ID Number		643
Study Type		Epidemiology
Model		900, 1800 MHz (GSM) exposure from mobile phones to users in Germany and correlation with.
Details		Human subjects (n=118) with uveal melanoma (cancer of the eye) were categorized into 3 groups (no RF exposure, possible RF exposure to mobile phones, and probable/certain RF exposure to mobile phones). Only 18 cases with uveal melanoma were classified in the probable/certain exposure category. The researchers initially reported an elevated risk of uveal melanoma with possible RF exposure to mobile phones (OR = 3.0, 95% CI = 1.4-6.3) and probable/certain RF exposure to mobile phones (OR = 4.2, 95% CI = 1.2-14.5). The study was part of a much larger hospital and population based study on occupation risk factors for rare types of cancer. Other sources of EMF (high-voltage lines, electrical machines, complex electrical environments, video display terminals, radar units) were not associated with uveal melanoma. A subsequent study in 2009 with a larger case population (n = 455), 3 different sets of controls, and using the Interphone questionnaire for exposure assessment reported OR = 0.7 (95% CI = 0.5-1.0) using population-based controls, OR = 1.2 (95% CI = 0.5-2.6) using sibling controls, and OR = 1.1 (95% CI = 0.6-2.3) using ophthalmological matched controls.
Findings		No Effects
Status		Completed With Publication
Principal Investigator		Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, German
Funding Agency		BfS, Germany, Private/Instit., DMF, Germany
Country		GERMANY
References		Stang, A et al. J Natl Cancer Inst, (2009) 101:120-123 Stang, A et al. Epidemiology, (2001) 12:7-12 Schmidt-Pokrzywniak, A et al. BMC ophthalmology., (2004) 4:11-
Comments		This was an add-on to a much larger study of all types of occupational risks in a multinational population looking at many cancers, only one of which was uveal melanoma. Of these, only 118 cases of uveal melanoma were available. The questionairre given to the subjects was very broad asking about many different types of occupational exposure. The interviews took ~70 minutes and included medical history, phenotypic characteristics, life styple factors, details of occupational exposure and occupational sources of EM radiation. There was also a low response return from control subjects (48% as op[posed to 79% of hospital respondents). Because of the broad nature of the questionairre and the time involved, RF exposure assessment due to mobile phone use was questionable. The manuscript describes their method of exposure assessment as follows: "Occupational exposure to RFR devices was assessed by asking subjects 'did you use radio sets, mobile phones, or similar devices at your workplace for at least several hours per day ?'. Subjects who answered 'yes' were asked about the beginning and ending year of exposure and about the way the RFR source was carried with the subjects. This question often helped to identify the source of RFR, because subjects gave details on the RFR sources". From this limited information, the group was stratified into 3 exposure categories: 1) No RF exposure, 2) possible exposure to cell phones, and 3) probable/certain exposure to cell phones. Importantly, there were only 18 cases of uveal melanoma with probable/certain exposure (group # 3) for statistical analysis. Finally, the paper says exposure was determined by interviewers that did not know case or control status – although eye cancer might be pretty apparent in a majority of cases, especially when asking the subjects about their medical history, etc in the questionairre. Finally, there was no adjustment for UV radiation. Inskip comments on this study in the same edition of the journal (Epidemiology 2001, 12:1-4) and also points out many of the limitations of the study.