Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

We investigated whether cellular phone use was associated with increased risk of tumors using a meta-analysis of case-control studies. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to July 2018. The primary outcome was the risk of tumors by cellular phone use, which was measured by pooling each odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). In a meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies, compared with never or rarely having used a cellular phone, regular use was not associated with tumor risk in the random-effects meta-analysis. However, in the subgroup meta-analysis by research group, there was a statistically significant positive association (harmful effect) in the Hardell et al. studies (OR, 1.15—95% CI, 1.00 to 1.33— n = 10), a statistically significant negative association (beneficial effect) in the INTERPHONE-related studies (case-control studies from 13 countries coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); (OR, 0.81—95% CI, 0.75 to 0.89—n = 9), and no statistically significant association in other research groups’ studies. Further, cellular phone use with cumulative call time more than 1000 h statistically significantly increased the risk of tumors. This comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found evidence that linked cellular phone use to increased tumor risk.

Comment on Choi, Y.-J., et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8079

“…We welcome the updated systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies of mobile phone use and cancer by Choi et al, which was recently published in this journal [ 1 ]. Given the uncertainties that remain to surround the issue of radiofrequency radiation exposure and cancer risk, regular synthesis of available epidemiological evidence continues to be important, and the synthesis published by Choi et al provides a timely update.…”

“…Firstly, the main meta-analysis shown in Figure 2 in [ 1 ] combined case-control studies for different benign and malign tumors, including those of the head, but also non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukaemia, and provides one meta-analytic summary of these. It is not common practice to combine different outcomes with different aetiologies in one meta-analytic summary [ 2 , 3 ] and, given the substantial heterogeneity observed, it is highly questionable if the common risk estimate for diseases with different aetiologies that Choi et al try to combine in their meta-analysis does exist (note that the arbitrary set of outcomes used by Choi et al is not the same as ‘all cancers’, which is an aggregate outcome used in meta-analyses).…”

Reply to Brzozek et al. Comment on “Choi et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8079”

“…We appreciate Christopher Brzozek and his colleagues’ interest [ 1 ] in our study [ 2 ] and their recognition of the importance of our latest systematic review of the research regarding tumor risk from mobile phone (i.e., cell phone) use. This paper updated the research we reviewed in our 2009 meta-analysis [ 3 ].…”

“…Ken Karipidis [ 1 ] and Martin Röösli [ 4 ], the senior authors of these two letters, are two of the 14 commissioners on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Their interest in our paper is not likely coincidental, because the major finding from both of our review studies was that heavier, long-term cell phone use was associated with significantly increased tumor risk [ 2 , 3 ]. Because this finding calls into question the adequacy of ICNIRP’s radio frequency exposure guidelines to protect human health, ICNIRP may have a vested interest in manufacturing doubt about our research.…”

“…In the third instance when we [ 2 ] cited Hardell and Carlberg‘s concern [ 7 ] regarding potential “’hidden conflicts’ of interest” among INTERPHONE investigators, we pointed out that the “authors reported that the provision of funds to the study investigators via the UICC was governed by agreements that guaranteed INTERPHONE’s complete scientific independence” [ 2 ].…”