Final answer on cell phone use and acoustic neuroma??

[annamaria]

Int J Epidemiol. 2013 May 8. [Epub ahead of print]

Mobile phone use and risk of brain neoplasms and other cancers: prospective study.

Benson VS, Pirie K, Schüz J, Reeves GK, Beral V, Green J; for the Million Women Study Collaborators.


Source

Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, UK, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Section of Environment and Radiation, Lyon, France.


Abstract


BACKGROUND:

Results from some retrospective studies suggest a possible increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma in users of mobile phones.

METHODS:

The relation between mobile phone use and incidence of intracranial central nervous system (CNS) tumours and other cancers was examined in 791 710 middle-aged women in a UK prospective cohort, the Million Women Study. Cox regression models were used to estimate adjusted relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Women reported mobile phone use in 1999 to 2005 and again in 2009.

RESULTS:

During 7 years' follow-up, 51 680 incident invasive cancers and 1 261 incident intracranial CNS tumours occurred. Risk among ever vs never users of mobile phones was not increased for all intracranial CNS tumours (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.90-1.14, P = 0.82), for specified CNS tumour types nor for cancer at 18 other specified sites. For long-term users compared with never users, there was no appreciable association for glioma (10+ years: RR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.55-1.10, P = 0.16) or meningioma (10+ years: RR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.66-1.84, P = 0.71). For acoustic neuroma, there was an increase in risk with long term use vs never use (10+ years: RR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.07-5.64, P = 0.03), the risk increasing with duration of use (trend among users, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS:

In this large prospective study, mobile phone use was not associated with increased incidence of glioma, meningioma or non-CNS cancers.


KEYWORDS:

Acoustic neuroma, cellular phone, glioma, meningioma, neoplasms, prospective studies

[Jim Scott]

Annamaria ~

Thanks for posting that. 

Unfortunately, I doubt it will really be the 'final answer' in the cell phone-AN link debate.  I never believed there was a causative relationship between AN development and cell phone use but many people are convinced that ANs and cell phone use must be connected, somehow, and the phone manufacturers are just hiding the evidence, much like cigarette companies managed to hide and lie about the link between cigarette smoking and cancer.  However, this study appears to be legitimate and is good evidence against the cell phones-cause-AN argument.   

Jim

[arizonajack]

Blaming brain tumors on cell phones makes about as much sense as blaming obesity on McDonalds.

If you compare 1000 obese people who never ate at McDonalds with 1000 obese people who routinely eat at McDonalds, I suspect that you'll find no statistical support for blaming obesity on McDonalds.

 

[PaulW]

Obesity is caused by diet cola.
Fact more obese people drink diet cola than non obese people.

Therefor Diet Cola causes Obesity! 


People that are better educated, and have better well paid jobs are likely to use a mobile phone more and probably have done so for years.
As their health insurance is better, their education is better, and their financial situation is better they are more likely to seek medical attention sooner, be more proactive in their approach, and be able to pay for the MRI.

There is a weak statistical link between mobile phone use and AN's
The question is why?

My personal view is the weak association between mobile phone use and AN's has to do with the fact that long term, regular mobile phone users are more likely to seek medical attention and therefor mobile phone users will record a slightly higher incidence than the general population.

Blaming AN's on mobile phone use may ultimately prove to be as silly as blaming diet cola on obesity yet, despite the very strong link between diet cola use and obesity.

[PaulW]

Hmmm just re read the study and it actually says that AN's are linked to mobile phone use!

For acoustic neuroma, there was an increase in risk with long term use vs never use (10+ years: RR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.07-5.64, P = 0.03), the risk increasing with duration of use (trend among users, P = 0.03).

Again I don't feel people should be alarmed at this. If anything I believe it supports the theory that mobile phone users are more likely to seek medical attention for AN symptoms, than non mobile phone users.

If you have a glioma its normally fatal. So it doesn't matter if you use a mobile phone or not you were always going to seek medical attention and become a statistic. If you didn't seek medical attention you died, and you still became a statistic.

