Skip to main content
Download PDF

Maternal smoking, consumption of alcohol, and caffeinated beverages during pregnancy and the risk of childhood brain tumors: a meta-analysis of observational studies

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 1238 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

We conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the potential association between maternal smoking, alcohol and caffeinated beverages consumption during pregnancy and the risk of childhood brain tumors (CBTs).

Methods

A thorough search was carried out on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Internet to identify pertinent articles. Fixed or random effects model was applied to meta-analyze the data.

Results

The results suggested a borderline statistically significant increased risk of CBTs associated with maternal smoking during pregnancy (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99–1.09). We found that passive smoking (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03–1.20), rather than active smoking (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93–1.07), led to an increased risk of CBTs. The results suggested a higher risk in 0–1 year old children (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.94–1.56), followed by 0–4 years old children (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97–1.28) and 5–9 years old children (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95–1.29). This meta-analysis found no significant association between maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy and CBTs risk (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80–1.24). An increased risk of CBTs was found to be associated with maternal consumption of caffeinated beverages (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07–1.26) during pregnancy, especially coffee (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00–1.38).

Conclusions

Maternal passive smoking, consumption of caffeinated beverages during pregnancy should be considered as risk factors for CBTs, especially glioma. More prospective cohort studies are warranted to provide a higher level of evidence.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

There is limited understanding regarding the etiology of childhood brain tumors (CBTs), which are the most common solid tumors among children [1]. Evidence from animal studies has led to a hypothesis that the central nervous system is susceptible to carcinogenesis during the prenatal period [2]. Maternal exposures during pregnancy might play a crucial role in the risk of CBTs, as reported in two recent meta-analyses [3, 4].

In 2022, the prevalence of tobacco use among females aged 15 years and older was 7.4% [5]. A cumulative count of 83 constituents found in tobacco and tobacco smoke, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines (TSNAs), have been categorized as carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) [6]. The IARC has classified parental smoking as a causal factor for childhood leukaemia and childhood hepatoblastoma [7]. Furthermore, the presence of carcinogens in tobacco smoke might exert a more pronounced impact on fetuses and young children due to their underdeveloped blood-brain barrier [2]. Therefore, maternal smoking during pregnancy might be a potential cause of CBTs. Findings from prior studies investigating the association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs have shown inconclusive results [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. In a meta-analysis published in 2014, no significant association was found between maternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of CBTs (odds ratio (OR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86–1.07) [42]. While, the latest meta-analysis reported that maternal smoking > 10 cigarettes per day during pregnancy (effect sizes 1.18, 95% CI 1.00–1.40) were associated with CBTs risk in cohort studies [4]. However, the four included cohort studies involve a duplicated population, leading to inaccurate results [43, 44]. In comparison to previous meta-analyses on this subject, the present study included more original studies with relatively high quality and avoided duplicated population. In addition, our current study also explored the correlation between maternal smoking during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs, while categorizing it by tumor category, quantity of cigarettes smoked, age at diagnosis, and the type of exposure (active/passive smoking).

In 2020, an estimated 4.1% of new cases of cancer worldwide were attributable to alcohol consumption [45]. Alcohol has been reported to be associated with various types of cancer, including liver cancer, colorectal cancer, and upper digestive tract tumors [46]. The exact mechanisms by which alcohol exerts carcinogenic effects are not fully understood. Possible mechanisms include the genotoxic effects of acetaldehyde, which can cause DNA damage [46, 47]. Alcohol can also cross the blood-brain barrier [48], which may be a risk factor for the central nervous system and warrant further investigation. Most studies suggest no significant association between maternal alcohol consumption and the risk of CBTs [12, 20, 29, 49,50,51]. While there are still some studies suggesting an increased risk, especially for beer consumption [11, 15, 52]. In this meta-analysis, we investigated the relationship between alcohol consumption during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs. Additionally, we conducted subgroup analyses based on the types of alcohol consumed and subtypes of brain tumors.

Coffee and tea are the most popular beverages worldwide. It has been reported that the consumption of coffee and tea is associated with various metabolic diseases, cardiovascular conditions, cancers, and so forth [53, 54]. Both coffee and tea contain caffeine [55]. The CARE Study Group has proved that caffeine is rapidly absorbed and readily passes the placental barrier [56]. Accumulating evidence from epidemiological studies showed that consumption of caffeine during pregnancy is associated with adverse gestational outcomes. In addition, caffeine exposure during pregnancy may induce epigenetic changes in the developing fetus [57]. Several studies have explored the association between maternal coffee and tea consumption during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs [29, 38, 50, 58,59,60,61]. However, the results are inconsistent. Evidence from the study conducted by Plichart et al. suggests that maternal consumption of coffee and tea during pregnancy might elevate the risk of CBTs [38]. Greenop et al. found that maternal consumption two or more cups of coffee a day during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of CBTs [60]. On the other hand, Pogoda et al. reported no associations between brain tumor risk and maternal consumption of caffeine, but the results suggested a borderline increased risk tendency [61]. While three others found no significant associations with coffee, tea, or caffeinated beverages [29, 58, 59]. In the present study, we meta-analyzed these data to further explore such relationship.

The present study aimed to investigate the potential association between maternal smoking, alcohol and caffeinated beverages consumption during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs.

Materials and methods

This meta-analysis follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [62].

Literature search strategy

A thorough search was carried out on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Internet to identify pertinent articles published between January 1980 and February 2024. In the literature search for exposure of interest, we respectively employed the following search terms: (((maternal) OR (parental) OR (prenatal) OR (during pregnancy)) AND ((smoking) OR (cigarette) OR (tobacco))), (((maternal) OR (parental) OR (prenatal) OR (during pregnancy)) AND (alcohol)), (((maternal) OR (parental) OR (prenatal) OR (during pregnancy)) AND ((coffee) OR (caffeine) OR (tea))). In the literature search for outcome of interest, the following search terms were used: ((medulloblastoma) OR (craniopharyngioma) OR (ependymoma) OR (glioma) OR (glioblastoma) OR (meningioma) OR (acoustic neuroma) OR (pituitary adenoma) OR ((brain) OR (central nervous system) OR (childhood brain) OR (pediatric brain) OR (infant brain) OR (adolescent brain)) AND ((cancer) OR (tumor) OR (neoplasm))).

