oxic Inheritance Fathers\' Job May Mean Cancer for Kids Exactly how cancer takes
ID: 118405 • Letter: O
Question
oxic Inheritance Fathers' Job May Mean Cancer for Kids Exactly how cancer takes root in children remains much a mystery, despite broad investigations into the matter. Now a new study supports the idea that a father's occupation just before conception may play a role LEHP 09:193-198]. More specifically, the chemicals he is exposed to on the job may affect his children's health after birth, contributing to the development of nervous system tumors and, more rarely. leukemia--the two most com- mon types of childhood cancer. The study. led by Maria Feychting of the Karolinksa Institute in Stockholm Sweden, lends credence to the hypothesis that paternal occupational exposures may be important in the etiology of childhood cancer Thanks to the combination of Sweden's unique popula tion registry and its high-quality national cancer registry the researchers were able to follow more than 235,000 Swedish children from birth through their early teens. The cam essentially tracked all children born to married couple after two censuses in the mid-1970s and early 1980s, com- paring cancer cases with paternal occupational exposures extrapolated from census information. About 522 children ped cancer, including roughly 160 cases of nervous sysem cancers and 160 cases of leukemia. For each occupation represented among the fathes, rwo experi. Danger in what Daddy does, A large Swedish epidemiolbge study con enced industrial hygienists calculated the probability of exposure to nectsy a father's occupution before hs childs conception to a risk of the child later developing cancer different agents, such as pesticides, heavy metals, and solvents. The team found that the risk of nervous system cancers more than doubled among children whose fathers were to pesticides, solvents, or hased only on each father's occuparional title and ype of industry misclassificarion is unrelaned dose-repons and opens the door to inaccuracies. For example, some may have changed jobs at the acrual time of conception. The thar any exposure products. In fact, risk tripled for children of house and method leaves liak noom for analysis of leukemia also doubled among children of to disease, the painters. Risk of woodworkers. Both findings reinforce earlier studies The study adds to the knowledge base about a possible associa- is now anderakings fallow-ap case-control snualy of childhond tion berween pesticides and nervous system tumor in childeen o the srudy found that the risk of leukemia increased fourfold for chilfiom those during pregnancy or afier birth by dren whose fathers were among a small sample of shect metal workabhour eposires at work and home Jule Wakefield intervicwing parents raises new questions about some specific exposures. For instance. nevous system numors to tease our paternal exposunes before birh Curiously, leukemia risk doubled for children with fathers inExplanation / Answer
TOXIC INHERITANCE
Despite a lot of research on Cancer among Children, it is difficult to ascertain how it actually develops in them. Recently, a new study says that a Father’s occupation before conception may be responsible for his children developing Cancer (EHP 109: 193-198). It stresses on the fact that Father’s exposure to chemicals in his employment has a direct effect on children’s health after birth. Growth of Nervous system tumors and Leukemia are its serious outfalls. Apparently these two conditions are most commonly observed among children. This conclusion is supported by the study of Maria Feychting of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
The researchers in Sweden were able to conduct a long-term study (longitudinal analysis) on more than 235,000 Swedish children from birth to early teens. This was possible due to Sweden’s unique population registry and its good quality cancer registry. The study team compiled children of married couples born after two censuses in the mid-1970s and early 1980s. The cancer cases out of this study group were then compared to their respective paternal occupation. The result showed that out of the total research candidates, 522 developed cancer out of which 160 had nervous cancer while another 160 had leukemia.
Two experienced hygienists calculated the probability of Father’s exposure to carcinogenic agents like pesticides, heavy metals, solvents in their respective occupations. The team concluded that Nervous system Cancer risk was more than double among those children whose fathers were exposed to pesticides, solvents or paint products in their occupations. The risk was triple for those whose Fathers worked in a paint industry. On the other hand, Leukemia risk was more among children whose Fathers were woodworkers. These findings thus added substance to earlier studies.
The study also helped in establishing correlation between pesticides and nervous system cancers among children. It also raised new questions related to some specific exposures, for example, while Leukemia chances quadrupled for children whose fathers were metal workers, however, no such risk was observed in cases of paternal exposure to pesticides and paints.
Feychting and her colleagues primarily ascertained two causative mechanisms for childhood cancers. First was related to placental exposure of children to carcinogens and Second was genetic in which the father’s sperms were adversely affected due to chemical exposure in his occupation which ultimately caused carcinogenic conditions in their wards.
According to Feychting, this study is important as it reduces bias in reporting and data calculation to a great extent because of the procedure of collecting information i.e., before occurrence of cancers among children. Thus exposure classification was made independent of the disease status of the children. The study also successfully evaded selection bias in subject selection as it was based on Censuses that contained information of more than 99% of the population.
However the exposure assessment process of the study weakens its findings. This is because the method did not consider dose-response pattern in Father’s occupation. It did not clearly state whether exposure was before birth or during pregnancy or post birth. It also did not consider that an individual Father may have changed his occupation just before conception of his child. Feychting acknowledges these limitations and has started working upon follow-up case control study by interviewing parents about their exposures in their home and work environment.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.