4.7 Article

Maternal diabetes and childhood cancer risks in offspring: two population-based studies

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 127, 期 10, 页码 1837-1842

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-022-01961-w

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. US National Institutes of Health [R21CA175959]
  2. Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation [17-01882]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that gestational diabetes in Denmark and type II and gestational diabetes in Taiwan were not associated with childhood cancer, while maternal type I diabetes in Denmark was associated with the risk of glioma and maternal diabetes in Taiwan was associated with an elevated risk of glioma and hepatoblastoma in offspring.
Background The effect of maternal diabetes on childhood cancer has not been widely studied. Methods We examined this in two population-based studies in Denmark (N = 6420 cancer cases, 160,484 controls) and Taiwan (N = 2160 cancer cases, 2,076,877 non-cases) using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard regression adjusted for birth year, child's sex, maternal age and birth order. Results Gestational diabetes in Denmark [odds ratio (OR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71-1.35] or type II and gestational diabetes in Taiwan (type II: hazard ratio (HR) = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.63-1.05; gestational diabetes: HR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.92-1.22) were not associated with cancer (all types combined). In Denmark, maternal type I diabetes was associated with the risk of glioma (OR = 2.33, 95% CI: 1.04-5.22), while in Taiwan, the risks of glioma (HR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.01-2.50) were elevated among children whose mothers had gestational diabetes. There was a twofold increased risk for hepatoblastoma with maternal type II diabetes (HR = 2.02, 95% CI: 1.02-4.00). Conclusions Our results suggest that maternal diabetes is an important risk factor for certain types of childhood cancers, emphasising the need for effective interventions targeting maternal diabetes to prevent serious health effects in offspring.

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

4.7
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