Association Between Birth Defects and Cancer Risk Among Children and Adolescents in a Population-Based Assessment of 10 Million Live Births | Congenital Defects | JAMA Oncology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure 1.  Risk of Selected Cancers According to Number of Major Birth Defects in Children Without Chromosomal Anomalies or Single-Gene Syndromes
Risk of Selected Cancers According to Number of Major Birth Defects in Children Without Chromosomal Anomalies or Single-Gene Syndromes

Panels show cumulative incidence and hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazard models (tables, inset) for risk of (A) any cancer, (B) any hematologic cancer, (C) any central nervous system (CNS) tumor, and (D) any non-CNS solid tumor. All hazard ratios are adjusted for maternal age, child sex, and state of birth. HR indicates hazard ratio.

Figure 2.  Relative Risk of Selected Cancers for Children With Birth Defects, Grouped by Organ System
Relative Risk of Selected Cancers for Children With Birth Defects, Grouped by Organ System

All associations except those identified as null or not tested were significant at P < .05 (97 of 165 potential comparisons). AML indicates acute myeloid leukemia; CNS, central nervous system; RMS, rhabdomyosarcoma.

Table 1.  Distribution of Births, Birth Defects, and Cancer by State
Distribution of Births, Birth Defects, and Cancer by State
Table 2.  Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for Diagnosis of Any Cancer Among Children With Selected Chromosomal Anomalies, Single-Gene Disorders, and Nonchromosomal Birth Defects
Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for Diagnosis of Any Cancer Among Children With Selected Chromosomal Anomalies, Single-Gene Disorders, and Nonchromosomal Birth Defects
Table 3.  Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for the Top 25 Statistically Significant Specific Birth Defect–Specific Childhood Cancer Associations
Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for the Top 25 Statistically Significant Specific Birth Defect–Specific Childhood Cancer Associations
Supplement.

eTable 1. Child and Maternal Characteristics by Birth Defects Status.

eTable 2. Risk of any Childhood Cancer Among Children With Any Non-chromosomal Defect According to Three Different Survival Models.

eTable 3. Risk of Hepatoblastoma Among Children With Atrial Septal Defect and no Chromosomal Defect According to Three Different Survival Models.

eTable 4. Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for All Evaluated Birth Defect-Childhood Cancer Associations (N=600).

eTable 5. Comparisons of Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs With and Without Adjustment for Plurality and Maternal Race-Ethnicity.

eTable 6. Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for Diagnosis of Any Cancer Among Children With Specific Chromosomal Anomalies, Single Gene Disorders, and Non-chromosomal Birth Defects, Stratified by Maternal Race-Ethnicity.

eTable 7. Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for Diagnosis of Any Cancer Among Children With Specific Chromosomal Anomalies, Single Gene Disorders, and Non-chromosomal Birth Defects.

eTable 8. Hazard Ratios and 95% CI for Specific Cancer Risks Among Children With Any Chromosomal Anomaly or a Non-chromosomal Birth Defect.

eTable 9. Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for Significant Specific Birth Defect-Childhood Cancer Associations.

eTable 10. Hydrocephaly-Childhood Cancer Associations, Excluding Cases Diagnosed ≤ 1 Year of Age.

eTable 11. Absolute Risk Estimates for Birth Defect-Childhood Cancer Associations Which Were Statistically Significant After Bonferroni-Holm Adjustment.

eTable 12. Absolute Cancer Risk According to Number of Major Non-syndromic Birth Defects.

eTable 13. Comparison of BD-CC Associations in Texas and Michigan.

eTable 14. Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for Significant Specific Birth Defect-Childhood Cancer Associations in North Carolina and Texas Among Those Diagnosed With a Cancer at >1 Year of Age.

