Mobile phones and brain tumours: a review of epidemiological research

Abstract

There has been a great deal of public concern regarding the possibility that the use of mobile phone-related technologies might result in adverse health effects. Corresponding to this, there has been substantial epidemiological research designed to determine whether the use of mobile phones (MP) has any effect on health, and in particular whether it increases the risk of developing head and neck tumours. Such literature is particularly heterogeneous, which makes it difficult to pool in a meta-analysis. This paper thus reviews the epidemiological literature pertaining to the use of mobile phones and mobile phone-related technologies, and head and neck tumours, in an attempt to consolidate the various reports. Although there have been individual reports of associations between MP-use and tumours, this research is not consistent and on balance does not provide evidence of an association. There are reports of small associations between MP-use ipsilateral to the tumour for greater than 10 years, for both acoustic neuroma and glioma, but the present paper argues that these are especially prone to confounding by recall bias. The reported associations are in need of replication with methods designed to minimise such bias before they can be treated as more than suggestive.

Mobile phone use and risk for intracranial tumors and salivary gland tumors – A meta-analysis

“…In such instance, meta-analysis makes it possible to use the published results of studies performed in various countries and include a larger number of cases. The discrepancies among the different studies were discussed in details by Croft et al (2008) [19], Levis et al (2011) [20], Repacholi et al (2012) [21] and lately Szmigielski (2013) [22]. Five meta-analysis studies have been published to date by Lahkola et al (2006) [18], Hardell et al (2008) [23], Kan et al (2008) [24], Khurana et al (2009) [25], Myung et al (2009) [26], but their results are also ambiguous.…”

Dosimetric intercomparison for multicenter clinical trials using a patient‐based anatomic pelvic phantom

“…The ionization chamber used for Level I measurement was cross-calibrated approximately every 3-6 months against a chamber calibrated at a primary standards laboratory. 10 Changes in absorbed dose-to-water calibration coefficient 14 for the CC13 chamber did not display any trend over the period of the study. 10 For the prostate treatments, the mean dose difference in the PTV across all centers, was À 0.49 6 0.2%.…”

“…10 Changes in absorbed dose-to-water calibration coefficient 14 for the CC13 chamber did not display any trend over the period of the study. 10 For the prostate treatments, the mean dose difference in the PTV across all centers, was À 0.49 6 0.2%. 98% of measurements were within 65%, 87% within 6 4%, 76% within 6 3%, 61% within 62%.…”

“…15 The dependence of sacral hollow dose difference on TPR 20,10 , when the influence of accelerator calibration was removed, was not found for any other measurement point and possibly reflects the unique sitting of the sacral hollow points adjacent to bone, as well as contributions of beam quality parameters to the Level I measurement. 10 As the treatments were undertaken in a pelvic phantom with only bone-like heterogeneities and small regions of bowel gas, a dependence on TPS type and dose calculation algorithm (away from bone interfaces) was not expected to be as apparent as previously shown for thoracic treatments where low-density regions influence scatter dose. [19][20][21] The dependence of sacral hollow dose on date of measurement was unexpected.…”

Environmental Exposure and Breast Cancer Among Young Women in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil

“…The use of mobile phones, also an EMF source, was explored in the case series, and a daily mean use of 30 min was reported by 48% of the interviewed. Considering the debatable evidence on possible association between continuous use of mobile phones and central nervous system tumors (Croft et al, 2008), this needs further study for breast cancer.…”