Inclusion criteria and quality assessment

Following the PICOS principle, we applied the subsequent inclusion criteria: (1) The exposure of interest was maternal exposure to smoking, consumption of coffee, consumption of tea, and consumption of alcohol during pregnancy; (2) outcome of interest was CBTs; (3) case-control design or cohort design; (4) odds ratio (OR) or relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was available; (5) written in English or Chinese. News, meta-analysis, and reviews were eliminated. Two investigators (ZH.H. and JB.Y.) retrieved the articles independently. Disagreements were resolved by a third investigator (CX.H.). The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) [63]. Case-control studies with NOS scores less than 6 points and cohort studies with NOS scores less than 7 were excluded. Quality assessments were independently conducted by two researchers (ZH.H. and JB.Y.), and any disagreements were resolved by a third investigator (CX.H.).

Data extraction

The following information was collected from the studies included in the present study: the last name of the first author, publication year, study design, study region, age and gender of participants, age at entry (cohort study), time of enrollment (cohort study), year of diagnosis, tumor category, number of cases and/or controls, OR or relative risk (RR) with corresponding 95% CI, data collection method, details of matching and adjustments made. For studies involving overlapping participants, we selectively extracted information. For instance, participants from the study conducted by Norman et al. [17] were encompassed within the study conducted by Filippini et al. [22]. The general impact of maternal smoking on the risk of CBTs was obtained from the study conducted by Filippini et al. [22], while the effects of different quantities of smoking on CBTs risk were extracted from the study by Norman et al. [17]. Data extraction was carried out independently by two investigators (ZH.H. and JB.Y.), and any discrepancies were resolved by a third investigator (CX.H.).

Statistical analysis

Due to the relatively low incidence of brain tumors, the RR value exhibited a mathematical similarity to the OR value in the studies [64]. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity, the present study reported all effect sizes as OR values. We utilized either a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model to quantify the risk of brain tumors associated with maternal alcohol consumption, depending on the heterogeneity among studies [65]. Heterogeneity among the studies was assessed using the Q statistic and the I-squared (I2) value. The I2 value represents the portion of total variation attributed to differences among the studies rather than random error or chance. I2 values of 0%, 0–25%, 25–50%, and > 50% were categorized as indicating no, low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively [66, 67]. Influence analysis was conducted to assess the significant influence of each study on the combined results by excluding each study one at a time. Publication bias was assessed using either Begg’s test (n ≥ 10) or Egger’s test (n < 10) depending on the number of involved studies [68]. Funnel plot was also conducted to evaluate the publication bias. All analyses were conducted using Stata 12.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas, USA).

Results

Maternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of CBTs

Study selection and study characteristics

Following the retrieval strategy (Fig. 1A), this study includes 22 citations [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. Among these, 20 are research articles [9, 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29] with 17 case-control studies [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23, 25, 28, 29] and 3 cohort studies [24, 26, 27], while 2 are comprised of comment-response pairs [8, 10]. The comments by McKinney et al. [8] and the response by Stjernfeldt et al. [10] provided supplementary data for the studies conducted by Sorahan et al. [21] and Stjernfeldt et al. [9]. The detailed characteristics of these studies are summarized in Table 1. The detailed NOS is shown in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of study inclusion and exclusion. (A) Flow diagram of study assessment and selection on the association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and CBTs Risk. (B) Flow diagram of study assessment and selection on the association between maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy and CBTs Risk. (C) Flow diagram of study assessment and selection on the association between maternal consumption of caffeinated beverages during pregnancy and CBTs Risk. CBTs, childhood brain tumors

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of included studies investigating the relationship between maternal smoking during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs
Full size table

Overall effect of maternal smoking during pregnancy on the risk of CBTs

The meta-analyzed results suggested that maternal smoking during pregnancy was associated with a 4% increased risk of CBTs, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99–1.09, I2 24.3%) (Fig. 2A). In addition, similar trends were seen in both case-control studies (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97–1.08, I2 23.9%) and cohort studies (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98–1.28, I2 25.4%) (Fig. 2A). Figure 2B illustrates the findings from the influence analysis. Begg’s test did not identify any significant publication bias (p = 0.84), and the corresponding funnel plot is presented in Fig. 2C.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot, influence analysis and Begg’s funnel plot. (A) Forest plot of the association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of CBTs. (B) Influence analysis on the meta-analyzed results by omitting each study. (C) Begg’s funnel plot. (D) Forest plot of the association between maternal active smoking during pregnancy and risk of CBTs. (E) Forest plot of the association between maternal passive smoking during pregnancy and risk of CBTs. CBTs, childhood brain tumors; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; a, 1–9 cigarettes/day; b, ≥ 10 cigarettes/day; c, 1–10 cigarettes/day; d, ≥ 11 cigarettes/day; e, < 1 pack/day; f, ≥ 1 pack/day; g, astrocytoma; h, primitive neuroectodermal tumor; i, conception period: the weeks before the mother learned she was pregnant during pregnancy; j, the period comprising the weeks after the mother knew she was pregnant; k, 11–20 cigarettes/day; l, > 20 cigarettes/day; m, 1–19 cigarettes/day; n, ≥ 20 cigarettes/day; *, exposed to maternal smoking; #, exposed to paternal smoking or maternal passive smoking

Full size image

Subgroup analysis of the association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of CBTs

