4.4 Article

Sex ratio among childhood cancers by single year of age

期刊

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
卷 66, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.27620

关键词

childhood cancer incidence; epidemiology; sex differences

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [T32CA099936]
  2. Children's Cancer Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The male excess in childhood cancer incidence is well-established; however, the underlying biologic mechanisms remain unknown. Examining the association between male sex and childhood cancer by single year of age and tumor type may highlight important periods of risk such as variation in growth and hormonal changes, which will inform etiologic hypotheses. Methods Using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 18 registries (2000-2015), incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated as the measure of association between male sex and childhood cancer by single year of age (0-19). Results The IRR for male cancer overall was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.18-1.20) and was similar in magnitude at nearly every year of age. Burkitt lymphoma was strongly associated with male sex (IRRs >= 2 at each year of age). Increased incidence was observed among males for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas for nearly all years of age. Medulloblastoma was the only central nervous system tumor with a significant male predominance at nearly every age. Male sex displayed a consistent inverse association with nephroblastoma and thyroid carcinoma over the ages studied. Conclusions Male sex was positively associated with most cancers. The higher incidence rates observed in males remained consistent over the childhood and adolescent periods, suggesting that childhood and adolescent hormonal fluctuations may not be the primary driving factor for the sex disparities in childhood cancer. The observed incidence disparities may be due to sex differences in exposures, genetics, or immune responses.

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

4.4
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