1.
Pritchard-Jones  K, Pieters  R, Reaman  GH,  et al.  Sustaining innovation and improvement in the treatment of childhood cancer: lessons from high-income countries.  Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(3):e95-e103. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70010-XPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Barr  RD, Ferrari  A, Ries  L, Whelan  J, Bleyer  WA.  Cancer in adolescents and young adults: a narrative review of the current status and a view of the future.  JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(5):495-501. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.4689PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Christianson  A, Howson  C, Modell  B.  Global Report on Birth Defects: The Hidden Toll of Dying and Disabled Children. White Plains, NY: March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation; 2006. Accessed June 25, 2018.
4.
Carozza  SE, Langlois  PH, Miller  EA, Canfield  M.  Are children with birth defects at higher risk of childhood cancers?  Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(12):1217-1224. doi:10.1093/aje/kwr470PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Hasle  H, Clemmensen  IH, Mikkelsen  M.  Risks of leukaemia and solid tumours in individuals with Down’s syndrome.  Lancet. 2000;355(9199):165-169. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)05264-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Agha  MM, Williams  JI, Marrett  L, To  T, Zipursky  A, Dodds  L.  Congenital abnormalities and childhood cancer.  Cancer. 2005;103(9):1939-1948. doi:10.1002/cncr.20985PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Janitz  AE, Neas  BR, Campbell  JE,  et al.  Childhood cancer in children with congenital anomalies in Oklahoma, 1997 to 2009.  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2016;106(7):633-642. doi:10.1002/bdra.23494PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Narod  SA, Hawkins  MM, Robertson  CM, Stiller  CA.  Congenital anomalies and childhood cancer in Great Britain.  Am J Hum Genet. 1997;60(3):474-485.PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Fisher  PG, Reynolds  P, Von Behren  J, Carmichael  SL, Rasmussen  SA, Shaw  GM.  Cancer in children with nonchromosomal birth defects.  J Pediatr. 2012;160(6):978-983. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.12.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Rankin  J, Silf  KA, Pearce  MS, Parker  L, Ward Platt  M.  Congenital anomaly and childhood cancer: a population-based, record linkage study.  Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008;51(5):608-612. doi:10.1002/pbc.21682PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Altmann  AE, Halliday  JL, Giles  GG.  Associations between congenital malformations and childhood cancer: a register-based case-control study.  Br J Cancer. 1998;78(9):1244-1249. doi:10.1038/bjc.1998.662PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Bjørge  T, Cnattingius  S, Lie  RT, Tretli  S, Engeland  A.  Cancer risk in children with birth defects and in their families: a population based cohort study of 5.2 million children from Norway and Sweden.  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17(3):500-506. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2630PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Dawson  S, Charles  AK, Bower  C, de Klerk  NH, Milne  E.  Risk of cancer among children with birth defects: a novel approach.  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2015;103(4):284-291. doi:10.1002/bdra.23364PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Norwood  MS, Lupo  PJ, Chow  EJ,  et al.  Childhood cancer risk in those with chromosomal and non-chromosomal congenital anomalies in Washington State: 1984-2013.  PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179006. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Botto  LD, Flood  T, Little  J,  et al.  Cancer risk in children and adolescents with birth defects: a population-based cohort study.  PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e69077. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069077PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Merks  JH, Ozgen  HM, Koster  J, Zwinderman  AH, Caron  HN, Hennekam  RC.  Prevalence and patterns of morphological abnormalities in patients with childhood cancer.  JAMA. 2008;299(1):61-69. doi:10.1001/jama.2007.66PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Lupo  PJ, Isenburg  JL, Salemi  JL,  et al; and The National Birth Defects Prevention Network.  Population-based birth defects data in the United States, 2010-2014: a focus on gastrointestinal defects.  Birth Defects Res. 2017;109(18):1504-1514. doi:10.1002/bdr2.1145PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Parker  SE, Mai  CT, Canfield  MA,  et al; National Birth Defects Prevention Network.  Updated national birth prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the United States, 2004-2006.  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2010;88(12):1008-1016. doi:10.1002/bdra.20735PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Rasmussen  SA, Olney  RS, Holmes  LB, Lin  AE, Keppler-Noreuil  KM, Moore  CA; National Birth Defects Prevention Study.  Guidelines for case classification for the National Birth Defects Prevention Study.  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2003;67(3):193-201. doi:10.1002/bdra.10012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
St Louis  AM, Kim  K, Browne  ML,  et al; National Birth Defects Prevention Network.  Prevalence trends of selected major birth defects: a multi-state population-based retrospective study, United States, 1999 to 2007.  Birth Defects Res. 2017;109(18):1442-1450. doi:10.1002/bdr2.1113PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Yoon  PW, Rasmussen  SA, Lynberg  MC,  et al.  The National Birth Defects Prevention Study.  Public Health Rep. 2001;116(suppl 1):32-40. doi:10.1093/phr/116.S1.32PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. About NAACCR. 2018; https://www.naaccr.org. Accessed 23 May, 2018.
23.
Danysh  HE, Mitchell  LE, Zhang  K, Scheurer  ME, Lupo  PJ.  Differences in environmental exposure assignment due to residential mobility among children with a central nervous system tumor: Texas, 1995-2009.  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2017;27(1):41-46. doi:10.1038/jes.2015.63PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Johnson  KJ, Lee  JM, Ahsan  K,  et al.  Pediatric cancer risk in association with birth defects: A systematic review.  PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0181246. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181246PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Bjørge  T, Sørensen  HT, Grotmol  T,  et al.  Fetal growth and childhood cancer: a population-based study.  Pediatrics. 2013;132(5):e1265-e1275. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-1317PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Caughey  RW, Michels  KB.  Birth weight and childhood leukemia: a meta-analysis and review of the current evidence.  Int J Cancer. 2009;124(11):2658-2670. doi:10.1002/ijc.24225PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Spector  LG, Birch  J.  The epidemiology of hepatoblastoma.  Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2012;59(5):776-779. doi:10.1002/pbc.24215PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Venkatramani  R, Spector  LG, Georgieff  M,  et al.  Congenital abnormalities and hepatoblastoma: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) and the Utah Population Database (UPDB).  Am J Med Genet A. 2014;164A(9):2250-2255. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.36638PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Pereira  EM, Marion  R, Ramesh  KH, Kim  JS, Ewart  M, Ricafort  R.  Hepatoblastoma in a mosaic trisomy 18 patient.  J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2012;34(4):e145-e148. doi:10.1097/MPH.0b013e3182459ee8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Kitanovski  L, Ovcak  Z, Jazbec  J.  Multifocal hepatoblastoma in a 6-month-old girl with trisomy 18: a case report.  J Med Case Rep. 2009;3:8319. doi:10.4076/1752-1947-3-8319PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Cereda  A, Carey  JC.  The trisomy 18 syndrome.  Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012;7:81. doi:10.1186/1750-1172-7-81PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Chow  EJ, Friedman  DL, Mueller  BA.  Maternal and perinatal characteristics in relation to neuroblastoma.  Cancer. 2007;109(5):983-992. doi:10.1002/cncr.22486PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
van Engelen  K, Merks  JH, Lam  J,  et al.  Prevalence of congenital heart defects in neuroblastoma patients: a cohort study and systematic review of literature.  Eur J Pediatr. 2009;168(9):1081-1090. doi:10.1007/s00431-008-0891-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Botto  LD, Lin  AE, Riehle-Colarusso  T, Malik  S, Correa  A; National Birth Defects Prevention Study.  Seeking causes: classifying and evaluating congenital heart defects in etiologic studies.  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2007;79(10):714-727. doi:10.1002/bdra.20403PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Hutson  MR, Kirby  ML.  Neural crest and cardiovascular development: a 20-year perspective.  Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2003;69(1):2-13. doi:10.1002/bdrc.10002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Villani  A, Greer  MC, Kalish  JM,  et al.  Recommendations for cancer surveillance in individuals with RASopathies and other rare genetic conditions with increased cancer risk.  Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(12):e83-e90. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0631PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Baynam  GS, Goldblatt  J.  A child with an FGFR3 mutation, a laterality disorder and an hepatoblastoma: novel associations and possible gene-environment interactions.  Twin Res Hum Genet. 2010;13(4):297-300. doi:10.1375/twin.13.4.297PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Hu  J, McPherson  E, Surti  U, Hasegawa  SL, Gunawardena  S, Gollin  SM.  Tetrasomy 15q25.3 —> qter resulting from an analphoid supernumerary marker chromosome in a patient with multiple anomalies and bilateral Wilms tumors.  Am J Med Genet. 2002;113(1):82-88. doi:10.1002/ajmg.10708PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Soares  SB  Jr, Kaneko  M, Nakasu  S, Matsuda  M.  Craniosynostosis in association with medulloblastoma.  Nihon Geka Hokan. 1992;61(2):199-204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
40.
Passariello  A, De Brasi  D, Defferrari  R,  et al.  Constitutional 11q14-q22 chromosome deletion syndrome in a child with neuroblastoma MYCN single copy.  Eur J Med Genet. 2013;56(11):626-634. doi:10.1016/j.ejmg.2013.08.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Grose  R, Dickson  C.  Fibroblast growth factor signaling in tumorigenesis.  Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2005;16(2):179-186. doi:10.1016/j.cytogfr.2005.01.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Zhang  J, Walsh  MF, Wu  G,  et al.  Germline mutations in predisposition genes in pediatric cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2015;373(24):2336-2346. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1508054PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Küchler  EC, Sabóia  TM, Vieira  TC,  et al.  Studies of genes involved in craniofacial development and tumorigenesis: FGF3 contributes to isolated oral clefts and may interact with PAX9 Acta Odontol Scand. 2014;72(8):1070-1078. doi:10.3109/00016357.2014.903514PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Clarke  CA, Morton  LM, Lynch  C,  et al.  Risk of lymphoma subtypes after solid organ transplantation in the United States.  Br J Cancer. 2013;109(1):280-288. doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.294PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Lupo  PJ, Symanski  E, Chan  W,  et al.  Differences in exposure assignment between conception and delivery: the impact of maternal mobility.  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2010;24(2):200-208. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3016.2010.01096.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
June 20, 2019

