Parental occupational exposures to pesticides, animals and organic dust have been associated with an increased risk of childhood cancer based mostly on case–control studies. We prospectively evaluated parental occupational exposures and risk of childhood leukemia and central nervous system (CNS) tumors in the International Childhood Cancer Cohort Consortium. We pooled data on 329,658 participants from birth cohorts in five countries (Australia, Denmark, Israel, Norway and United Kingdom). Parental occupational exposures during pregnancy were estimated by linking International Standard Classification of Occupations‐1988 job codes to the ALOHA+ job exposure matrix. Risk of childhood (<15 years) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL; n = 129), acute myeloid leukemia (AML; n = 31) and CNS tumors (n = 158) was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models to generate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Paternal exposures to pesticides and animals were associated with increased risk of childhood AML (herbicides HR = 3.22, 95% CI = 0.97–10.68; insecticides HR = 2.86, 95% CI = 0.99–8.23; animals HR = 3.89, 95% CI = 1.18–12.90), but not ALL or CNS tumors. Paternal exposure to organic dust was positively associated with AML (HR = 2.38 95% CI = 1.12–5.07), inversely associated with ALL (HR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.31–0.99) and not associated with CNS tumors. Low exposure prevalence precluded evaluation of maternal pesticide and animal exposures; we observed no significant associations with organic dust exposure. This first prospective analysis of pooled birth cohorts and parental occupational exposures provides evidence for paternal agricultural exposures as childhood AML risk factors. The different risks for childhood ALL associated with maternal and paternal organic dust exposures should be investigated further.

BackgroundRecent meta-analyses demonstrate an association between self-reported residential pesticide use and childhood leukemia risk. Self-reports may suffer from recall bias and provide information only on broad pesticide categories. We compared parental self-reported home and garden pest treatments to pesticides measured in carpet dust.MethodsParents of 277 children with leukemia and 306 controls in Northern and Central California (2001–2007) were asked about insect and weed treatments during the previous year. Carpet dust samples were analyzed for 47 pesticides. We present results for the 7 insecticides (carbaryl, propoxur, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, permethrin), 5 herbicides (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid [2,4-D], chlorthal, dicamba, mecoprop, simazine), and 1 synergist (piperonyl butoxide) that were present in home and garden products during the study period and were detected in ≥25% of carpet dust samples. We constructed linear regression models for the relative change in pesticide concentrations associated with self-reported treatment of pest types in cases and controls separately and combined, adjusting for demographics, housing characteristics, and nearby agricultural pesticide applications.ResultsSeveral self-reported treatments were associated with pesticide concentrations in dust. For example, households with flea/tick treatments had 2.3 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.4, 3.7) times higher permethrin concentrations than households not reporting this treatment. Households reporting treatment for ants/cockroaches had 2.5 (95% CI: 1.5, 4.2) times higher cypermethrin levels than households not reporting this treatment. Weed treatment by a household member was associated with 1.9 (1.4, 2.6), 2.2 (1.6, 3.1), and 2.8 (2.1, 3.7) times higher dust concentrations of dicamba, mecoprop, and 2,4-D, respectively. Weed treatments by professional applicators were null/inversely associated with herbicide concentrations in dust. Associations were generally similar between cases and controls and were consistent with pesticide active ingredients in these products during the study time period.ConclusionsConsistency between self-reported pest treatments, concentrations in dust, and pesticides in products lends credibility to the exposure assessment methods and suggests that differential recall by case–control status is minimal.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0015-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.