No significant association was found between maternal active smoking during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93–1.07, I2 13.2%) (Fig. 2D). However, an increased risk of CBTs (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03–1.20, I2 37.0%) (Fig. 2E) was observed with maternal passive smoking during pregnancy. In addition, from the presented data (Fig. 3A), we observed a consistent trend indicating an association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and CBTs risk stratified by age at diagnosis. Specifically, a trend was noticed showing an elevated risk of CBTs in younger age groups exposed to maternal smoking during pregnancy. The results suggested a higher risk in 0–1 year old children (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.94–1.56, I2 35.4%) (Fig. 3A), followed by 0–4 years old children (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97–1.28, I2 21.5%) (Figs. 3) and 5–9 years old children (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95–1.29, I2 9.5%) (Fig. 3A), albeit these associations did not reach statistical significance. Notably, no observable association was found between maternal smoking during pregnancy and the occurrence of CBTs among children older than 10 years (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88–1.21, I2 0.0) (Fig. 3A). Therefore, the trend indicates a potential correlation where younger age at exposure to maternal smoking during pregnancy may correspond to an increased likelihood of CBTs risk.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of the subgroup analysis of the association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of CBTs. (A) Forest plot of the association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of CBTs stratified by age at diagnosis. (B) Forest plot of the association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of CBTs stratified by tumor category. (C) Forest plot of the association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of CBTs stratified by quantity of cigarettes smoked. CBTs, childhood brain tumors; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; a, 1–9 cigarettes/day; b, ≥ 10 cigarettes/day; c, 0–1 years old; d, 2–4 years old; e, 10–14 years old; f, 15–19 years old; g, < 1 pack/day; h, ≥ 1 pack/day; i, conception period: the weeks before the mother learned she was pregnant during pregnancy; j, the period comprising the weeks after the mother knew she was pregnant; k, 1–10 cigarettes/day; l, 11–20 cigarettes/day; m, astrocytoma; n, ependymoma; o, astroglial tumor; p, other glial tumor; q, > 20 cigarettes/day; r, < 5 cigarettes/day; s, 5–10 cigarettes/day; t, ≥ 20 cigarettes/day; u, ≥ 15 cigarettes/day; *, exposed to maternal smoking; #, exposed to paternal smoking or maternal passive smoking

Full size image

We also investigated the association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs, stratified by tumor category (Fig. 3B) and the number of cigarettes smoked (Fig. 3C). The results suggested that maternal smoking during pregnancy is associated with increased risk of glioma (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05–1.25, I2 30.6) (Fig. 3B). While no significant association was found between maternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of embryonal tumors (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.89–1.29, I2 0.0) (Fig. 3B). Moreover, the ORs for the association between CBTs risk and maternal smoking during pregnancy were 1.09 (95% CI, 0.97–1.21, I2 35.5%) (Fig. 3C) for 1–10 cigarettes per day and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.91–1.19, I2 3.7%) (Fig. 3C) for > 10 cigarettes per day, respectively.

Maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs

Following the retrieval strategy (Fig. 1B), 8 case-control studies were involved. The detailed characteristics of these studies are summarized in Table 2. The detailed NOS is shown in Supplementary Table 3. Overall, this meta-analysis found no significant association between maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy and CBTs risk (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80–1.24, I2 54.1) (Fig. 4A). Figure 4B presents the results of the influence analysis. Egger’s test did not reveal any significant publication bias (p = 0.442), and the corresponding funnel plot is depicted in Fig. 4C.

Table 2 Characteristics of included studies investigating the relationship between maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs
Full size table
Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot, influence analysis and Begg’s funnel plot. (A) Forest plot of the association between maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy and risk of CBTs. (B) Influence analysis on the meta-analyzed results by omitting each study. (C) Begg’s funnel plot. (B) Forest plot of the association between maternal consumption of beer/wine during pregnancy and risk of CBTs. (D) Forest plot of the association between maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy and risk of CBTs stratified by tumor category. CBTs, childhood brain tumors; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; a, astrocytoma; b, primitive neuroectodermal tumor; c, consumption of beer; d, consumption of wine; e, 1–7 glasses/week; f, > 7 glasses/week; g, ependymoma; h, other glioma

Full size image

The ORs for the association between CBTs risk and maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy were 0.87 (95% CI 0.72–1.05, I2 0.0) (Fig. 4D) for wine consumption and 1.07 (95% CI 0.84–1.37, I2 20.8) (Fig. 4D) for beer consumption. In subgroup analysis stratified by tumor category, no significant association was found between maternal consumption of alcohol and risk of glioma (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73–1.39, I2 60.2) (Fig. 4E). In addition, a 12% higher risk of embryonal (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84–1.49, I2 0.0) (Fig. 4E), even though not statistically significant, was found for maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy.

Maternal consumption of coffee and/or tea during pregnancy and CBTs risk

Based on the retrieval strategy (Fig. 1C), a total of 5 case-control studies were included. The detailed characteristics of the involved studies are summarized in Table 3. The detailed NOS is shown in Supplementary Table 4. In our meta-analysis, increased risk of CBTs was found to be associated with maternal consumption of caffeinated beverages (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07–1.26, I2 0.0) (Fig. 5A). In addition, maternal consumption of coffee (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00–1.38, I2 0.0) during pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of CBTs. While, no significant association was found between maternal consumption of tea and risk of CBTs (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90–1.24, I2 0.0) (Fig. 5A). Figure 5B presents the results of the influence analysis. Egger’s test did not reveal any significant publication bias (p = 0.743), and the corresponding funnel plot is depicted in Fig. 5C. In subgroup analysis, we found that increased risk of glioma is associated with maternal consumption of caffeinated beverages during pregnancy (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04–1.27, I2 0.0) (Fig. 5D). The summary of the results in this study is shown in Table 4.

