Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33268348›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2020

Cancer risk in individuals with major birth defects: large Nordic population based case-control study among children, adolescents, and adults.

Dagrun Slettebø Daltveit, Kari Klungsøyr, Anders Engeland, Anders Ekbom, Mika Gissler, Ingrid Glimelius, Tom Grotmol, Laura Madanat-Harjuoja, Anne Gulbech Ording, Solbjørg Makalani Myrtveit Sæther and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Dagrun Slettebø DaltveitDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway dagrun.daltveit@uib.no.ORCID 0000-0002-0903-1140
Kari KlungsøyrDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Anders EngelandDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Anders EkbomUnit of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine/Solna, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mika GisslerInformation Services Department, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Helsinki, Finland.
Ingrid GlimeliusDepartment of Medicine, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Tom GrotmolCancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Laura Madanat-HarjuojaCancer Society of Finland, Finnish Cancer Registry, Helsinki, Finland.
Anne Gulbech OrdingDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Solbjørg Makalani Myrtveit SætherDepartment of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway.
Henrik Toft SørensenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Rebecca TroisiEpidemiology and Biostatistics Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA.
Tone BjørgeDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Norwegian Institute of Public Health · NOAarhus University Hospital · DKCancer Registry of Norway · NOKarolinska Institutet · SENational Institutes of Health · USUniversity of Bergen · NOUniversity of Helsinki · FIUppsala University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine associations between birth defects and cancer from birth into adulthood.

designPopulation based nested case-control study.

settingNationwide health registries in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

participants62 295 cancer cases (0-46 years) and 724 542 frequency matched controls (matched on country and birth year), born between 1967 and 2014.

main outcome measuresRelative risk of cancer in relation to major birth defects, estimated as odds ratios with 99% confidence intervals from logistic regression models.

resultsAltogether, 3.5% (2160/62 295) of cases and 2.2% (15 826/724 542) of controls were born with major birth defects. The odds ratio of cancer for people with major birth defects compared with those without was 1.74 (99% confidence interval 1.63 to 1.84). For individuals with non-chromosomal birth defects, the odds ratio of cancer was 1.54 (1.44 to 1.64); for those with chromosomal anomalies, the odds ratio was 5.53 (4.67 to 6.54). Many structural birth defects were associated with later cancer in the same organ system or anatomical location, such as defects of the eye, nervous system, and urinary organs. The odds ratio of cancer increased with number of defects and decreased with age, for both non-chromosomal and chromosomal anomalies. The odds ratio of cancer in people with any non-chromosomal birth defect was lower in adults (≥20 years: 1.21, 1.09 to 1.33) than in adolescents (15-19 years: 1.58, 1.31 to 1.90) and children (0-14 years: 2.03, 1.85 to 2.23). The relative overall cancer risk among adults with chromosomal anomalies was markedly reduced from 11.3 (9.35 to 13.8) in children to 1.50 (1.01 to 2.24). Among adults, skeletal dysplasia (odds ratio 3.54, 1.54 to 8.15), nervous system defects (1.76, 1.16 to 2.65), chromosomal anomalies (1.50, 1.01 to 2.24), genital organs defects (1.43, 1.14 to 1.78), and congenital heart defects (1.28, 1.02 to 1.59) were associated with overall cancer risk.

conclusionsThe increased risk of cancer in individuals with birth defects persisted into adulthood, both for non-chromosomal and chromosomal anomalies. Further studies on the molecular mechanisms involved are warranted.

Indexed as

Abnormalities, MultipleAdolescentAdultAge FactorsBone Diseases, DevelopmentalCase-Control StudiesChildChild, PreschoolChromosome AberrationsCongenital AbnormalitiesDenmarkFemaleFinlandHeart Defects, CongenitalHumansInfant

Identifiers

PMID33268348
PMCPMC7708828
OpenAlexW3110310918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.