Association of allergic diseases and epilepsy with risk of glioma, meningioma and acoustic neuroma: results from the INTERPHONE international case-control study.

We investigated the association of allergic diseases and epilepsy with risk of brain tumours, in Interphone, a 13-country case-control study. Data were obtained from 2693 glioma cases, 2396 meningioma cases, and 1102 acoustic neuroma cases and their 6321 controls. Conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for education and time at interview. Reduced ORs were observed for glioma in relation to physician-diagnosed asthma (OR = 0.73; CI 0.58-0.92), hay fever (OR 0.72; CI 0.61-0.86), and eczema (OR 0.78, CI 0.64-0.94), but not for meningioma or acoustic neuroma. Previous diagnosis of epilepsy was associated with an increased OR for glioma (2.94; CI 1.87-4.63) and for meningioma (2.12; CI 1.27-3.56), but not for acoustic neuroma. This large-scale case-control study adds to the growing evidence that people with allergies have a lower risk of developing glioma, but not meningioma or acoustic neuroma. It also supports clinical observations of epilepsy prior to the diagnosis of glioma and meningioma.

Survival of glioma patients in relation to mobile phone use in Denmark, Finland and Sweden.

PURPOSE: Gliomas are the most common cancer of the brain, with a poor prognosis in particular for glioblastoma. In 2014, a study suggested reduced survival in relation to latency of mobile phone use among glioblastoma patients. A joint epidemiological/experimental project to study effects of RF-EMF on tumor development and progression was established. The current analysis relates to the epidemiological part and addresses whether pre-diagnostic mobile phone use was associated with survival among glioma patients. METHODS: Glioma cases (n = 806) previously enrolled in a collaborative population-based case-control study in Denmark, Finland and Sweden were followed up for survival. Vital status, date of death, date of emigration, or date last known to be alive was obtained based on registry linkages with a unique personal ID in each country. Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) stratified by country. Covariates investigated were sex, age, education, histology, treatment, anatomic location and marital status. RESULTS: No indication of reduced survival among glioblastoma patients was observed for various measures of mobile phone use (ever regular use, time since start of regular use, cumulative call time overall or in the last 12 months) relative to no or non-regular use. All significant associations suggested better survival for mobile phone users. Results were similar for high-grade and low-grade gliomas. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of reduced survival among glioma patients in relation to previous mobile phone use.

Pituitary tumor risk in relation to mobile phone use: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND: The number of mobile phone users has grown rapidly, which has generated mounting public concern regarding possible health hazards. This study aims to assess pituitary tumor risk, as it has rarely been investigated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A case-control study was conducted with 80 eligible cases identified from all five university hospitals in Finland and frequency-matched 240 controls from the national population register. Controls were matched to cases by age, sex, region of residence and date of interview. A detailed history of mobile phone use was obtained using a structured interview. Several indicators of mobile phone use were assessed using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: A reduced odds ratio was seen among regular mobile phone users [OR 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21, 0.72] relative to never/non-regular users, possibly reflecting methodological limitations. Pituitary tumor risk was not increased after 10 or more years since first use (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.25, 1.89). The risk was not increased in relation to duration, cumulative hours of use, or cumulative number of calls. The results were similar for analog and digital phones. CONCLUSIONS: We found no excess risk associated with self-reported short- or medium-term use of mobile phones. This is consistent with most of the published studies. However, uncertainties remained for longer duration of use, as a very small proportion of study participants reported use beyond 10 years.

Systematic review of wireless phone use and brain cancer and other head tumors.

