnosis of acute leukaemia, lymphoma, malignant CNS tumor, or neuroblastoma (2003-2004). In all, 209 malignant CNS tumor cases (80% of the eligible cases) and 1681 population-based controls (71%) were included using quotas ensuring frequency matching with the cases by age and gender. Case and control mothers were interviewed using a standardised telephone interview, which elicited birth characteristics, congenital malformation, maternal reproductive history, and use of assisted reproductive technologies for the index child. Results: The cases and controls did not differ in terms of gestational age at birth, birth weight, birth order, breastfeeding, or parental age at birth. There was no association between assisted reproduction for the index child and malignant CNS tumor (OR = 1.1 [0.6-2.2]). A positive association between a maternal history of one miscarriage and malignant CNS tumor wits observed (OR = 1.4 [1.0-2.0], p < 0.05), especially for glial cell tumors (other glioma: OR = 2.0 [1.1-3.6]). Conclusion: The results suggest a possible association between a maternal history of one miscarriage and the risk of malignant CNS tumor. (C) 2008 International Society for Preventive Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

3.8
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