Bias affects cell phone cancer risk findings

October 15, 2009 by Lin Edwards, Medical Xpress weblog

Bias affects cell phone cancer risk findings
( -- A group of South Korean and American researchers has found studies of possible links between cell phones and brain tumors and other cancers vary in quality, and those suggesting there is little or no risk may have some bias.

The scientists were from the National Cancer Center in Goyang, South Korea, the Seoul National University Hospital, Ewha Womans University and the University of California in Berkeley. The team carried out a meta-analysis of 23 published epidemiological studies, covering a total of 37,916 people who had been investigated to determine if there was a link between cell phones and cancer.

The findings of the analysis, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, were that the results of the studies varied widely, depending on who carried out and funded the research and what controls they had in place for bias and errors.

The researchers, led by Dr. Seung-Kwon Myung, divided the studies into "high quality" if the research blinded subjects of the study to bias (because the researchers did not know which subjects had tumors when they did their interviews), and "low quality" if the research did not counter bias, or if it was funded by the .

They discovered that eight high quality studies found a 10-30% increase in tumors in people who regularly used cell phones over those who rarely or never used them. The same studies found an increased risk of benign (non-malignant) tumors in people who had been using the phones for ten years or more.

These high quality studies were funded by the Orebro University Hospital Cancer Fund in Sweden, the Orebro Cancer Fund, and the Swedish Work Environment Fund, but seven of the eight studies were carried out by Dr. Lennart Hardell, a Swedish . This leads to a supposition that the results might be related to the Swedish environment: many Swedes live in rural areas, and the radiation emitted by phones is greater in rural areas where the signal is weaker.

The "low quality" studies, which did not correct for bias, found no link, or found that people who used mobile phones faced lower risks of tumors than people who rarely or never used the phones. Myung's team said some of these studies were funded by the Global System for Mobile Communication Association and the Mobile Manufacturer's Forum.

The analysis also concluded the studies were not broad enough to prove a link exists between cancers and phone use, and larger cohort studies would be needed to finally settle the question. Until now, the only published cohort study showed no link between tumors and phone use, but this study, from Denmark, used telephone subscription data rather than actual phone use.

The studies being analyzed were all case studies. This means the researchers divided their subjects into two groups: those who had or other cancers and those who did not, and then interviewed the subjects about their use of mobile phones. The researchers concluded that cohort studies are needed, in which groups of phone and non-phone users are followed over a long time period to see which group develops cancer more often.

The use of cell phones and other cordless phones has increased dramatically over the last decade, with an estimated 4.6 billion users today, according to the United Nations International Telecommunication Union. There have been concerns the radiation emitted by the phones may cause health problems, but so far there is no proof, and the debate continues.

More information: Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: A Meta-Analysis, Seung-Kwon Myung et al., , doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6366

© 2009

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Pancreatic cancer's addiction could be its end

November 13, 2018
Cancer cells are often described as cells "gone bad" or "renegade." New research reveals that in some of the deadliest cases of pancreatic cancer, these rebellious cells have an unexpected addiction. Now, scientists are investigating ...

Solving the mystery of NPM1 in acute myeloid leukemia

November 13, 2018
Although it has long been recognized that mutations of gene NPM1 play an important role in acute myeloid leukemia, no one has determined how the normal and the mutated forms of the protein NPM1 function.

Cognitive decline—radiation—brain tumor prevented by temporarily shutting down immune response

November 13, 2018
Treating brain tumors comes at a steep cost, especially for children. More than half of patients who endure radiation therapy for these tumors experience irreversible cognitive decline, a side-effect that has particularly ...

Study finds promising therapeutic target for aggressive type of breast cancer

November 13, 2018
A new Nature Communications study led by University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center researchers suggests that an enzyme known as Prolyl 4-hydroxylase subunit alpha-1 (P4HA1) is a potential therapeutic target for triple negative ...

Scientists shine new light on link between obesity and cancer

November 12, 2018
Scientists have made a major discovery that shines a new, explanatory light on the link between obesity and cancer. Their research confirms why the body's immune surveillance systems—led by cancer-fighting Natural Killer ...

Obesity both feeds tumors and helps immunotherapy kill cancer

November 12, 2018
A groundbreaking new study by UC Davis researchers has uncovered why obesity both fuels cancer growth and allows blockbuster new immunotherapies to work better against those same tumors.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2009
Meta-analysis is like metaphysics - complete garbage. Two different researchers can use the same studies and apply "accepted" rules for meta-analysis and get completely different conclusions. Whenever something stupid is being proposed there is always a meta-analysis behind it. Enough already!
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2009
This is absolute garbage. It seems they classify any study that disagrees with their hypothesis as "low quality" If you look at most meta-analysis the odds ratio fit into a region of roughly .7 to 1.3. If you ignore all of the studies that show a below unity value you are are inherrently shifting the results above unity. This behvior seems to be consistent with other people's work in this field. Dr. Hardell's own meta-analysis openly comments on this perception. He claims that there is no reason to believe that low level microwave radiation should inhibit cancerous growths, while ignoring that there is no reason to believe they would? Compared to the odds ratios for established cancer causing behaviors, which are often well into the double digits, all of the cell phone studies seem to settle around unity with some statistical noise.
1 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2009
This is garbage squared, or cubed. The industry studies imperiously treated as low quality are the only ones that take the technical issues into account. First, cell phones operate in different frequencies bands depending on where they are used, and whether they use analog or digital signals.

Next, in most of the studies that find a potential (but not statistically significant) correlation, long term cell phone users are the most likely to have tumors--but they are also the most likely to have used high-powered analog phones that are no longer manufactured or sold.

I remember when Motorola came out with the first cell phone to weigh 10 ounces. No one would buy--or use--such a big bulky phone today. Well, actually they might. Remember Iridium? International newspaper correspondents and others still use these phones, which need a much higher powered signal to reach a satellite not a nearby cell tower. But no high brain cancer risk has been associated with those phones.
1 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2009
eachus - I don't believe the sat phones operate on the same frequencies as cellular phones.

How are they going to do cohort studies since everyone uses cell phones? How about looking at population data pre & post cell phones?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.