2005
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.21387
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Parental lung cancer as predictor of cancer risks in offspring: Clues about multiple routes of harmful influence?

Abstract: The carcinogenic effects of active smoking have been demonstrated for many sites, but the effects of passive smoking and exposures during pregnancy and breastfeeding are less well documented. We examined whether 0–70‐year‐old offspring of parents with lung cancer are at a risk of cancer that cannot be explained by their smoking or familial risk. It was assumed that known target sites for tobacco carcinogenesis would be affected, if any. The nationwide Swedish Family‐Cancer Database with cancers recorded from 1… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The fact that both family history of tobacco-related cancer and personal history of smoking were associated with an increased risk for bladder cancer points to two potential explanations: first, that shared exposures within families such as in utero exposure to tobacco compounds, exposure to tobacco carcinogens through breast-feeding, and ETS during childhood, as well as the intensity of the smoking habit among relatives, may account for cancer clusters in relatives (34); second, that a susceptibility polymorphism, or a combination of them, is segregated within families predisposing relatives to cancer in the presence of tobacco exposure. We explored the hypothesis that ETS might contribute to the familial clustering of bladder cancer among the nonsmoker subjects by adjusting the logistic regression models for childhood ETS.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The fact that both family history of tobacco-related cancer and personal history of smoking were associated with an increased risk for bladder cancer points to two potential explanations: first, that shared exposures within families such as in utero exposure to tobacco compounds, exposure to tobacco carcinogens through breast-feeding, and ETS during childhood, as well as the intensity of the smoking habit among relatives, may account for cancer clusters in relatives (34); second, that a susceptibility polymorphism, or a combination of them, is segregated within families predisposing relatives to cancer in the presence of tobacco exposure. We explored the hypothesis that ETS might contribute to the familial clustering of bladder cancer among the nonsmoker subjects by adjusting the logistic regression models for childhood ETS.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the most common hazardous prenatal exposures is maternal smoking. Prenatal exposure to tobacco smoke was described as a risk factor for a multitude of different diseases in the child, including lung diseases, obesity, and cancer (Hemminki & Chen, 2006;Oken et al, 2008;Neuman et al, 2012). Several studies have focused on DNA methylation in cord blood to elucidate the influence of smoking and other prenatal exposures on the newborn's epigenome by analyzing global DNA methylation changes (i.e., in repetitive elements) or methylation of a limited number of preselected CpG probes (i.e., 27k methylation or 450k arrays) (Breton et al, 2009;Joubert et al, 2012;Murphy et al, 2012;Markunas et al, 2014;Kupers et al, 2015;Richmond et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Foetal tobacco smoke exposure increases the risk for sudden infant death syndrome, low birthweight, preterm birth, behavioural problems, cognitive developmental delay and reading and writing disability (3). Others show long‐term effects like cardiovascular disease (5), cancer (6) and asthma in adulthood (7). Development of allergy is controversial, because both negative and positive associations have been shown in different studies (3).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%