Association Between Birth Defects and Cancer Risk Among Children and Adolescents in a Population-Based Assessment of 10 Million Live Births

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
  • 2Texas Children’s Cancer Center, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston
  • 3Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
  • 4Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • 5Department of Epidemiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
  • 6Arkansas Children’s Research Institute, Little Rock
  • 7Birth Defects Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch,Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin
  • 8Division for Vital Records and Health Statistics, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Lansing, Michigan
  • 9Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • 10School of Biological and Population Health Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis
  • 11Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
  • 12Smith Breast Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
  • 13Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Hudson College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City
  • 14Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
  • 15Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas
  • 16Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
  • 17Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
  • 18Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
  • 19Department of Epidemiology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
  • 20Department of Pediatrics, University of Florida College of Medicine Gainsville
  • 21Department of Epidemiology, University of Florida College of Medicine and College of Public Health and Health Professions, Gainesville
JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(8):1150-1158. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1215
Key Points

Question  What are the associations between specific birth defects and specific childhood cancers?

Findings  In a large population-based registry study of more than 10 million children in 4 states, assessment of cancer risk among children with birth defects identified, 40 specific birth defect–childhood cancer associations were identified that were statistically significant, including several novel associations. Cancer risk increased with an increasing number of major nonchromosomal birth defects.

Meaning  Children with nonchromosomal birth defects have an increased relative risk of cancer, although the absolute risk remains low at less than 1%.

Abstract

Importance  Birth defects affect approximately 1 in 33 children. Some birth defects are known to be strongly associated with childhood cancer (eg, trisomy 21 and acute leukemia). However, comprehensive evaluations of childhood cancer risk in those with birth defects have been limited in previous studies by insufficient sample sizes.

Objectives  To identify specific birth defect–childhood cancer (BD-CC) associations and characterize cancer risk in children by increasing number of nonchromosomal birth defects.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This multistate, population-based registry linkage study pooled statewide data on births, birth defects, and cancer from Texas, Arkansas, Michigan, and North Carolina on 10 181 074 children born from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2013. Children were followed up to 18 years of age for a diagnosis of cancer. Data were retrieved between September 26, 2016, and September 21, 2017, and data analysis was performed from September 2, 2017, to March 21, 2019.

Exposures  Birth defects diagnoses (chromosomal anomalies and nonchromosomal birth defects) recorded by statewide, population-based birth defects registries.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Cancer diagnosis before age 18 years, as recorded in state cancer registries. Cox regression models were used to generate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs to evaluate BD-CC associations and the association between number of nonchromosomal defects and cancer risk.

Results  Compared with children without any birth defects, children with chromosomal anomalies were 11.6 (95% CI, 10.4-12.9) times more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, whereas children with nonchromosomal birth defects were 2.5 (95% CI, 2.4-2.6) times more likely to be diagnosed with cancer before 18 years of age. An increasing number of nonchromosomal birth defects was associated with a corresponding increase in the risk of cancer. Children with 4 or more major birth defects were 5.9 (95% CI, 5.3-6.4) times more likely to be diagnosed with cancer compared with those without a birth defect. In the analysis of 72 specific BD-CC patterns, 40 HRs were statistically significant (adjusted P < .05) after accounting for multiple comparisons. Cancers most frequently associated with nonchromosomal defects were hepatoblastoma and neuroblastoma.

Conclusions and Relevance  Several significant and novel associations were observed between specific birth defects and cancers. Among children with nonchromosomal birth defects, the number of major birth defects diagnosed was significantly and directly associated with cancer risk. These findings could inform clinical treatment for children with birth defects and may elucidate mechanisms that lead to these complex outcomes.

Introduction

Globally, more than 250 000 children are diagnosed with cancer annually,1 and in the United States, cancer remains the leading cause of death by disease in persons younger than 20 years.2 Being born with a birth defect is one of the strongest known risk factors for cancer in children.3 For example, children with trisomy 21 have a 20-fold increased risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).4,5 Whereas the association between chromosomal anomalies and cancer is recognized, a growing number of studies indicate that children with nonchromosomal birth defects may also be at increased risk of developing cancer.4,6-14

Despite the recognized association between birth defects and childhood cancers in general, the ability to identify associations between specific birth defects (eg, craniosynostosis) and specific cancer subtypes (eg, hepatoblastoma) has been limited in previous studies by insufficient sample size given the relative infrequency of these diagnoses.4,7,9,14,15 In addition, findings from previous studies suggest there may be an association between the number of birth defects per child and cancer risk,14-16 but larger populations are needed to better investigate the extent to which having multiple birth defects is associated with increased risk. The identification of birth defect–childhood cancer (BD-CC) patterns contributes to our understanding of potentially shared origins,6,7 and the identification of previously unrecognized Mendelian disorders and may inform cancer surveillance or screening strategies for children with certain birth defects. To address this need, we established a diverse population-based birth cohort of more than 10 million births for January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2013, by pooling statewide data on births, birth defects, and cancer from Texas, Arkansas, Michigan, and North Carolina. We aimed to estimate cancer risk in children with chromosomal anomalies and nonchromosomal birth defects; identify novel and confirm previously reported BD-CC patterns; and evaluate whether cancer risk changes as the number of birth defects per child increases.

