移动电话不增加脑瘤危险
cere...@gmail.com
Use of mobile phones is not associated with an increased risk of
glioma, concludes a population-based study in the April 15 British
Medical Journal.
The case-control study included 966 patients with glioma from 5 UK
regions. These cases were between 18 and 69 years of age when diagnosed
with glioma from 2000 to 2004. A total of 1,716 matched general
practice patients were randomly selected as controls. Cases and
controls were interviewed regarding their history of mobile phone
use—subjects were not aware that this was the focus of the study.
Possible associations between patterns of mobile phone use and the
development of glioma were assessed. The lead author was Sarah J.
Hepworth of Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health, and Therapeutics.
No significant association was seen between regular use of mobile
phones and the development of glioma (overall odds ratio, 0.94; 95%
confidence interval, 0.78-1.13). Glioma risk was unrelated to time
since first use of mobile phones, total years of use, and total number
of calls or hours of use.
A significant increase in risk was noted for patient- or proxy-reported
phone use on the same side as the tumor (odds ratio, 1.24; 95%
confidence interval, 1.02-1.52). This was accompanied by a significant
reduction in risk (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval,
0.61-0.93) for phone use on the side opposite from the tumor.
Glioma is the most common brain cancer in adults; the cause is unknown
but appears to differ from that of other brain tumors. Some reports
have raised concerns that mobile phone use may be a risk factor for
gliomas and other brain tumors. The mechanism of this potential
association is unclear.
This population-based, case-control study finds no significant
association between use of mobile phones and the development of glioma.
At least through the first 10 years of use, mobile phones do not appear
to increase the risk of glioma. The significant associations between
risk of glioma and ipsilateral versus contralateral mobile phone use
are likely explained by recall bias, the investigators suggest.
>From BMJ 332:883-887, 2006.
Posted 11 May 06