Aydin, Denis

Feychting, Maria

Röösli, Martin

Schüz, Joachim

RERO DOC Digital Library

jnci.oxfordjournals.org   JNCI | Correspondence 637ResponseContrary to what Morgan et al. claim, pilo-cytic astrocytoma was included in our study, as clearly stated in the Methods. Regarding participation rates, Morgan et al. confused noneligibility with nonparticipa-tion. Reasons for noneligibility include lack of language skills, diagnosis of neurofibro-matosis, or tuberous sclerosis. Reasons for nonparticipation include refusal to partici-pate or inability to be contacted. We iden-tified 529 case and 1052 control subjects during the study period from which 423 and 909 were eligible, respectively. Participation rates are calculated in refer-ence to eligible subjects.We stated in the article that operator records regarding the amount of time since the start of the phone users’ first subscrip-tions were available for 35% of case and 34% of control subjects with a mobile phone subscription. It is obviously impos-sible to retrieve operator data for subjects without any subscription. In total, operator data were available for 80 case and 141 control subjects, and we included all sub-jects whose subscriptions started before the reference date in the respective analysis. As stated in the footnote of table 4, categories were not mutually exclusive because the reference category always included 123 case and 233 control subjects who were never regular uses and reported to have no subscription. Dropping these nonexposed subjects from the analysis would therefore create bias. Similarly, not all categories in the laterality analyses were mutually exclu-sive as explained in the footnote of table 5. For laterality analysis, we applied standard definitions and methods defined in the INTERPHONE study (1).The statistically significant exposure–response association for operator-recorded time since first mobile phone use is com-prehensively discussed in the article. This twofold increased risk after approximately 3 years of regular mobile phone use is inconsistent with observed brain tumor incidence rate trends in the Nordic Countries (Figure 1). Neither Morgan et al. nor Söderqvist et al. in a recent commen-tary (2) have provided a plausible explana-tion for this inconsistency. Because of the limitations of retrospectively retrieved operator data and self-reported wireless phone use, it is essential to check the con-sistency of those results with observed time trends of incidence rates to avoid coming to the wrong conclusions (3).Assuming a short latency of a few years, increased brain tumor risks should be de-tectable in the incidence data that are already available because of the steep increase in wireless phone use among ado-lescents during the last two decades. For this reason, we restricted our analysis of cordless phone use to the first 3 years of use. Because most children and adolescents in CEFALO had used cordless phones earlier in life than mobile phones, we could address YearRate per 100000 person-years024681990 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09MaleFemaleFigure 1. Age-standardized incidence rates for brain and central nervous system tumors for children and adoles-cents aged 5–19 years living in the Nordic Countries (obtained from NORDCAN [http://www-dep.iarc.fr/nordcan/English/ frame.asp]).the effects of microwave radiation with longer latency time periods or with expo-sure at a young age. However, it was strik-ingly difficult for many participating families to recall the amount of cordless phone use early in life; some did not feel comfortable about answering questions about amount, duration, or years since first use.We emphasize that all issues that may be perceived as conflicts of interest were declared. No cell phone company was involved in this study nor provided any funding. Firewalls, as established in this study, have shown to be effective in pre-venting biased study results (4).DENIS AYDINMARIA FEYCHTINGJOACHIM SCHÜZMARTIN RÖÖSLIReferences 1. INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(3):675–694. 2. Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K, Hardell L. Childhood brain tumour risk and its association with wireless phones: a com-mentary. Environ Health. 2011;10(1):106. 3. Deltour I, Auvinen A, Feychting M, et al. Mobile phone use and incidence of glioma in the Nordic Countries 1979–2008 [published online ahead of print 2012]. Epidemiology. 2012;23(2):301–307. 4. Huss A, Egger M, Hug K, Huwiler-Müntener K, Röösli M. Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115(1):1–4.NotesAffiliations of authors: Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical 638 Erratum | JNCI Vol. 104, Issue 8  |  April 18, 2012and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland (DA, MR); University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland (DA, MR); Unit of Epidemiology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden (MF); Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark (JS); International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Section of Environment and Radiation, Lyon, France (JS). Correspondence to: Martin Röösli, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse 57, Basel 4002, Switzerland (e-mail: martin.roosli@unibas.ch).DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djs147© The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.Advance Access publication on April 5, 2012

Response: Re: Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumors in Children and Adolescents: A Multicenter Case-Control Study

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

RERO DOC Digital Library