Methods
Study Design and Participants

Three data linkages were performed in each state: (1) birth defects registry to birth certificates; (2) cancer registry to birth certificates; and (3) birth defects registry to corresponding cancer registry. Linkages yielded 4 study groups: (1) children without a birth defect or cancer; (2) children with a birth defect but without cancer; (3) children without a birth defect but with cancer; and (4) children with both a birth defect and cancer. This study was approved by following regulatory bodies: Baylor College of Medicine institutional review board (IRB); Texas Department of State Health Services IRB; North Carolina Division of Public Health IRB; University of North Carolina Chapel Hill IRB; Arkansas Department of Health Scientific Advisory Committee; University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences IRB; and Michigan Department of Health and Human Services IRB. A waiver of consent was granted by the IRBs of all participating institutions because the study used existing, deidentified public health data and recontact of participants to obtain informed consent would not be possible given the scope of the study.

Birth Certificate Data

The study included all recorded live births in Texas from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2013 (n = 5 742 007); in Arkansas from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2011 (n = 629 086); in Michigan from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2011 (n = 2 570 403); and in North Carolina from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2012 (n = 1 239 578). Differences in study years reflect availability of data from state-specific registries. Demographic data, including self-reported maternal race/ethnicity, were obtained from birth certificates. Data were retrieved between September 26, 2016, and September 21, 2017, and data analysis was performed from September 2, 2017, to March 21, 2019.

Birth Defects Ascertainment

Birth defects surveillance systems in Texas, Arkansas, and North Carolina employ active ascertainment methods to identify infants and pregnancies with birth defects; passive ascertainment methods are used in Michigan. These methods have been described previously.4,17-21 Diagnoses were coded using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention modification of the British Paediatric Association Classification of Diseases and the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. Specific birth defects included in analyses were major birth defects19,20 included as part of the National Birth Defects Prevention Network annual report17 or the National Birth Defects Prevention Study.19

Childhood Cancer Ascertainment

Data on cancer site, morphologic features, behavior, and age at diagnosis were obtained from population-based cancer registries of the participating states. All these registries follow the standards of the National Program of Cancer Registries within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and are certified as to the completeness, timeliness, and quality of their data by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.22

The childhood cancer cases identified across the 4 states were coded into 12 major groups according to the International Classification of Childhood Cancer, third edition. The classification schema used is publicly available (https://seer.cancer.gov/iccc/iccc3_ext.html). Children diagnosed at younger than 18 years are included in the analysis. In the subset of 235 children with more than 1 cancer diagnosis, only the first primary cancer was considered.

Record Linkage

Individual records in the assembled birth cohort were linked across data sources using both deterministic and probabilistic linkage procedures by investigators from each participating state: Texas, M.A.C. and P.H.L.; Michigan, G.C.; North Carolina, T.A.D. and R.E.M.; and Arkansas, W.N.N. At least 95% of birth defect diagnoses and more than 75% of childhood cancer diagnoses across the cohort were matched to birth certificates.4,21,23 Linked data were then deidentified and provided to the primary investigators (P.J.L., J.M.S., with assistance with data cleaning and processing), who systematically cleaned and coded the data across states for analysis.

Statistical Analysis

Summary statistics describing the number of births, birth defects, and cancer diagnoses were calculated overall and by state (eTable 1 in the Supplement). Subsequent analyses were conducted separately among children with nonchromosomal defects (ie, children with no syndromic diagnosis [514 140], chromosomal anomalies [21 861], or single-gene disorders if indicated [3566]), with each group compared with the reference group of 9 641 507 children without a birth defect.

Owing to concern that the proportional hazards assumption might be violated,7 we evaluated Cox, Weibull, and log logistic regression models for time-to-event analyses. Because there were no differences across models (eTable 2 and eTable 3 in the Supplement), we computed Cox regression models to generate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for each BD-CC combination to be consistent with previous assessments.4,9,15 To comply with state data-suppression rules, measures of association were only computed when there were 5 or more cases of a BD-CC combination (resulting in 600 pairwise associations; eTable 4 in the Supplement). We also computed models for risk of any cancer, any malignant hematologic neoplasm, any central nervous system (CNS) tumor, and any non-CNS solid tumor according to the number of major nonchromosomal defects present. Person-years were calculated as time from birth to death, cancer diagnosis, or end of the study period in those alive without cancer (December 31, 2011, in Arkansas and Michigan; December 31, 2012, in North Carolina; and December 31, 2013, in Texas). Covariates evaluated in all models included maternal age, child sex, state of birth, and maternal race/ethnicity.24 In addition, models for hepatoblastoma, Wilms tumor, and ALL were adjusted for birth weight because of the well-established associations of these cancers compared with others (ie, risk for ALL and Wilms tumor risk increase in parallel with birth weight, whereas hepatoblastoma risk decreases as birth weight increases).25-27 Finally, models including ventricular septal defects, atrial septal defects, or patent ductus arteriosus were adjusted for birth weight and gestational age in sensitivity analyses because of the known associations of preterm birth with these cardiac phenotypes.19

We focused our reporting of specific BD-CC associations on those that were statistically significant after accounting for multiple comparisons. To identify these, we computed Bonferroni-Holm adjusted P values for birth defect variables in the subset of models from eTable 4 in the Supplement, which reported HRs for a specific cancer (N = 72 BD-CC associations) to fix the family-wise error rate at α = .05. Statistical analyses were performed in R version 3.3.3 using the survival, ggplot2, and survminer packages (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Associations between specific birth defects and specific childhood cancers were deemed statistically significant if their P value was below the critical value established by the Bonferroni-Holm multiple testing correction procedure. All P values were 2-sided.

