Increased Risk of Cancer among Siblings of Long-term Childhood Cancer Survivors: A Report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We determined risk of cancer among first-degree relatives of 5-year survivors of childhood leukemia, lymphoma, central nervous system tumors, sarcomas, Wilms' tumor, and neuroblastoma. Subjects were 13,703 participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Family history was collected on 56,759 first-degree relatives using a self-reported questionnaire. Incidence was compared with age- and sex-specific rates using the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program. Siblings of the survivors had an increased risk of cancer [standardized incidence ratio (SIR), 1.5; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.35-1.7]. Risk was elevated for siblings of probands of leukemia (SIR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6), Hodgkin's disease (SIR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (SIR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5), Wilms' tumor (SIR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.2), soft tissue sarcoma (SIR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2), and bone tumors (SIR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2). Cancer risk was elevated in siblings (SIR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.7) and offspring (SIR, 15.0; 95% CI, 5.3-42.9) of probands with second malignant neoplasms (SMN) compared with relatives of probands without SMNs. Siblings of probands with leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, neuroblastoma, and Wilms' tumor had elevated risks for the same malignancies. Parents had no increased risk (fathers' SIR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.7-0.8; mothers' SIR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.9-1.0). Seventy percent of siblings' cancers developed in adulthood. These findings suggest that familial cancer syndromes may be revealed as this cohort and family members age and with accrual of more offspring and subjects with SMNs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".