We conducted a systematic review of scientific studies to evaluate whether the use of wireless phones is linked to an increased incidence of the brain cancer glioma or other tumors of the head (meningioma, acoustic neuroma, and parotid gland), originating in the areas of the head that most absorb radiofrequency (RF) energy from wireless phones. Epidemiology and in vivo studies were evaluated according to an agreed protocol; quality criteria were used to evaluate the studies for narrative synthesis but not for meta-analyses or pooling of results. The epidemiology study results were heterogeneous, with sparse data on long-term use (≥ 10 years). Meta-analyses of the epidemiology studies showed no statistically significant increase in risk (defined as P < 0.05) for adult brain cancer or other head tumors from wireless phone use. Analyses of the in vivo oncogenicity, tumor promotion, and genotoxicity studies also showed no statistically significant relationship between exposure to RF fields and genotoxic damage to brain cells, or the incidence of brain cancers or other tumors of the head. Assessment of the review results using the Hill criteria did not support a causal relationship between wireless phone use and the incidence of adult cancers in the areas of the head that most absorb RF energy from the use of wireless phones. There are insufficient data to make any determinations about longer-term use (≥ 10 years).

Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries.

Public concern has been expressed about the possible adverse health effects of mobile telephones, mainly related to intracranial tumors. We conducted a population-based case-control study to investigate the relationship between mobile phone use and risk of glioma among 1,522 glioma patients and 3,301 controls. We found no evidence of increased risk of glioma related to regular mobile phone use (odds ratio, OR = 0.78, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.68, 0.91). No significant association was found across categories with duration of use, years since first use, cumulative number of calls or cumulative hours of use. When the linear trend was examined, the OR for cumulative hours of mobile phone use was 1.006 (1.002, 1.010) per 100 hr, but no such relationship was found for the years of use or the number of calls. We found no increased risks when analogue and digital phones were analyzed separately. For more than 10 years of mobile phone use reported on the side of the head where the tumor was located, an increased OR of borderline statistical significance (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.01, 1.92, p trend 0.04) was found, whereas similar use on the opposite side of the head resulted in an OR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.71, 1.37). Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn.

Meta-analysis of mobile phone use and intracranial tumors.

OBJECTIVES: A summary of epidemiologic evidence regarding the effect of mobile phone use on intracranial tumor risk was obtained by means of a meta-analysis. METHODS: Reports of published studies on mobile phone use and intracranial tumors were sought. Altogether 12 relevant publications were identified from the PubMed database and reference lists of articles. Fixed or random effects analysis was carried out depending on the presence of heterogeneity between studies. Risk estimates were obtained for people who had used mobile phones for the longest periods of time (>5 years in most reports). A pooled estimate was calculated for all intracranial tumors combined and also separately for different histological tumor types. Separate analyses were conducted also based on the tumor location and type of mobile telephone network (NMT or GSM). RESULTS: Twelve studies with 2780 cases gave a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 0.98 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.83-1.16] for all intracranial tumors related to mobile phone use. For gliomas, the pooled OR was 0.96 (95% CI 0.78-1.18), for meningiomas it was 0.87 (95% CI 0.72-1.05), and for acoustic neuromas it was 1.07 (95% CI 0.89-1.30). Little indication was found for increased risks of analogue or digital phone use or temporal or occipital tumors. CONCLUSIONS: The totality of evidence does not indicate a substantially increased risk of intracranial tumors from mobile phone use for a period of at least 5 years.

Selection bias due to differential participation in a case-control study of mobile phone use and brain tumors.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the possible selection bias related to the differential participation of mobile phone users and non-users in a Finnish case-control study on mobile phone use and brain tumors. METHODS: Mobile phone use was investigated among 777 controls and 726 cases participating in the full personal interview (full participants), and 321 controls and 103 cases giving only a brief phone interview (incomplete participants). To assess selection bias, the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of odds ratio was calculated for three different groups: full study participants, incomplete participants, and a combined group consisting of both full and incomplete participants. RESULTS: Among controls, 83% of the full participants and 73% of the incomplete participants had regularly used a mobile phone. Among cases, the figures were 76% and 64%, respectively. The odds ratio for brain tumor based on the combined group of full and incomplete participants was slightly closer to unity than that based only on the full participants. CONCLUSIONS: Selection bias tends to distort the effect estimates below unity, while analyses based on more comprehensive material gave results close to unity.