ArticleAmerican journal of medical genetics. Part A2017
Congenital neurodevelopmental anomalies in pediatric and young adult cancer.
Article in American journal of medical genetics. Part A, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The risks of birth defects and childhood cancer with conception by assisted reproductive technology.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Pediatric neurological cancer incidence and trends in the United States, 2000-2018.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2022Article
- Cancer diagnostic profile in children with structural birth defects: An assessment in 15,000 childhood cancer cases.Cancer · 2020Article
- Neurodevelopmental Consequences of Pediatric Cancer and Its Treatment: The Role of Sleep.Brain sciences · 2020Review
- Risk factors for childhood and adult primary brain tumors.Neuro-oncology · 2019Review
- Congenital neurodevelopmental anomalies in pediatric and young adult cancer.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congenital anomalies that are diagnosed in at least 120,000 US infants every year are the leading cause of infant death and contribute to disability and pediatric hospitalizations. Several large-scale epidemiologic studies have provided substantial evidence of an association between congenital anomalies and cancer risk in children, suggesting potential underlying cancer-predisposing conditions and the involvement of developmental genetic pathways. Electronic medical records from 1,107 pediatric, adolescent, and young adult oncology patients were reviewed. The observed number (O) of congenital anomalies among children with a specific pediatric cancer subtype was compared to the expected number (E) of anomalies based on the frequency of congenital anomalies in the entire study population. The O/E ratios were tested for significance using Fisher's exact test. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare overall and neurological malignancy survival rates following tumor diagnosis. Thirteen percent of patients had a congenital anomaly diagnosis prior to their cancer diagnosis. When stratified by congenital anomaly subtype, there was an excess of neurological anomalies among children with central nervous system tumors (O/E = 1.56, 95%CI 1.13-2.09). Male pediatric cancer patients were more likely than females to have a congenital anomaly, particularly those <5 years of age (O/E 1.35, 95%CI 0.97-1.82). Our study provides additional insight into the association between specific congenital anomaly types and pediatric cancer development. Moreover, it may help to inform the development of new screening policies and support hypothesis-driven research investigating mechanisms underlying tumor predisposition in children with congenital anomalies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.