Results

The numbers of births, diagnoses of birth defects, diagnoses of cancer, and diagnoses of both a birth defect and cancer (ie, co-occurring diagnoses) are presented in Table 1. Median length of follow-up was 8.5 years among children without birth defects and 8.1 years among children with birth defects. Overall, more than 530 000 children were diagnosed with at least 1 birth defect in our assessment. Compared with children without birth defects, those with chromosomal anomalies were 11.6 (95% CI, 10.4-12.9) times more likely to be diagnosed with any cancer in childhood or adolescence (Table 2). All chromosomal anomalies (ie, trisomy 13, 18, 21, and Turner syndrome) and all single-gene disorders with specific diagnostic codes included in these birth defects registries (ie, neurofibromatosis and tuberous sclerosis) were associated with an increased risk of cancer. In addition, after excluding those 2 groups (ie, those with any chromosomal anomalies or single-gene disorders), children with nonchromosomal birth defects were 2.5 (95% CI, 2.4-2.6) times more likely to be diagnosed with cancer (Table 2). All final models were adjusted for maternal age, child sex, and state of birth, because additional variables (ie, maternal race/ethnicity and plurality) did not influence BD-CC associations (eTable 5 in the Supplement). We further stratified our results by race/ethnicity and observed similar associations across all groups (eTable 6 in the Supplement). Nonchromosomal defects most strongly associated with cancer diagnosis included biliary atresia and spina bifida (Table 2; eTable 7 in the Supplement). The risk of specific cancers among children with any chromosomal anomaly and among children with any nonchromosomal birth defect is presented in eTable 8 in the Supplement.

We observed that as the number of major nonchromosomal birth defects per child increased, the risk of cancer also increased, with markedly greater risks among children with 2 or more major birth defects (Figure 1). This was true for any childhood cancer (Figure 1A) or when separately analyzed for hematologic cancers (Figure 1B), CNS tumors (Figure 1C), or non-CNS tumors (Figure 1D) (P for trend < .001 for each). Overall, children with 4 or more major birth defects were 5.9 (95% CI, 5.3-6.4) times more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than children without a birth defect. By evaluating the associations between specific cancer types and groups of birth defects, we made certain observations (Figure 2). For example, bone tumors were not associated with birth defects. In addition, some cancers, such as ALL, were associated with a few categories of birth defects, whereas others, such as germ cell tumors, were associated with defects in multiple organ systems.

Forty of the 72 BD-CC associations remained statistically significant after Bonferroni-Holm correction and adjustment for maternal age, child sex, state, and birth weight (Table 3 includes the top 25 associations, and eTable 9 in the Supplement includes all statistically significant associations). There were 5 specific associations between chromosomal anomalies or single-gene disorders and childhood cancers (Table 3): hepatoblastoma among children with trisomy 18; ALL and acute myeloid leukemia among children with trisomy 21; and astrocytoma and non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft-tissue sarcoma among children with neurofibromatosis. Thirty-five of the BD-CC associations included nonchromosomal defects. For example, children with several forms of nonchromosomal congenital heart disease had an increased risk of hepatoblastoma and neuroblastoma. These associations remained consistent and statistically significant when also adjusting for gestational age in models that included congenital heart disease phenotypes associated with preterm birth (data not shown). Hydrocephaly and obstructive genitourinary defects were each associated with risk of multiple cancers. Notably, hydrocephaly (a CNS congenital anomaly) was associated with 2 CNS tumors, astrocytoma and ependymoma. To address the potential of hydrocephaly secondary to cancers diagnosed within the first year of life, we restricted analyses to children diagnosed with hydrocephaly when younger than 1 year and with their tumor at older than 1 year; these associations remained statistically significant (eTable 10 in the Supplement).

Discussion

In this population-based cohort of more than 10 million births across 4 racially and ethnically diverse US states, we observed that children with chromosomal anomalies, as well as children with nonchromosomal birth defects, were more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than unaffected children. Notably, some of these associations were for cancers that are not typically considered part of cancer predisposition syndromes (eg, germ cell tumors; Figure 2), which could inform clinical review among these patients. Based on our findings and the overall prevalence of birth defects, approximately 9.2% of childhood cancers could be attributed to these conditions. However, the overall absolute risk of cancer in children with any birth defect is less than 1%. These estimates of absolute risk are much lower than for those with known single-gene cancer predisposition syndromes (eg, 15% cancer risk in TP53-associated Li-Fraumeni syndrome), because the genetic factors underlying birth defects are heterogenous.

Cancer Risk in Children With Chromosomal Anomalies

Our large study population allowed us to estimate the magnitude of risks between several chromosomal anomalies and childhood cancer with better precision. For example, although there have been case reports of hepatoblastoma28-30 and Wilms tumor31 among children with trisomy 18, we were able to provide what is to our knowledge the first population-based estimate of the association between trisomy 18 and hepatoblastoma (HR, 79.1; 95% CI, 27.7-226.2). In addition, although the association between trisomy 18 and Wilms tumor was not included in Table 3 owing to the number of co-occurring cases (ie, <5), there was also an association (HR, 51.2; 95% CI, 16.2-161.9) similar to hepatoblastoma. The absolute risk of cancer in children with chromosomal anomalies was highest for ALL among those with trisomy 21 (0.9%; eTable 11 in the Supplement).