Table 3 Characteristics of included studies investigating the relationship between maternal consumption of caffeinated beverages during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs
Full size table
Table 4 Summary of the results of this study
Full size table
Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot, influence analysis and Begg’s funnel plot. (A) Forest plot of the association between maternal consumption of caffeinated beverages during pregnancy and risk of CBTs. (B) Influence analysis on the meta-analyzed results by omitting each study. (C) Begg’s funnel plot. (D) Forest plot of the association between maternal consumption of caffeinated beverages during pregnancy and risk of childhood glioma. CBTs, childhood brain tumors; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; a, 1 to 7 coffee equivalents per week; b, 8 to 14 coffee equivalents per week; c, > 14 coffee equivalents per week; d, 2nd exposure level; e, 3rd exposure level; f, 4th exposure level; g, astrocytoma; h, ependymoma; i, other glioma; *, coffee consumption; # tea consumption

Full size image

Discussion

Smoking, alcohol consumption, and consumption of caffeinated beverages have become common lifestyles for people. In recent decades, studies have explored the relationship between maternal exposure to these factors during pregnancy and the risk of childhood brain tumors, the most common solid tumor in children. This study aimed to compile data to provide clues and evidence for the prevention of childhood brain tumors.

Maternal smoking during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs

Findings from prior studies investigating the association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs have shown inconclusive results. The results of the current meta-analysis indicated a borderline statistically significant increased risk of CBTs associated with maternal smoking during pregnancy (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99–1.09), which is inconsistent with previous meta-analyses [4, 42] and the results from the conference in 2022 [69]. Furthermore, the meta-analyzed results of cohort studies also showed increased risk of CBTs (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98–1.28). However, the three prospective studies which largely avoided recall bias all lacked data on potential confounding factors that could impact the risk of CBTs [24, 26, 27]. Findings derived from the large Swedish cohort study indicate that while maternal smoking during pregnancy has a limited overall effect on risk of CBTs, it may increase the risk of astrocytomas [27]. When we conducted subgroup analyses for active and passive smoking during pregnancy separately, we found that passive smoking (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03–1.20), rather than active smoking (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93–1.07), led to an increased risk of CBTs. Some studies demonstrated that passive smoking, but not active smoking, is associated with increased risk of some cancers [70, 71]. While, some studies reported that both active smoking and passive smoking increased cancer risk [72, 73]. However, these findings do not imply encouragement for active smoking during pregnancy. Such results may be influenced by confounding factors, although it cannot be ruled out that women might have a higher tolerance for active smoking.

In this meta-analysis, for studies that did not explicitly specify passive smoking, maternal exposure to paternal smoking during pregnancy was defined as passive smoking. Furthermore, a statistically significant association was identified in cases of glioma (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05–1.25). Additionally, in this study, no dose-response relationship was found between the number of cigarettes smoked by mothers during pregnancy and the risk of brain tumor incidence. These results suggest that during pregnancy, reducing the amount or frequency of smoking may not decrease the risk of childhood brain tumors. Instead, quitting smoking is necessary. In the present study, we also noticed a consistent pattern suggesting a link between maternal smoking during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs, particularly in younger age groups at the time of diagnosis. In addition, mothers who smoked during pregnancy are more likely to smoke after delivery. Therefore, it can also be further speculated that maternal smoking during pregnancy may have a greater impact on the child than after delivery.

Maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy and risk of CBTs

Our meta-analysis did not find any statistically significant association between maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy and the incidence of CBTs (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83–1.32). Interestingly, when we conducted subgroup analysis on different types of alcohol consumption, we observed a trend indicating a potential decreased risk of CBTs with wine consumption (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72–1.05), although this finding did not reach statistical significance. Unlike other alcoholic beverages, low-to-moderate wine consumption can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and lower the risk of certain tumors [74, 75]. However, there is still insufficient evidence at present to definitively classify consumption of wine as part of a healthy lifestyle. Howe et al. and Bunin et al. found that maternal beer consumption during pregnancy is associated with increased risk of CBTs [11, 15]. However, the results of the present meta-analysis suggested no statistically significant association (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.89–1.44). Furthermore, neither glioma risk (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73–1.39) nor embryonal tumor risk (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84–1.49) was significantly associated with maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy.

While our meta-analysis suggests that there is no significant association between maternal alcohol consumption and the risk of CBTs, it is important to interpret these conclusions cautiously due to the fact that all the studies included in our analysis were case-control studies. Additionally, the number of studies included in this meta-analysis is small, highlighting the need for larger and less biased studies in the future to validate these findings. Specifically, prospective cohort studies would be valuable in providing more robust evidence regarding the potential link between maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs. Furthermore, it is important to note that while some current research results suggest that moderate alcohol consumption may reduce the risk of CBTs, it does not change the overall understanding of alcohol’s impact on public health. The World Health Organization still considers alcohol to increase the risk of cancer, regardless of the amount consumed [76, 77]. There is strong evidence linking alcohol consumption to an increased risk of breast, liver, oral, and colorectal cancer in adults [78, 79]. Therefore, it is still advisable to avoid alcohol consumption during pregnancy since it is related with cognitive defects and fetal alcohol spectrum disorders [80].

Maternal caffeinated beverages consumption during pregnancy and risk of CBTs

Due to the limited number of studies investigating the relationship between maternal consumption of caffeinated beverages during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs, as well as the inclusion of studies utilizing overlapping population data that needed to be excluded [38, 50], only five case-control studies were involved in the present meta-analysis [29, 58,59,60,61]. Among these studies, two of them reported the intake of coffee and tea [29, 60]. As both coffee and tea contain caffeine, in these studies, coffee and tea were categorized as caffeinated beverages [55]. The remaining three studies classified caffeine as the exposure factor but did not specifically report the information of coffee and tea consumption [58, 59, 61]. Our results indicate that maternal caffeinated beverages consumption during pregnancy may increase the risk of CBTs (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07–1.26). Subgroup analysis of tumor category showed a similar trend in gliomas (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04–1.27), which is consistent with the conclusions of two previous meta-analyses on the relationship between coffee and tea intake and the risk of adult gliomas [81, 82]. No significant association was found between tea consumption during pregnancy and the risk of CBTs (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90–1.24). Differences in manufacturing processes and different types of coffee and tea may play different roles in the progression of cancer [83]. Individuals may also change their preference for coffee types, and different conclusions may be drawn due to regional differences in coffee preferences. However, currently, there is a lack of research on the risk of CBTs associated with maternal consumption of different types of coffee.

