4.6 Article

Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Skin Cancer: A Nationwide Cohort Study in Denmark

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 178, 期 2, 页码 190-197

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws426

关键词

cohort studies; electromagnetic fields; head and neck neoplasms; skin neoplasms

资金

  1. Danish Graduate School in Public Health Science, Copenhagen University, Denmark
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation
  3. Tele Danmark Mobil
  4. Sonofon
  5. International Epidemiology Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  6. Danish Cancer Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified radiofrequency radiation as possibly carcinogenic. Previous studies have focused on intracranial tumors, although the skin receives much radiation. In a nationwide cohort study, 355,701 private mobile phone subscribers in Denmark from 1987 to 1995 were followed up through 2007. We calculated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma by using Poisson regression models adjusted for age, calendar period, educational level, and income. Separate IRRs for head/neck tumors and torso/leg tumors were compared (IRR ratios) to further address potential confounders. We observed no overall increased risk for basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, or melanoma of the head and neck. After a follow-up period of at least 13 years, the IRRs for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma remained near unity. Among men, the IRR for melanoma of the head and neck was 1.20 (95% confidence interval: 0.65, 2.22) after a minimum 13-year follow-up, whereas the corresponding IRR for the torso and legs was 1.16 (95% confidence interval: 0.91, 1.47), yielding an IRR ratio of 1.04 (95% confidence interval: 0.54, 2.00). A similar risk pattern was seen among women, though it was based on smaller numbers. In this large, population-based cohort study, little evidence of an increased skin cancer risk was observed among mobile phone users.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据