Cancer Risk in Children With Nonchromosomal Birth Defects

We observed that an increasing number of major nonchromosomal birth defects were associated with an increasing risk of developing cancer independent of the category of cancer (hematologic cancers, CNS tumors, and non-CNS solid tumors). The risk increased particularly among those with 2 or more birth defects, although the absolute risk of developing cancer remains less than 1% in children with 4 or more major birth defects, because childhood cancer is a rare outcome (eTable 12 in the Supplement). The patterns of children with multiple birth defects and cancer identified through this study indicate the possibility of undiagnosed or as-yet-unrecognized cancer predisposition syndromes.13

Because of our sample size, we were able to conduct novel analyses of specific BD-CC associations, overcoming a limitation of previous registry linkage studies.4,6,7,15 The cancers most frequently associated with nonchromosomal defects were hepatoblastoma and neuroblastoma. This finding is consistent with previous hypotheses that embryonal tumors could be associated with developmental disruptions rather than with carcinogenic exposures, thereby sharing pathophysiologic features with birth defects.8,15 To our knowledge, few studies to date have evaluated shared pathways between these birth defects and embryonal tumors, and only a few syndromes associated with birth defects (eg, Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome) are known to be associated with an increased risk of certain embryonal tumors (eg, hepatoblastoma).27,28

Hepatoblastoma has been reported in other studies of cancer risk among children with birth defects.9,13,15 In a combined report by the Children’s Oncology Group and the Utah Population Database, genitourinary defects were associated with hepatoblastoma.28 This association was also reported in an independent study using data from Washington State.14 In these studies,14,28 congenital heart disease overall was also associated with hepatoblastoma, consistent with our findings that 4 different cardiac phenotypes were associated with hepatoblastoma risk. As noted, the mechanisms underlying these associations are unclear; however, these patterns could represent previously unidentified developmental disorders.8,14,28

Four of the 6 specific birth defect–neuroblastoma associations involved cardiac phenotypes. Although associations between congenital heart disease and neuroblastoma have been previously reported,8,32 results have been equivocal.33 This could be owing to heterogeneity among individual congenital heart disease phenotypes and the different origins (and potential cancer associations) therein.34 The association between congenital heart disease and neuroblastoma is biologically plausible because neural crest–derived cells are essential in cardiac development,34 and neuroblastoma originates from embryonal neural crest–derived cells.33 Neural crest cells play an important role in the septation of the outflow tract of the heart,35 which is consistent with the associations we observed specifically between ventricular outflow tract defects and neuroblastoma.

Another novel finding of our study was the observation of increased cancer risk in children with craniosynostosis. Previous population-based studies have not reported increased cancer risk in children with craniosynostosis,4,6,7,9,12,13 possibly owing to its low birth prevalence (6.3 per 10 000 live births).18 In the study by Botto et al,36 there was a nonsignificantly increased risk of any cancer among children with craniosynostosis. Craniosynostosis is not a characteristic birth defect in common cancer predisposition syndromes other than rare RECQL4-associated disorders. There are some case reports suggesting associations between craniosynostosis and hepatoblastoma,37 Wilms tumor,38 medulloblastoma,39 and neuroblastoma.40 Notably, fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) genes have been implicated in the development of craniosynostosis41 and it is suspected that they play a role in some childhood cancers.41,42 If validated, our findings may implicate genes related to craniofacial development in cancer risk.43

Finally, the association observed between biliary atresia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma may be attributable to liver transplant, immunosuppressive therapy, and subsequent lymphoma risk,44 underscoring the potential role of nongenetic exposures in certain BD-CC associations.

Limitations

Several limitations must be considered. Although procedures for cancer registries are consistent across states, there is less uniformity in birth defect surveillance procedures.17 To address differences by case ascertainment methodology (active vs passive), we evaluated the risk of specific cancers for children with birth defects in Texas (active) and Michigan (passive) separately and found consistent associations across these states (eTable 13 in the Supplement). Another potential concern is that during the diagnostic evaluation of children with cancer, birth defects may also be identified. To address this, we evaluated the associations restricted to children diagnosed with a birth defect at younger than 1 year and with cancer at older than 1 year in Texas and North Carolina (states only ascertaining birth defects through the first year of life). Twelve of the 13 BD-CC associations with 5 or more co-occurring diagnoses remained statistically significant, suggesting that ascertainment bias in children with cancer does not fully explain the observed associations (eTable 14 in the Supplement). Owing to limitations in linkage procedures, children who migrated away from their state of birth would be lost to follow-up; therefore, data from these children would not be appropriately censored or identified if they subsequently were diagnosed with cancer. However, data from our group suggest that there is nondifferential migration based on the presence or absence of a birth defect,45 which limits the possibility of differential misclassification.

Conclusions

Using a large and diverse population-based cohort, our results demonstrate precise estimates of cancer risk in children with chromosomal anomalies and nonchromosomal birth defects and observed that cancer risk increased with the number of birth defects reported per child. We described several novel BD-CC associations, including craniosynostosis and hepatoblastoma; pyloric stenosis and medulloblastoma; and several different cardiac phenotypes and neuroblastoma. The BD-CC patterns observed in our study may represent novel cancer predisposition syndromes. If further validated, our results may inform cancer surveillance protocols for early tumor detection in children with specific birth defects. Future studies should evaluate the molecular features of children with co-occurring birth defects and cancers to further elucidate the mechanisms that lead to these complex outcomes.

Back to top
Article Information

Accepted for Publication: March 8, 2019.

Published Online: June 20, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1215

Correction: This article was corrected August 8, 2019, to delete erroneous cohort totals in the Abstract that were included during the final stages of the editorial process, as well as to fix typographical errors in the Results section of the Abstract and Methods section of the article body.

Corresponding Author: Philip J. Lupo, PhD, MPH, Department of Pediatrics, Section of Hematology-Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, MS: BCM305, Houston, TX, 77030 (philip.lupo@bcm.edu).

Author Contributions: Drs Lupo and Schraw had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Lupo and Schraw contributed equally and are co–first authors.

Concept and design: Lupo, Schraw, Desrosiers, Canfield, Meyer, Oster, Schiffman, Mueller, Scheurer, Plon.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Lupo, Schraw, Desrosiers, Nembhard, Langlois, Canfield, Copeland, Meyer, Brown, Chambers, Sok, Danysh, Carozza, Sisoudiya, Hilsenbeck, Janitz, Oster, Scheuerle, Luo, Mian, Mueller, Huff, Rasmussen, Scheurer, Plon.