Until now, no explicit explanations have been given to explain the association between maternal caffeinated beverages consumption and increased risk of CBTs. Both coffee and tea contain caffeine. Caffeine and its related substances could inhibit DNA topoisomerase II (topo II), which plays an important role in cell growth and division [84]. Topo II inhibition may result in chromosomal aberrations and translocations, speculated to contribute to the pathogenesis of infant tumors. Ross et al. reported a positive association between maternal intake of Topo II inhibitors during pregnancy and the development of infant tumors [85]. On one hand, numerous studies suggest that caffeine consumption might act as a protective factor against various cancers [86,87,88]. On the other hand, several observational studies and most Mendelian Randomization studies did not provide sufficient evidence for a causal role of coffee or caffeine on these health outcomes [89,90,91].

Bias, limitations and strengths

The following aspects might contribute to bias to the involved original studies: (1) Most of the involved studies were case-control studies which cannot avoid recall bias. It is difficult for parents to correctly remember their lifestyle 10 years (or more) before the studies. In addition, case mothers were more likely to over-report their exposure because they might be more inclined to consider smoking and consumption of beverages (alcohol, coffee, or tea) as a risk factors. (2) Mothers might under-report their exposure to smoking and beverages (alcohol, coffee, or tea) during pregnancy because they may not want to admit or be accused of harming the child. (3) About 20–50% of female smokers attempt to quit smoking during pregnancy, but half of them will fail. Women who fail to quit smoking typically go through a cycle of trying to decrease or quit, then relapsing, and making renewed attempts to quit. Therefore, in this situation, it is difficult for the studies to collect precise information about smoking [92, 93]. In addition, mothers who smoked during pregnancy are more likely to smoke also before conception and after delivery. However, the present study did not explore the association between maternal smoking before conception, after delivery and risk of CBTs. (4) Women classified as nonsmokers might have been exposed to passive smoking, potentially diminishing the effect of maternal smoking during pregnancy. (5) There is a possibility that children with CBTs, exposed to parental smoking, may be more active and may more frequently go to the hospital for physical examination, which might bring selection bias to the studies.

This study has some limitations: (1) The majority of the studies involved in the current meta-analysis were case-control studies, demonstrating an association rather than causality. (2) Some involved studies reported the data that could be used for subgroup analysis, while some other studies did not report such data. Thus, the results of subgroup analyses may not represent all the populations of the involved studies. (3) The number of studies regarding maternal alcohol and caffeinated beverages consumption, as well as the sample sizes in many subgroup analyses, is still insufficient. (4) Mothers exposed to maternal smoking and consumption of beverages during pregnancy are more likely to be exposed to these factors both before conception and after delivery. However, the current study did not investigate the correlation between exposure to these factors before conception, post-delivery, and the risk of CBTs. Therefore, these findings cannot precisely represent the exposure of mothers during pregnancy.

The strengths of this study include: (1) The present study is the largest meta-analysis to date that investigated the association between maternal smoking, alcohol, and caffeinated beverages consumption during pregnancy and risk of CBTs. In this study, we performed a comprehensive literature search. We reviewed the references of relevant literature to avoid any omissions. In addition, quality control was conducted on the literature. (2) This meta-analysis avoided the inclusion of duplicate populations when combining effect sizes. (3) We conducted multiple subgroup analyses to further investigate the relationship between exposure factors and the disease.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the current meta-analysis revealed an association between passive smoking during pregnancy, rather than active smoking during pregnancy, and an increased risk of CBTs. Furthermore, maternal smoking during pregnancy is associated with an elevated risk of childhood glioma. In addition, a trend was noticed showing an elevated risk of CBTs in younger age groups exposed to maternal smoking during pregnancy. Moreover, maternal caffeinated beverages consumption is associated with an increased risk of CBTs, especially glioma. The results of the present meta-analysis suggest no significant association between maternal alcohol consumption and the risk of CBTs. Because of the limitations of the present study, more large well-designed prospective cohort studies and Mendelian Randomization studies with large sample size are warranted to provide a higher level of evidence.

Data Availability

The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Steliarova-Foucher E, Colombet M, Ries LAG, Moreno F, Dolya A, Bray F, et al. International incidence of childhood cancer, 2001-10: a population-based registry study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(6):719–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Rice JM, Ward JM. Age dependence of susceptibility to carcinogenesis in the nervous system. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1982;381:274–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chiavarini M, Naldini G, Fabiani R. Maternal folate intake and risk of Childhood Brain and spinal cord tumors: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Neuroepidemiology. 2018;51(1–2):82–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Onyije FM, Dolatkhah R, Olsson A, Bouaoun L, Deltour I, Erdmann F, et al. Risk factors for childhood brain tumours: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies from 1976 to 2022. Cancer Epidemiol. 2023;88:102510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Organization WH. WHO global report on trends in prevalence of tobacco use 2000–2030 2024/01/16. 135 p.

  6. Li Y, Hecht SS. Carcinogenic components of tobacco and tobacco smoke: a 2022 update. Food Chem Toxicol. 2022;165:113179.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Humans IWGotEoCRt. Personal habits and indoor combustions. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 2012;100(Pt E):1–538.

