OK, you're making me really work for this answer.
There aren't a large number of publications on the matter. The age matter is normally targetted towards later maternal age at birth increasing risk to the *mother* not the child. Breast Dis. 2005-2006;24:17-35.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Jan;15(1):65-9.
Gynecol Oncol. 2005 Mar;96(3):583-93.
However, studies that have come out recently are showing an increased risk of breast cancer to the offspring certainly when paternal age is increased
BMC Cancer. 2005 Oct 31;5:143. This link is assumed to bedue to increased likelihood of germ cell mutations occurring later in life, since obviously the more exposure to mutagens the immature sperm receive whilst in the scrotum, the greater the likelihood that mutations can be passed on to fertilised offspring.
A recent paper not yet published on paper also gave indications that there could be increased risk to the offspring of getting receptor positive cancers if maternal age is high, though there was no significant correlation for tumour negative cancers. Since tumour positive cancers are easier to treat with chemotherapy than receptor negative tumours, due to there being more drug targets, this makes the problem less severe, though still worthy of more research.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006 Nov 18; [Epub ahead of print]
However, it should not be assumed that this evidence is conclusive, as there is equally valid conflicting evidence.
Cancer Causes Control. 1991 Jan;2(1):31-6. This very large study found no correlation between paternal age at all and the link with maternal age was only very slightly different. Plus this study had far higher numbers of participants, which increases the validity of the results.
So in answer, I would say that because the research is so conflicting, it will take time before a true and valid conclusion can be reached. One good and valid paper alone does not mean the conclusion is right, because as shown here, there are equally valid studies proving the opposite. Since most studies are very new (1-2 years old mostly) the answer is we don't really now.
As to the publicity, the risk factors are unnknown by the public because as the moment there can be no definite conclusion drawn. Should it be publicised? I have to say that doing so could cause alarm in certain quarters and perhaps result in a baby boom with women conceiving when they are not ready or don't have the resources to bruing up children simply to "beat the risk". Since we cannot make any definite conclusion, I would say not to stress the information until one way or another a true conclusion is reached. However, I do think the public could be informed that research is being carried out in the area to let them know that risks may be possible, and therefore they can then make an informed decision themselves based on easy to understand valid information made publicly available.
Comments
Good research. 6
by Drublic on January 7th, 2007
Cheers. Your name always makes me think of you as being medical.
by ChrisDG on January 7th, 2007
Nah, not really. I like to read about some of it, but know nothing. Although, engineering is similar to medical research in more ways than you'd think.
by Drublic on January 7th, 2007
Chris DG Thanks for doing all that research and explanation, please read the 2000 study which seems to say that many other studies found associations with maternal age and some with paternal age. These are the main studies I was referring to and they indicate that up 8 studies before the year 2000 found increased risk with maternal age and four other studies found a statistically significant relationship to paternal age. These are not simple studies to read or analyze,but this is old news and should be made public, in my opinion. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/152/12/1121 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1291359
by Fixated on paternal age research on January 7th, 2007
OK, I've read both articles. Firstly, both take great care to state that there has been good and valid evidence for both increased risk and no difference/reduced risk with parental age. So you cannot rely on the findings in these two studies alone. Furthermore, the size of the studies, whilst large, are both vastly smaller than some studies to the opposite. Secondly, even these two studies contradict each other, notably in the maternal age category. One states there is a linear increase in risk, as maternal age increases, so the highest risk is in the highest age bracket. The other states the risk is actually lowest in the oldest age bracket. There is also a discrepancy in the paternal age side of things, one states the risk is not at all increased until age>40, the other states is continually rises.
by ChrisDG on January 8th, 2007
So what I would say in summary, that I can understand your opinion that it should be made public information, but as I stated in my answer, at the moment there is no clear consensus on what the true relationship is. You could state there is a high risk, and if I had just read those references, I would be inclined to agree, but equally had you read of my references only the ones to the contrary you would agree there was no link. It is not like other illnesses that have a clear trend between risk and parental ages, so far I have to say that evidence both for and against a link is inconclusive at the moment. As to whether the public shuld be informed, well at the moment the scientific community is not informed one way or the other, so I stand by the last paragraph in my answer. Thanks for posting such an interesting topic by the way.