Drafting of the manuscript: Lupo, Schraw, Desrosiers, Nembhard.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Lupo, Schraw, Desrosiers, Nembhard, Brown, Chambers, Hilsenbeck, Janitz, Luo, Huff.

Obtained funding: Lupo, Desrosiers.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Lupo, Schraw, Canfield, Copeland, Meyer, Sok, Danysh, Sisoudiya, Janitz, Oster, Mueller, Scheurer, Plon.

Supervision: Lupo, Scheurer.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lupo reported receiving grants from the Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) and from Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr Schraw reported receiving grants from CPRIT during the conduct of the study. Dr Danysh reported receiving grants from Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation and from CPRIT during the conduct of the study. Ms Sisoudiya reported being a CPRIT trainee under the Baylor College of Medicine Comprehensive Cancer Training Program, funded by CPRIT, during the conduct of the study. Dr Hilsenbeck reported receiving grants from CPRIT and from Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation, and grants from NCI during the conduct of the study. Dr Schiffman reported receiving other support from ItRunsInMyFamily.com outside the submitted work. Dr Mueller reported receiving sub-award funding from Alex’s Lemonade Stand Childhood Cancer Foundation to conduct a similar project with different data source; the principal investigator of that project was Dr Lupo. Dr Plon reported receiving grants from CPRIT and from Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation during the conduct of the study and serving on the Scientific Advisory Board of Baylor Genetics Laboratories. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT RP140258, RP170071, RP160097, and RP160283), National Cancer Institute (CA125123), Arkansas Biosciences Institute, and Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: We would like to acknowledge the various state agencies that made this work possible, including the Texas Birth Defects Registry, Texas Cancer Registry, Texas Center for Health Statistics, Texas Department of State Health Services, Arkansas Reproductive Health Monitoring System, Arkansas Cancer Registry, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, North Carolina Central Cancer Registry, North Carolina Birth Defects Monitoring Program, North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics, and the North Carolina Division of Public Health. We would also like to acknowledge Marlena S. Bannick, BS, of the University of Washington for her input on the statistical methods. None of the contributors were compensated.

