Vaccination News Home Page                                            subscribe Vaccination NewsLetter

http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,882379,00.html

Guardian Unlimited
 
 

Go to:  

Guardian Unlimited ObserverUK News
Home   UK news   International   Politics   Business   Comment   Leaders   Focus  
Sport   Review   Magazine   Screen   Travel   Cash   Letters   Food  


 

  UK news
 
  Search this site












  Tools
Text-only version
Send it to a friend
Read it later
See saved stories


  The Observer  
Front page
Story index


 Recent articles
Prize to put northern artists on the map

 
Now the sports drink that 'rebuilds your muscles'

 
Clark case threatens cot death inquiries

 
Beckham is most influential man in the UK - even with that sarong

 
'Who really killed my Kirsty?' asks mother

 
Belfast 'has 30 more gay priests'

 
US to rejoin peace process

 
Police to wear name badges

 
UK news in brief

 
High hopes for Scottish 'fish ranch'

 
Mary Kelly misses dinner with friends of terrorists

 
Glasgow United (but only in anger)

 
Drugs giant says its new pill will pack more punch than rival Viagra

 
Parents can spy on kids' chatrooms

 
Cannabis economy brings in £11bn

 
  The Guardian  
Front page
Story index





UP

  Child cancer risk soars as parents age

Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer


Older parents have significantly higher chances of having children with leukaemia, scientists have discovered. For women over 40, the risk is almost double that of mothers under 30.

In addition, the Oxford Childhood Cancer Research Group found that first-born children face enhanced risks of contracting leukaemia, a chance that diminishes with successive siblings.

These discoveries provide critical insights into discovering the causes of cancer, say scientists. 'This research has taken us a step closer to a comprehensive understanding of the most common form of childhood leukaemia,' said the British cancer expert and Nobel prizewinner, Sir Paul Nurse.

As part of their study, the Oxford group identified more than 10,000 cases of children's cancer from the British National Registry of Childhood Tumours, and compared them with a similar sample of healthy children.

They discovered that children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) - which accounts for a quarter of all childhood cancers - were born more often to older parents. A mother aged between 35 and 39 was 30 per cent more likely to have a child with lymphoblastic leukaemia than one aged 25 to 29. The extra risk rises to 88 per cent for mothers of 40 or over.

'We don't know if this effect is directly related to mothers, however,' said Dr Gerald Draper, a member of the Oxford team.

'Older women tend to be partnered with older men, so we can't be sure whether it is a genetic feature of men or of women that is causing this effect.

'Either a woman's ova are acquiring genetic damage as they age, making their children more susceptible to leukaemia, or the cells that make sperm in a man are acreting genetic damage. Alternatively, it is possible that this effect may be the result of older and younger parents having different lifestyles.'

However, the team stressed their discovery should not discourage older parents from having children. 'Childhood leukaemia is still rare,' said Dr Richard Sullivan, of Cancer Research UK. 'There are only around 300 new cases of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia diagnosed a year. In addition, there has been a vast improvement in treating all leukaemias.'

In the 1960s, only 4 per cent of children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia survived for five years or longer. By the 1990s, this survival rate had risen to 81 per cent, a remarkable improvement that has been achieved through the development of modern chemotherapy. 'Children's cancers seem much more amenable to chemotherapy than cancers in adults,' added Sullivan.

In addition, the researchers' second, equally intriguing discovery has also shed light on the possible causes of childhood leukaemia. The group found that a family's first born was significantly more likely to develop lymphoblastic leukaemia than later children, with each subsequent child having a lower risk of getting the disease. This result was separate from the effect produced by increasing parental age.

The crucial point is that first-born children are probably less likely to be exposed to infections in early life and this absence of exposure stops their immune systems being properly primed to combat later infections. In a small number of cases, this can lead to the development of leukaemia.

'Our work suggests younger brothers and sisters are exposed to new infectious agents brought into their homes by their elder siblings, and so build up immune defences that protect them against leukaemia,' added Draper.

'First-born sons or daughters are not exposed to so many childhood bugs, do not build up this immunity and so succumb more often to leukaemia.'

Special reports
The Observer NHS debate
Special report: medicine and health

The NHS: a culture of secrecy?
26.01.2003: Whistleblower lifts lid on NHS culture of secrecy
26.01.2003: Ian Perkin: The silent pressure in the NHS

Have your say
Email us at debate@observer.co.uk.

More health news
26.01.2003: Britons swallow cure-all drugs
26.01.2003: Child cancer risk soars as parents age
26.01.2003: NHS sued over 'mean' offer to grieving parents

Euthanasia debate
26.01.2003: David Beresford: A beautiful life - and a beautiful death
26.01.2003: Swiss to stop entry of 'mercy death' Britons
26.01.2003: Minister to be extradited over assisted suicide

Public service pay
03.11.2002: The Observer Profile: Beverley Malone
03.11.2002: Leader: Doctors, heal thyselves
Special report: public services
Special report: unions

Labour's record assessed
08.12.2002: Jo Revill: NHS gets better all the time
06.10.2002: Will Hutton: War looms between Blair and Brown
19.05.2002: Anna Coote: Claim the health dividend
14.04.2002: Tony Blair: A battle half won
14.04.2002: Anna Coote: Labour's five year health check
28.04.2002: Anthony Browne: Careless targets cost lives
19.05.2002: Few voters believe in Blair's NHS revolution
Blair in power: Observer highlights

Our health obsessions
14.04.2002: Focus: Why we need less medicine, not more.

NHS debate: Observer highlights
31.03.2002: Milburn: People feel they are forced to go private
07.10.2001: Anthony Browne: NHS is bad for us
21.10.2001: Alan Milburn: The health service is working
07.04.2002: Anthony Browne: A health service that works
21.10.2001: Julian Le Grand: Tax can save the NHS
27.01.2002: Mary Riddell: Politicians can't run health
09.12.2001: David Green: who is being dishonest?
27.01.2002: Richard Lilford: Stop meddling
24.06.2001: Mary Riddell: Time to bury Beveridge
20.05.2001: Andrew Rawnsley: health risk of the private sector
22.07.2001: Michael Dixon: Embrace complementary medicine

The Observer debate: your responses
14.10.2001: We must confront the faults of the NHS







UP

 
 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
 

Vaccination News Home Page

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.