Skip Navigation


American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access originally published online on August 17, 2005
American Journal of Epidemiology 2005 162(6):600-601; doi:10.1093/aje/kwi246
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
162/6/600    most recent
kwi246v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hardell, L.
Right arrow Articles by Kundi, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hardell, L.
Right arrow Articles by Kundi, M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology Copyright © 2005 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health All rights reserved

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

RE: "LONG-TERM MOBILE PHONE USE AND BRAIN TUMOR RISK"

Lennart Hardell1,2, Kjell Hansson Mild2,3 and Michael Kundi4

1 Department of Oncology, University Hospital, SE-701 85 Örebro, Sweden
2 Department of Natural Sciences, Örebro University, SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden
3 National Institute for Working Life, S-907 13 Umeå, Sweden
4 Department for Occupational and Social Hygiene, Institute of Environmental Health, A-1095 Vienna, Austria

Lönn et al. (1Go) recently published an article on use of cellular telephones and the risk of brain tumors. In spite of a reported overall decreased risk, an increased risk was found for tumors on the same side of the brain as the cellular phone had been used (ipsilateral exposure).

Use of cellular telephones was assessed mostly by personal interviews. In contrast to our procedure regarding this topic (2Go), the interviewer was aware of whether the study subject was a case (patient) or a control, thereby potentially introducing observational bias.

The interviews were extensive and computer aided. It is likely that such an interview is stressful for a patient with a recent brain tumor diagnosis and operation. According to our experience, a better option is to start with a mailed questionnaire that can be answered by the patient during a period of well-being. This procedure can be accomplished without disclosing during data collection whether a person is a case or a control.

The diagnosis of tumor type as well as grading is based on histopathology. In the Lönn et al. study (1Go), histopathology was available for 328 (88 percent) of the 371 glioma cases and for 225 (82 percent) of the meningioma cases. It is remarkable that 345 glioma cases were stratified according to grades I–IV, although histopathology was available for only 328.

To analyze laterality (i.e., the risk of brain tumors on the same side or the opposite side to where the mobile phone was held during phone calls), Lönn et al. (1Go) split the cases into two subsets: those with left- and those with right-side tumors. Controls were randomly allocated to one of these subsets at a 1:1 ratio. Odds ratios calculated within these subsets were then pooled to give an overall estimate. Exposure categorization was questionable for ipsilateral but completely faulty for contralateral use of a mobile phone. Subjects were considered exposed if they used the phone on the same or on both sides. On the other hand, if they used the phone on the contralateral side or did not regularly use a mobile phone, they were considered unexposed. Hence, the reference category included subjects using a mobile phone regularly but who stated that they used it on the side opposite to where the tumor was located. For contralateral exposure, the opposite exposure classification was used.

There are some discrepancies concerning number of cases and the data in the Swedish Cancer Registry (M. Talback, Swedish Cancer Registry, personal communication, 2005) when the same criteria were used to select cases, as follows:


No. of cases



Cancer Registry

Lönn et al. (1Go)


Intracranial glioma 469 499
Astrocytoma grades I–II 82 73*
Astrocytoma grades III–IV 370 272*
Meningioma

337

320

* Interviewed cases.

The large difference, especially for astrocytoma grades III–IV, indicates methodological problems. Most likely, these approximately 100 glioma cases from whom no information could be obtained are predominantly among the missing 98 highly malignant astrocytoma cases.

Of the controls in the glioma and meningioma study (1Go), 282 (29 percent) refused to participate. Among some of these nonresponders, a short interview was conducted; only 34 percent reported regular use of a mobile telephone compared with 59 percent of the responders. If this discrepancy extends to the total group of nonresponders, the true percentage of mobile phone users among controls would be approximately 52 percent. Hence, this figure would be lower than for glioma (58 percent exposed) and acoustic neuroma (60 percent) cases. Only for meningioma, with 43 percent exposed cases, was a lower percentage reported. However, considering the sex ratio for meningioma of approximately 2:1, a lower percentage of mobile phone users has to be expected because of the lower rate of use by women.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
Conflict of interest: none declared.


    References
 TOP
 References
 

  1. Lönn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, et al. Long-term mobile phone use and brain tumor risk. Am J Epidemiol 2005;161:526–35.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Hardell L, Hansson Mild K, et al. Further aspects on cellular and cordless telephones and brain tumours. Int J Oncol 2003;22:399–407.[Web of Science][Medline]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am J EpidemiolHome page
S. Lonn, A. Ahlbom, P. Hall, and M. Feychting
THE AUTHORS REPLY
Am. J. Epidemiol., September 15, 2005; 162(6): 601 - 601.
[Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
162/6/600    most recent
kwi246v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hardell, L.
Right arrow Articles by Kundi, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hardell, L.
Right arrow Articles by Kundi, M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?