References
1.
Pritchard-Jones  K, Pieters  R, Reaman  GH,  et al.  Sustaining innovation and improvement in the treatment of childhood cancer: lessons from high-income countries.  Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(3):e95-e103. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70010-XPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Barr  RD, Ferrari  A, Ries  L, Whelan  J, Bleyer  WA.  Cancer in adolescents and young adults: a narrative review of the current status and a view of the future.  JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(5):495-501. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.4689PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Christianson  A, Howson  C, Modell  B.  Global Report on Birth Defects: The Hidden Toll of Dying and Disabled Children. White Plains, NY: March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation; 2006. Accessed June 25, 2018.
4.
Carozza  SE, Langlois  PH, Miller  EA, Canfield  M.  Are children with birth defects at higher risk of childhood cancers?  Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(12):1217-1224. doi:10.1093/aje/kwr470PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Hasle  H, Clemmensen  IH, Mikkelsen  M.  Risks of leukaemia and solid tumours in individuals with Down’s syndrome.  Lancet. 2000;355(9199):165-169. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)05264-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Agha  MM, Williams  JI, Marrett  L, To  T, Zipursky  A, Dodds  L.  Congenital abnormalities and childhood cancer.  Cancer. 2005;103(9):1939-1948. doi:10.1002/cncr.20985PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Janitz  AE, Neas  BR, Campbell  JE,  et al.  Childhood cancer in children with congenital anomalies in Oklahoma, 1997 to 2009.  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2016;106(7):633-642. doi:10.1002/bdra.23494PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Narod  SA, Hawkins  MM, Robertson  CM, Stiller  CA.  Congenital anomalies and childhood cancer in Great Britain.  Am J Hum Genet. 1997;60(3):474-485.PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Fisher  PG, Reynolds  P, Von Behren  J, Carmichael  SL, Rasmussen  SA, Shaw  GM.  Cancer in children with nonchromosomal birth defects.  J Pediatr. 2012;160(6):978-983. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.12.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Rankin  J, Silf  KA, Pearce  MS, Parker  L, Ward Platt  M.  Congenital anomaly and childhood cancer: a population-based, record linkage study.  Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008;51(5):608-612. doi:10.1002/pbc.21682PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Altmann  AE, Halliday  JL, Giles  GG.  Associations between congenital malformations and childhood cancer: a register-based case-control study.  Br J Cancer. 1998;78(9):1244-1249. doi:10.1038/bjc.1998.662PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Bjørge  T, Cnattingius  S, Lie  RT, Tretli  S, Engeland  A.  Cancer risk in children with birth defects and in their families: a population based cohort study of 5.2 million children from Norway and Sweden.  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17(3):500-506. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2630PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Dawson  S, Charles  AK, Bower  C, de Klerk  NH, Milne  E.  Risk of cancer among children with birth defects: a novel approach.  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2015;103(4):284-291. doi:10.1002/bdra.23364PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Norwood  MS, Lupo  PJ, Chow  EJ,  et al.  Childhood cancer risk in those with chromosomal and non-chromosomal congenital anomalies in Washington State: 1984-2013.  PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179006. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Botto  LD, Flood  T, Little  J,  et al.  Cancer risk in children and adolescents with birth defects: a population-based cohort study.  PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e69077. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069077PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Merks  JH, Ozgen  HM, Koster  J, Zwinderman  AH, Caron  HN, Hennekam  RC.  Prevalence and patterns of morphological abnormalities in patients with childhood cancer.  JAMA. 2008;299(1):61-69. doi:10.1001/jama.2007.66PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Lupo  PJ, Isenburg  JL, Salemi  JL,  et al; and The National Birth Defects Prevention Network.  Population-based birth defects data in the United States, 2010-2014: a focus on gastrointestinal defects.  Birth Defects Res. 2017;109(18):1504-1514. doi:10.1002/bdr2.1145PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Parker  SE, Mai  CT, Canfield  MA,  et al; National Birth Defects Prevention Network.  Updated national birth prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the United States, 2004-2006.  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2010;88(12):1008-1016. doi:10.1002/bdra.20735PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Rasmussen  SA, Olney  RS, Holmes  LB, Lin  AE, Keppler-Noreuil  KM, Moore  CA; National Birth Defects Prevention Study.  Guidelines for case classification for the National Birth Defects Prevention Study.  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2003;67(3):193-201. doi:10.1002/bdra.10012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
St Louis  AM, Kim  K, Browne  ML,  et al; National Birth Defects Prevention Network.  Prevalence trends of selected major birth defects: a multi-state population-based retrospective study, United States, 1999 to 2007.  Birth Defects Res. 2017;109(18):1442-1450. doi:10.1002/bdr2.1113PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Yoon  PW, Rasmussen  SA, Lynberg  MC,  et al.  The National Birth Defects Prevention Study.  Public Health Rep. 2001;116(suppl 1):32-40. doi:10.1093/phr/116.S1.32PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. About NAACCR. 2018; https://www.naaccr.org. Accessed 23 May, 2018.
23.
Danysh  HE, Mitchell  LE, Zhang  K, Scheurer  ME, Lupo  PJ.  Differences in environmental exposure assignment due to residential mobility among children with a central nervous system tumor: Texas, 1995-2009.  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2017;27(1):41-46. doi:10.1038/jes.2015.63PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Johnson  KJ, Lee  JM, Ahsan  K,  et al.  Pediatric cancer risk in association with birth defects: A systematic review.  PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0181246. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181246PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Bjørge  T, Sørensen  HT, Grotmol  T,  et al.  Fetal growth and childhood cancer: a population-based study.  Pediatrics. 2013;132(5):e1265-e1275. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-1317PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Caughey  RW, Michels  KB.  Birth weight and childhood leukemia: a meta-analysis and review of the current evidence.  Int J Cancer. 2009;124(11):2658-2670. doi:10.1002/ijc.24225PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Spector  LG, Birch  J.  The epidemiology of hepatoblastoma.  Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2012;59(5):776-779. doi:10.1002/pbc.24215PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Venkatramani  R, Spector  LG, Georgieff  M,  et al.  Congenital abnormalities and hepatoblastoma: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) and the Utah Population Database (UPDB).  Am J Med Genet A. 2014;164A(9):2250-2255. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.36638PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Pereira  EM, Marion  R, Ramesh  KH, Kim  JS, Ewart  M, Ricafort  R.  Hepatoblastoma in a mosaic trisomy 18 patient.  J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2012;34(4):e145-e148. doi:10.1097/MPH.0b013e3182459ee8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Kitanovski  L, Ovcak  Z, Jazbec  J.  Multifocal hepatoblastoma in a 6-month-old girl with trisomy 18: a case report.  J Med Case Rep. 2009;3:8319. doi:10.4076/1752-1947-3-8319PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Cereda  A, Carey  JC.  The trisomy 18 syndrome.  Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012;7:81. doi:10.1186/1750-1172-7-81PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Chow  EJ, Friedman  DL, Mueller  BA.  Maternal and perinatal characteristics in relation to neuroblastoma.  Cancer. 2007;109(5):983-992. doi:10.1002/cncr.22486PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
van Engelen  K, Merks  JH, Lam  J,  et al.  Prevalence of congenital heart defects in neuroblastoma patients: a cohort study and systematic review of literature.  Eur J Pediatr. 2009;168(9):1081-1090. doi:10.1007/s00431-008-0891-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Botto  LD, Lin  AE, Riehle-Colarusso  T, Malik  S, Correa  A; National Birth Defects Prevention Study.  Seeking causes: classifying and evaluating congenital heart defects in etiologic studies.  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2007;79(10):714-727. doi:10.1002/bdra.20403PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Hutson  MR, Kirby  ML.  Neural crest and cardiovascular development: a 20-year perspective.  Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2003;69(1):2-13. doi:10.1002/bdrc.10002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Villani  A, Greer  MC, Kalish  JM,  et al.  Recommendations for cancer surveillance in individuals with RASopathies and other rare genetic conditions with increased cancer risk.  Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(12):e83-e90. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0631PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Baynam  GS, Goldblatt  J.  A child with an FGFR3 mutation, a laterality disorder and an hepatoblastoma: novel associations and possible gene-environment interactions.  Twin Res Hum Genet. 2010;13(4):297-300. doi:10.1375/twin.13.4.297PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Hu  J, McPherson  E, Surti  U, Hasegawa  SL, Gunawardena  S, Gollin  SM.  Tetrasomy 15q25.3 —> qter resulting from an analphoid supernumerary marker chromosome in a patient with multiple anomalies and bilateral Wilms tumors.  Am J Med Genet. 2002;113(1):82-88. doi:10.1002/ajmg.10708PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Soares  SB  Jr, Kaneko  M, Nakasu  S, Matsuda  M.  Craniosynostosis in association with medulloblastoma.  Nihon Geka Hokan. 1992;61(2):199-204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
40.
Passariello  A, De Brasi  D, Defferrari  R,  et al.  Constitutional 11q14-q22 chromosome deletion syndrome in a child with neuroblastoma MYCN single copy.  Eur J Med Genet. 2013;56(11):626-634. doi:10.1016/j.ejmg.2013.08.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Grose  R, Dickson  C.  Fibroblast growth factor signaling in tumorigenesis.  Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2005;16(2):179-186. doi:10.1016/j.cytogfr.2005.01.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Zhang  J, Walsh  MF, Wu  G,  et al.  Germline mutations in predisposition genes in pediatric cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2015;373(24):2336-2346. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1508054PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Küchler  EC, Sabóia  TM, Vieira  TC,  et al.  Studies of genes involved in craniofacial development and tumorigenesis: FGF3 contributes to isolated oral clefts and may interact with PAX9 Acta Odontol Scand. 2014;72(8):1070-1078. doi:10.3109/00016357.2014.903514PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Clarke  CA, Morton  LM, Lynch  C,  et al.  Risk of lymphoma subtypes after solid organ transplantation in the United States.  Br J Cancer. 2013;109(1):280-288. doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.294PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Lupo  PJ, Symanski  E, Chan  W,  et al.  Differences in exposure assignment between conception and delivery: the impact of maternal mobility.  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2010;24(2):200-208. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3016.2010.01096.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
×