Vaccination News Home Page subscribe Vaccination NewsLetter
http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,882379,00.html
![]() |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]()
|
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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian
Newspapers Limited 2003
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.