by ChrisDG on January 8th, 2007
ChrisDG Some epidemiologists in Bristol have written a paper you might not have read. http://press.psprings.co.uk/jech/october/851_ch45179.pdf
I don't think epidemiologists of this caliber would say things lightly.
by Fixated on paternal age research on January 8th, 2007
It's obviously an issue that nowadays needs to be taken very seriously since more and more families are opting to have children later. The problem with research is that it takes time. So that is any factor does begin to increase, such as paternal age, research won't really be valid until about five years at the earliest, simply for the time it takes to write and produce a study, recruitment, data colecrtion and analysis. And obviously in cases of cancer, this could prove to be a very long term study (since cancer is often considered an older age disease). It if good that research is and has been conducted, and I do agree that it makes sense for germline mutations to accumulate overtime. However as I said before, researchers of equal calibre and expertise, and often with more scientific knowledge that the epidemiologists, have also produced papers contradicting these. I'm not saying they're right, I'm saying at the moment we can't know for certain who's right.BTW why the interest?
by ChrisDG on January 8th, 2007
How about this older epidemiological research Chris, 1989 from the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University : J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(2):151-7. Links Epidemiologic evidence of perinatal influence in the etiology of adult cancers.Janerich DT, Hayden CL, Thompson WD, Selenskas SL, Mettlin C. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510. Using data from 5489 cancer patients and 2647 patients without cancer we investigated whether parental age at the birth of the patient or the patient's rank within his sibship was related to the risk of cancer during adulthood. An increase of 10 years in maternal age was associated with an increase of 24% for the incidence of breast cancer (odds ratio = 1.24%; 95% CI = 1.09-1.41); the corresponding increase for paternal age was 19% (odds ratio = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.07-1.33). There was some evidence that the age of each parent may make an independent contribution to the risk of breast cancer.. Chris who is going to inform the public? Who is interested in prevention? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2918324&dopt=Citation
by Fixated on paternal age research on January 11th, 2007
Who is going to inform the public? I don't know, I'm no politician. Who is interested in prevention - it's by far and away the better course of action over treatment in nearly all cases of illness, so the answer to this would be most conscious health professionals. However, you don't seem to be reading my comments properly. Simply deluging me with new research references will not work, because, as I have said before on multiple occasions on this topic, there is still masses of evidence to the contrary as well. And I currently do not commit myself to either point of view because there is in my mind no clearcut argument for one or the other. If you disagree, that is your prerogative. Let me make this clear, I am not saying you are wrong, I am simply saying that I don't know if you are right or not. And I repeat, why the interest?
by ChrisDG on January 11th, 2007
I am interested because I found that many, many chronic conditions increase with paternal age and this is not news to scientists. There is no money in prevention unless you own a sperm bank. Allan Pacey andrologist of Sheffield Uk understands this issue and advises couples to have their children as young as possible. It is a matter of seeing studies of many diseases of "mysterious" genetic origin and reading about what happens to sperm. 35 is biologically old for men as well as women.
by Fixated on paternal age research on January 11th, 2007
But advising couples to have their children as young as possible sounds rather extreme, as that would encourage couples of 16 years old, and even lower to have children. The disease rate may be lowered but the negative social effects would be drastic and affect a much larger population, causing what I would imagine would be a far greater disadvantage. I view health holistically, and the absence of disease does not mean good health. Personally I would say in their twenties would be better advice.
by ChrisDG on January 12th, 2007
Right on Chris, I am sure that's what Dr. Pacey meant. He is an andrologist and comes into contact with infertility issues and IVF. So his patients are not in their teens or even their twenties. The social conservatives in the US ( who keep this info to themselves) and the alternative, holistic health practioners here, and Dr, Susan Bewley http://www.guardian.co.uk/family/story/0,16371,1581842,00.html in the UK( from the point of view of women) all agree that the 20s are the best and that 35 is the general cut-off for fewer problems. I think your answer is great and I hope you become a holistic doctor and discuss this important issue with your patients. http://list.web.net/archives/mnchp-l/2004-April/000508.html
by Fixated on paternal age research on January 12th, 2007
Well, thanks. Good discussion.
by ChrisDG on January 12th, 2007