OBJECTIVE: To examine whether childhood brain tumors (CBTs) are associated with a family history of brain tumors or other cancers in an international case-control study. METHODS: Cancers in children's first- and second-degree relatives were ascertained by interview with parents of 620 children with astroglial tumors, 255 with primitive neuroectodermal tumors, 324 with other CBTs, and 2,218 controls from Australia, Canada, France, Israel, Italy, Spain, and the US. These were used with histories of neurofibromatosis or tuberous sclerosis to exclude in subanalyses children with Li-Fraumeni or other hereditary syndromes predisposing to brain tumors. RESULTS: A first- or second-degree relative of 4% of children with astroglial tumors, 6% with PNET, 5% with other CBTs, and 5% of controls had had a brain tumor. Any potential differences were statistically non-significant, including when focusing on relatives diagnosed in childhood. In the US, where anatomical sites of relatives' other cancers were known, CBT occurrence was not associated with any other specific site. Results were not markedly altered by exclusion of children with hereditary syndromes. CONCLUSION: Consistent with most prior studies using these methods, we observed no strong relationship between CBT occurrence and cancers in family members.
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether childhood brain tumors (CBTs) are associated with a family history of brain tumors or other cancers in an international case-control study. METHODS:Cancers in children's first- and second-degree relatives were ascertained by interview with parents of 620 children with astroglial tumors, 255 with primitive neuroectodermal tumors, 324 with other CBTs, and 2,218 controls from Australia, Canada, France, Israel, Italy, Spain, and the US. These were used with histories of neurofibromatosis or tuberous sclerosis to exclude in subanalyses children with Li-Fraumeni or other hereditary syndromes predisposing to brain tumors. RESULTS: A first- or second-degree relative of 4% of children with astroglial tumors, 6% with PNET, 5% with other CBTs, and 5% of controls had had a brain tumor. Any potential differences were statistically non-significant, including when focusing on relatives diagnosed in childhood. In the US, where anatomical sites of relatives' other cancers were known, CBT occurrence was not associated with any other specific site. Results were not markedly altered by exclusion of children with hereditary syndromes. CONCLUSION: Consistent with most prior studies using these methods, we observed no strong relationship between CBT occurrence and cancers in family members.
Authors: K Hemminki; S Tretli; J H Olsen; L Tryggvadottir; E Pukkala; J Sundquist; C Granström Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-05-25 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Karen Curtin; Ken R Smith; Alison Fraser; Richard Pimentel; Wendy Kohlmann; Joshua D Schiffman Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Paul A Northcott; David T W Jones; Marcel Kool; Giles W Robinson; Richard J Gilbertson; Yoon-Jae Cho; Scott L Pomeroy; Andrey Korshunov; Peter Lichter; Michael D Taylor; Stefan M Pfister Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 60.716
Authors: Kimberly J Johnson; Jennifer Cullen; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Quinn T Ostrom; Chelsea E Langer; Michelle C Turner; Roberta McKean-Cowdin; James L Fisher; Philip J Lupo; Sonia Partap; Judith A Schwartzbaum; Michael E Scheurer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-09-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Wang Baocheng; Yang Zhao; Wei Meng; Yipeng Han; Jiajia Wang; Feili Liu; Shengying Qin; Jie Ma Journal: Nagoya J Med Sci Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 1.131
Authors: Ruby Del Risco Kollerud; Karl Gerhard Blaasaas; Bjørgulf Claussen; Per Nafstad; Lisa A Cannon-Albright; Ellen Ruud; Finn Wesenberg; Øyvind Næss Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 7.640