    Google Scholar 

  8. McKinney PA, Stiller CA, Dahlquist G, Wall S, Buckley JD, Hobbie WL, et al. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and the risk of childhood cancer. Lancet (London England). 1986;2(8505):519–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stjernfeldt M, Berglund K, Lindsten J, Ludvigsson J. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of childhood cancer. Lancet (London England). 1986;1(8494):1350–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stjernfeldt M, Ludvigsson J, Berglund K, Lindsten J. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and the risk of childhood cancer. Lancet (London England). 1986;2(8508):687–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Howe GR, Burch JD, Chiarelli AM, Risch HA, Choi BC. An exploratory case-control study of brain tumors in children. Cancer Res. 1989;49(15):4349–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kuijten RR, Bunin GR, Nass CC, Meadows AT. Gestational and familial risk factors for childhood astrocytoma: results of a case-control study. Cancer Res. 1990;50(9):2608–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. John EM, Savitz DA, Sandler DP. Prenatal exposure to parents’ smoking and childhood cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;133(2):123–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gold EB, Leviton A, Lopez R, Gilles FH, Hedley-Whyte ET, Kolonel LN, et al. Parental smoking and risk of childhood brain tumors. Am J Epidemiol. 1993;137(6):620–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bunin GR, Buckley JD, Boesel CP, Rorke LB, Meadows AT. Risk factors for astrocytic glioma and primitive neuroectodermal tumor of the brain in young children: a report from the children’s Cancer Group. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1994;3(3):197–204.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Filippini G, Farinotti M, Lovicu G, Maisonneuve P, Boyle P. Mothers’ active and passive smoking during pregnancy and risk of brain tumours in children. Int J Cancer. 1994;57(6):769–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Norman MA, Holly EA, Ahn DK, Preston-Martin S, Mueller BA, Bracci PM. Prenatal exposure to tobacco smoke and childhood brain tumors: results from the United States West Coast childhood brain tumor study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1996;5(2):127–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Filippini G, Farinotti M, Ferrarini M. Active and passive smoking during pregnancy and risk of central nervous system tumours in children. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2000;14(1):78–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hu J, Mao Y, Ugnat AM. Parental cigarette smoking, hard liquor consumption and the risk of childhood brain tumors–a case-control study in northeast China. Acta Oncol (Stockholm Sweden). 2000;39(8):979–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Schuz J, Kaletsch U, Kaatsch P, Meinert R, Michaelis J. Risk factors for pediatric tumors of the central nervous system: results from a German population-based case-control study. Med Pediatr Oncol. 2001;36(2):274–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sorahan T, McKinney PA, Mann JR, Lancashire RJ, Stiller CA, Birch JM, et al. Childhood cancer and parental use of tobacco: findings from the inter-regional epidemiological study of childhood cancer (IRESCC). Br J Cancer. 2001;84(1):141–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Filippini G, Maisonneuve P, McCredie M, Peris-Bonet R, Modan B, Preston-Martin S, et al. Relation of childhood brain tumors to exposure of parents and children to tobacco smoke: the SEARCH international case-control study. Surveillance of environmental aspects related to Cancer in humans. Int J Cancer. 2002;100(2):206–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pang D, McNally R, Birch JM. Parental smoking and childhood cancer: results from the United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study. Br J Cancer. 2003;88(3):373–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Stavrou EP, Baker DF, Bishop JF. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and childhood cancer in New South Wales: a record linkage investigation. Cancer Causes Control. 2009;20(9):1551–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Milne E, Greenop KR, Scott RJ, Ashton LJ, Cohn RJ, de Klerk NH, et al. Parental smoking and risk of childhood brain tumors. Int J Cancer. 2012;133(1):253–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Heck JE, Contreras ZA, Park AS, Davidson TB, Cockburn M, Ritz B. Smoking in pregnancy and risk of cancer among young children: a population-based study. Int J Cancer. 2016;139(3):613–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Tettamanti G, Ljung R, Mathiesen T, Schwartzbaum J, Feychting M. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and the risk of childhood brain tumors: results from a Swedish cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol. 2016;40:67–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vienneau D, Infanger D, Feychting M, Schuz J, Schmidt LS, Poulsen AH, et al. A multinational case-control study on childhood brain tumours, anthropogenic factors, birth characteristics and prenatal exposures: a validation of interview data. Cancer Epidemiol. 2016;40:52–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bailey HD, Lacour B, Guerrini-Rousseau L, Bertozzi AI, Leblond P, Faure-Conter C, et al. Parental smoking, maternal alcohol, coffee and tea consumption and the risk of childhood brain tumours: the ESTELLE and ESCALE studies (SFCE, France). Cancer Causes Control. 2017;28(7):719–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Neutel CI, Buck C. Effect of smoking during pregnancy on the risk of cancer in children. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1971;47(1):59–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pershagen G, Ericson A, Otterblad-Olausson P. Maternal smoking in pregnancy: does it increase the risk of childhood cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 1992;21(1):1–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. McCredie M, Maisonneuve P, Boyle P. Antenatal risk factors for malignant brain tumours in New South Wales children. Int J Cancer. 1994;56(1):6–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Linet MS, Gridley G, Cnattingius S, Nicholson HS, Martinsson U, Glimelius B, et al. Maternal and perinatal risk factors for childhood brain tumors (Sweden). Cancer Causes Control. 1996;7(4):437–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pogoda JM, Preston-Martin S. Household pesticides and risk of pediatric brain tumors. Environ Health Perspect. 1997;105(11):1214–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Schuz J, Kaatsch P, Kaletsch U, Meinert R, Michaelis J. Association of childhood cancer with factors related to pregnancy and birth. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28(4):631–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Brooks DR, Mucci LA, Hatch EE, Cnattingius S. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of brain tumors in the offspring. A prospective study of 1.4 million Swedish births. Cancer Causes Control. 2004;15(10):997–1005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pavlovic MV, Jarebinski MS, Pekmezovic TD, Janicijevic MA. Risk factors from brain tumors in children and adolescents: a case-control study in Belgrade, Serbia. Eur J Neurol. 2005;12(7):508–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Plichart M, Menegaux F, Lacour B, Hartmann O, Frappaz D, Doz F, et al. Parental smoking, maternal alcohol, coffee and tea consumption during pregnancy and childhood malignant central nervous system tumours: the ESCALE study (SFCE). Eur J Cancer Prev. 2008;17(4):376–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Barrington-Trimis JL, Searles Nielsen S, Preston-Martin S, Gauderman WJ, Holly EA, Farin FM, et al. Parental smoking and risk of childhood brain tumors by functional polymorphisms in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon metabolism genes. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(11):e79110.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Momen NC, Olsen J, Gissler M, Li J. Exposure to maternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of childhood cancer: a study using the Danish national registers. Cancer Causes Control. 2016;27(3):341–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kessous R, Wainstock T, Sheiner E. Smoking during pregnancy as a possible risk factor for pediatric neoplasms in the offspring: a population-based cohort study. Addict Behav. 2019;90:349–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Huang Y, Huang J, Lan H, Zhao G, Huang C. A meta-analysis of parental smoking and the risk of childhood brain tumors. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(7):e102910.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Hou C, Hu Z, Ke Y. Maternal smoking and the risk of childhood brain tumors. Cancer Epidemiol. 2024;90:102547.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Onyije FM, Dolatkhah R, Olsson A, Bouaoun L, Deltour I, Erdmann F et al. Response to comments on: maternal smoking and the risk of childhood brain tumors. Cancer Epidemiol. 2024:102546.