So there is not the selection bias with glioma as there is with AN's.

This could explain why there is no link between glioma and mobile phone use, but there is with AN's
You would expect that mobile phone use would increase the likelyhood of most brain tumours not just AN's

[mk]

People that are better educated, and have better well paid jobs are likely to use a mobile phone more and probably have done so for years.
As their health insurance is better, their education is better, and their financial situation is better they are more likely to seek medical attention sooner, be more proactive in their approach, and be able to pay for the MRI.

if i understood well, the specific study was from the UK, where they have national health system. Therefore considerations about health insurance, ability to pay for MRIs etc. would not come into play. This is also true in many other countries, so I would think that this line of thinking, while reasonable, would be applicable to statistics gathered in the US.

Of course in all cases, population who is not very educated or doesn't have good access to medical care may not seek medical attention soon. But even under-developed, poor countries have a very high rate of cell phone use, and sometimes even more so, since land lines are not well-developed and reliable. So there is not necessarily a correlation between wealth/education and cell phone use.

My very simplistic point of view on this would be that pretty much everyone is using a cell phone nowadays, thoughout the world, and has been doing so for about a decade. This would mean that there should be a true epidemic of acoustic tumors etc. Is this the case?

Marianna

[Jim Scott]

Marianna ~

Thanks for catching the fact that the study was conducted in Europe where they have, for better or worse, socialized health care. 

Frankly, I remain a skeptic regarding cell phone use and acoustic neuroma development.  As we all know, statistics can be easily skewed, manipulated and misrepresented in a number of ways, often by omission or simply consciously weighted sampling.  So, even when a 'study' finds little difference in AN development between cell phone users and non-cell phone users, I'm not terribly impressed. 

Today, cell phone saturation in the U.S. and globally stands at approximately 100%.  Meaning that there are over 315 million cell phones in use in the U.S, 7 billion, globally, and that number is rising.  Few people today don't have a cell phone, whether they are in Alberta, Atlanta or Austria.

That being the case, as you astutely note, were there a true correlation between the use of a cell phone and the development of an acoustic neuroma we should see an 'epidemic' of acoustic neuroma development here in the U.S. and around the world.  We do not.  Not even close.  The passage of time may change that statistic but I hope not and to be honest, I don't believe it will. 

Jim

[Jim Scott]

If there is definitively no link why do cell phone companies recommend that you hold the phone 1/2" to 1" away from you body. Also, why did Disney stop marketing phones to kids. In Israel and parts of Europe there are warnings about children using cellphones due to potential radiation issues. I have attached a link to some alternative research. I think that the use of cell phones has increased dramatically over the past 10 years. ANs growvery slowly, so any real impact will only start showing statistical significance in the next generation
http://ehtrust.org/
Cell phones are a valuable tool in our society. Use them safely. Wait until your kids get a bit older before you give them one and use a headset.

The Environmental Health Trust has long been claiming that cell phones cause cancer.  Other medical groups have opposite views based on their research.  Companies such as Disney are simply being cautious by ceasing the marketing of cell phones to children.  If cell phones are ever proven to actually cause any kind of brain tumor (benign or malignant) Disney doesn't want to be responsible.  It's called, in the vernacular, 'CYA'. 

That ANs grow slowly is a usually true so it's not illogical to assume that due to ubiquitous cell phone use we'll see more ANs sometime in the future, likely on a global basis.  The problem with that assumption is that it is unverifiable as is any assumption based on a presumed future occurrence.

I've offered my views and frankly, although I remain a skeptic on the 'cell phones cause cancer' hypothesis I see nothing wrong with being prudent by using a headset and restricting their use by children. 

Remember cigarettes never used to cause cancer either.

