4.5 Article

Increased risk of cancer among siblings of long-term childhood cancer survivors: A report from the childhood cancer survivor study

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 14, 期 8, 页码 1922-1927

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0066

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [U24-CA55727, U24 CA055727] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We determined risk of cancer among first-degree relatives of 5-year survivors of childhood leukemia, lymphoma, central nervous system tumors, sarcomas, Wilms' tumor, and neuroblastoma. Subjects were 13,703 participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Family history was collected on 56,759 first-degree relatives using a self-reported questionnaire. Incidence was compared with age- and sex-specific rates using the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program. Siblings of the survivors had an increased risk of cancer [standardized incidence ratio (SIR), 1.5; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.35-1.7]. Risk was elevated for siblings of probands of leukemia (SIR, 1.3; 95% Of 1.0-1.6), Hodgkin's disease (SIR, 1.5; 95% Of 1.2-1.9), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (SIR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5), Wilms' tumor (SIR, 1.9; 95% Cl, 1.2-3.2), soft tissue sarcoma (SIR, 1.5; 95% Cl, 1.0-2.2), and bone tumors (SIR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2). Cancer risk was elevated in siblings (SIR, 2.4; 95% Cl, 1.5-3.7) and offspring (SIR, 15.0; 95% CI, 5.3-42.9) of probands with second malignant neoplasms (SMN) compared with relatives of probands without SMNs. Siblings of probands with leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, neuroblastoma, and Wilms' tumor had elevated risks for the same malignancies. Parents had no increased risk (fathers' SIR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.7-0.8; mothers' SIR, 0.9; 95% Cl, 0.9-1.0). Seventy percent of siblings' cancers developed in adulthood. These findings suggest that familial cancer syndromes may be revealed as this cohort and family members age and with accrual of more offspring and subjects with SMNs.

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

4.5
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