  45. Rumgay H, Shield K, Charvat H, Ferrari P, Sornpaisarn B, Obot I, et al. Global burden of cancer in 2020 attributable to alcohol consumption: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(8):1071–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Rumgay H, Murphy N, Ferrari P, Soerjomataram I. Alcohol and Cancer: Epidemiology and Biological mechanisms. Nutrients. 2021;13(9).

  47. Deitrich R, Zimatkin S, Pronko S. Oxidation of ethanol in the brain and its consequences. Alcohol Res Health. 2006;29(4):266–73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Corrao G, Bagnardi V, Zambon A, La Vecchia C. A meta-analysis of alcohol consumption and the risk of 15 diseases. Prev Med. 2004;38(5):613–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Birch JM, Hartley AL, Teare MD, Blair V, McKinney PA, Mann JR, et al. The inter-regional epidemiological study of childhood cancer (IRESCC): case-control study of children with central nervous system tumours. Br J Neurosurg. 1990;4(1):17–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Cordier S, Iglesias MJ, Le Goaster C, Guyot MM, Mandereau L, Hemon D. Incidence and risk factors for childhood brain tumors in the Ile De France. Int J Cancer. 1994;59(6):776–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Milne E, Greenop KR, Scott RJ, de Klerk NH, Bower C, Ashton LJ, et al. Parental alcohol consumption and risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia and brain tumors. Cancer Causes Control. 2013;24(2):391–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Georgakis MK, Dessypris N, Papadakis V, Tragiannidis A, Bouka E, Hatzipantelis E, et al. Perinatal and early life risk factors for childhood brain tumors: is instrument-assisted delivery associated with higher risk? Cancer Epidemiol. 2019;59:178–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Shin S, Lee JE, Loftfield E, Shu XO, Abe SK, Rahman MS, et al. Coffee and tea consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease and cancer: a pooled analysis of prospective studies from the Asia Cohort Consortium. Int J Epidemiol. 2022;51(2):626–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Wu E, Bao YY, Wei GF, Wang W, Xu HQ, Chen JY, et al. Association of tea and coffee consumption with the risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality among individuals with metabolic syndrome: a prospective cohort study. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2023;15(1):241.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Reyes CM, Cornelis MC. Caffeine in the Diet: Country-Level Consumption and Guidelines. Nutrients. 2018;10(11).

  56. Group CS. Maternal caffeine intake during pregnancy and risk of fetal growth restriction: a large prospective observational study. BMJ. 2008;337:a2332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Qian J, Chen Q, Ward SM, Duan E, Zhang Y. Impacts of caffeine during pregnancy. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2020;31(3):218–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Bunin GR, Kuijten RR, Boesel CP, Buckley JD, Meadows AT. Maternal diet and risk of astrocytic glioma in children: a report from the Childrens Cancer Group (United States and Canada). Cancer Causes Control. 1994;5(2):177–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Bunin GR, Kuijten RR, Buckley JD, Rorke LB, Meadows AT. Relation between maternal diet and subsequent primitive neuroectodermal brain tumors in young children. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(8):536–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Greenop KR, Miller M, Attia J, Ashton LJ, Cohn R, Armstrong BK, et al. Maternal consumption of coffee and tea during pregnancy and risk of childhood brain tumors: results from an Australian case-control study. Cancer Causes Control. 2014;25(10):1321–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Pogoda JM, Preston-Martin S, Howe G, Lubin F, Mueller BA, Holly EA, et al. An international case-control study of maternal diet during pregnancy and childhood brain tumor risk: a histology-specific analysis by food group. Ann Epidemiol. 2009;19(3):148–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2013.

  64. Greenland S. Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature. Epidemiol Rev. 1987;9:1–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Wimberly C, Gulrajani N, Towry L, Landi D, Walsh K, editors. Maternal use of tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs during pregnancy and association with childhood cancer subtypes. 27 ed. Annual Scientific Meeting and Education Day Society for Neuro-Oncology’s; 2022. United States, Tampa Bay, FL.

  70. Chen C, Huang YB, Liu XO, Gao Y, Dai HJ, Song FJ, et al. Active and passive smoking with breast cancer risk for Chinese females: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chin J Cancer. 2014;33(6):306–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Lin Y, Kikuchi S, Tamakoshi K, Wakai K, Kondo T, Niwa Y, et al. Active smoking, passive smoking, and breast cancer risk: findings from the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for evaluation of Cancer Risk. J Epidemiol. 2008;18(2):77–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Dossus L, Boutron-Ruault MC, Kaaks R, Gram IT, Vilier A, Fervers B, et al. Active and passive cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk: results from the EPIC cohort. Int J Cancer. 2014;134(8):1871–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Lewandowska A, Rudzki G, Lewandowski T, Stryjkowska-Gora A, Rudzki S. Risk factors for the diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Control. 2022;29:10732748211056692.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Arranz S, Chiva-Blanch G, Valderas-Martinez P, Medina-Remon A, Lamuela-Raventos RM, Estruch R. Wine, beer, alcohol and polyphenols on cardiovascular disease and cancer. Nutrients. 2012;4(7):759–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Hrelia S, Di Renzo L, Bavaresco L, Bernardi E, Malaguti M, Giacosa A. Moderate Wine Consumption and Health: a narrative review. Nutrients. 2022;15(1).