A point I referenced in my earlier post.  Because, for decades, cigarette companies lied about the cancer risks of smoking, many folks now assume that when an accusation is made that something being sold and used by millions is harmful to the user, especially if the C-word is used, they reflexively assume that the merchant - in this case, cell phone companies - are also lying, purposely selling a cancer-causing device to unwitting consumers.  I find the analogy to be fatuous. However, I recognize that others do not and truly are convinced that cell phones are a cancer-causing weapon being sold by greedy phone companies for profit, not caring if it's customers die from brain cancer.  To each his own. 

If anyone is afraid their cell phone will cause brain cancer or an acoustic neuroma, they certainly should either cease all cell phone use, use a Bluetooth device or simply curtail the time they spend talking on a cell phone.  Fortunately, Bluetooth devices are becoming inexpensive and omnipresent.  Many folks - especially teenagers - chose to 'text' instead of talk on their cell phone and most new cars come with Bluetooth capability, now.  That should help cut down on the cancer risk, should one actually exist.   Meanwhile, the debate goes on.  Popcorn, anyone?

Jim

[annamaria]

To all,

since my diagnosis 3 years ago and surgery 2 years ago both myself and my husband RELIGIOUSLY use a wired (not BLUETOOTH) headset for the cell phone we use every day [like they do in call centers and people on the phone all day at the office].  The phone is now about 3 feet from my head.  Every so often the wire gets tangled up, but that is no issue compared to 2 hrs of radiation a day, 600 hrs a year, 6000 hours in ten years... don't forget what your microwave oven does ... ...

Annamaria

[alabamajane]

Not sure I totally believe cell phone use is benign; however how would you explain those of us that got an An in the opposite ear of phone use? I had a right-side AN and am left -handed and have always put phone up to left ear ,. So not convinced of correlation yet unless the radiation "travels " through head to whichever side it "chooses",, just my two cents worth,, Jane

[latirus]

  I never used a cell phone much, have a land line at home.  BUT - my AN is on the right, and I use the phone on the left.  Even if the AN was on the left I'd have trouble implicating the phone.

[rezski]

My symptoms showed up long before I had a cell phone. I have always used my left ear for the phone and my AN is on the right.  It's human nature to want to be able to place blame for our infirmities on something.

[MDemisay]

To All concerned,

I will tell you a cautionary tale as you know my history from reading it below. 30 years after I had my first brain event, I was diagnosed with an AN this shocked and amazed me and I was wondering what may have triggered my AN diagnosis.......At first I thought it was my cellphone use I had been using the old analog kind on my left ear (the AN ear) for about 10 years, then I realized with all the flap about dental exams and xrays that this might have been an additional causative factor as well!

I wonder how many people have used a cellphone and had dental xrays combined? It may be the product of 2 types of radiation, you think? I have since tailored my dental exams (to exlude xrays (only when I'm in pain) and use the phone on speaker only.

I theorize that we all  have to be cautious, for even if it is just an irrational fear, it is better to be safe than sorry down the line, in my book anyway.


PS. Because of my handicap for which I can't use my right hand, I used my left hand only, thus the use of my left ear before having the AN removed.

Mike

[Jim Scott]

My symptoms showed up long before I had a cell phone. I have always used my left ear for the phone and my AN is on the right.  It's human nature to want to be able to place blame for our infirmities on something.

Excellent observation. 

The desire to find a reason for developing something as unreasonable as an acoustic neuroma is natural, which is why I don't vehemently argue against those who blame a cell phone for their AN.  Well that and the fact that, as Mike stated, we can't totally rule out cell phones as a 'trigger' for AN growth, possibly combined with X-rays (dental and otherwise).  Besides, we all know you can't really prove a negative.  So, I remain a staunch skeptic on the subject but allow for the possibility that I may be proven wrong some day, which occasionally happens.   

Jim

[robynabc]

My thinking is this,  every year or two an article comes out saying that there is a possible increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma in users of mobile phones.  There is so little evidence out there.  Usually the media just throws it out there every year or two for no reason.  The debate makes little sense to me and to me because I don't see some huge increase.  The doctors didn't see an increase and there just doesn't seem to be any evidence.  For me, it is irresponsible to keep putting out the possible  word. They should either do a real study or leave it alone.