  76. Gormley M, Dudding T, Sanderson E, Martin RM, Thomas S, Tyrrell J, et al. A multivariable mendelian randomization analysis investigating smoking and alcohol consumption in oral and oropharyngeal cancer. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):6071.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Hughes K, Bellis MA, Hardcastle KA, Sethi D, Butchart A, Mikton C, et al. The effect of multiple adverse childhood experiences on health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(8):e356–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Alghamdi SS, Alshafi RA, Huwaizi S, Suliman RS, Mohammed AE, Alehaideb ZI, et al. Exploring in vitro and in silico Biological activities of Calligonum Comosum and Rumex Vesicarius: implications on Anticancer and Antibacterial therapeutics. Saudi Pharm J. 2023;31(11):101794.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Ho B, Thompson A, Jorgensen AL, Pirmohamed M. Role of fatty liver index in risk-stratifying comorbid disease outcomes in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. JHEP Rep. 2023;5(12):100896.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Auvinen P, Vehvilainen J, Marjonen H, Modhukur V, Sokka J, Wallen E, et al. Chromatin modifier developmental pluripotency associated factor 4 (DPPA4) is a candidate gene for alcohol-induced developmental disorders. BMC Med. 2022;20(1):495.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Malerba S, Galeone C, Pelucchi C, Turati F, Hashibe M, La Vecchia C, et al. A meta-analysis of coffee and tea consumption and the risk of glioma in adults. Cancer Causes Control. 2013;24(2):267–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Pranata R, Feraldho A, Lim MA, Henrina J, Vania R, Golden N, et al. Coffee and tea consumption and the risk of glioma: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Br J Nutr. 2022;127(1):78–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Song Y, Wang Z, Jin Y, Guo J. Association between tea and coffee consumption and brain cancer risk: an updated meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17(1):51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Deweese JE, Osheroff N. The DNA cleavage reaction of topoisomerase II: wolf in sheep’s clothing. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37(3):738–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Ross JA, Potter JD, Reaman GH, Pendergrass TW, Robison LL. Maternal exposure to potential inhibitors of DNA topoisomerase II and infant leukemia (United States): a report from the children’s Cancer Group. Cancer Causes Control. 1996;7(6):581–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Grosso G, Godos J, Galvano F, Giovannucci EL. Coffee, Caffeine, and Health outcomes: an Umbrella Review. Annu Rev Nutr. 2017;37:131–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Oh CC, Jin A, Yuan JM, Koh WP. Coffee, tea, caffeine, and risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer in a Chinese population: the Singapore Chinese Health Study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81(2):395–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Tamura T, Wada K, Konishi K, Goto Y, Mizuta F, Koda S, et al. Coffee, Green Tea, and Caffeine Intake and Liver Cancer risk: a prospective cohort study. Nutr Cancer. 2018;70(8):1210–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Cornelis MC, Munafo MR. Mendelian randomization studies of Coffee and Caffeine Consumption. Nutrients. 2018;10(10).

  90. Fagherazzi G, Touillaud MS, Boutron-Ruault MC, Clavel-Chapelon F, Romieu I. No association between coffee, tea or caffeine consumption and breast cancer risk in a prospective cohort study. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14(7):1315–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Ishitani K, Lin J, Manson JE, Buring JE, Zhang SM. Caffeine consumption and the risk of breast cancer in a large prospective cohort of women. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(18):2022–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Cnattingius S. The epidemiology of smoking during pregnancy: smoking prevalence, maternal characteristics, and pregnancy outcomes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6(Suppl 2):S125–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Pickett KE, Wakschlag LS, Dai L, Leventhal BL. Fluctuations of maternal smoking during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(1):140–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mr. Duan xiaolong and Ms. Vikky for language polishing.

Funding

This work was supported by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2022M721500) and the President Foundation of ZhuJiang Hospital, Southern Medical University (yzjj2023qn26).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Zihao Hu, Jianbo Ye and Shenbao Shi contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The National Key Clinical Specialty, The Engineering Technology Research Center of Education Ministry of China, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory on Brain Function Repair and Regeneration, Department of Neurosurgery, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 510282, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China

    Zihao Hu, Jianbo Ye, Shenbao Shi, Chuangcai Luo, Tianwei Wang, Yang Liu, Xinlin Sun, Yiquan Ke & Chongxian Hou

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, The Tenth Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University (Dongguan People’s Hospital), 523059, Dongguan, People’s Republic of China

    Jing’an Ye

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, Shenzhen People’s Hospital (The Second Clinical Medical College of Jinan University; The First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology), 518020, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China

    Chongxian Hou

Authors
  1. Zihao Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jianbo Ye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shenbao Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chuangcai Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tianwei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jing’an Ye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xinlin Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yiquan Ke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Chongxian Hou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design: CX.H., YQ.K., and XL.S.; Data curation: ZH.H., JB.Y., SB.S., CC.L., TW.W., Y.L., and JA.Y.; Formal analysis: ZH.H., JB.Y., and SB.S.; Investigation: ZH.H., JB.Y., and SB.S.; Methodology: all authors; Manuscript writing: ZH.H., JB.Y., SB.S., CC.L., TW.W., Y.L., and JA.Y.; Review: CX.H., YQ.K., and XL.S.; Study supervision: CX.H., YQ.K., and XL.S.; All authors have read and approved the final version.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xinlin Sun, Yiquan Ke or Chongxian Hou.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, Z., Ye, J., Shi, S. et al. Maternal smoking, consumption of alcohol, and caffeinated beverages during pregnancy and the risk of childhood brain tumors: a meta-analysis of observational studies. BMC Public Health 24, 1238 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18569-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18569-9

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us