Use of cellular and cordless telephones and risk of testicular cancer

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2605.2006.00721.x

If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.

It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.

Wiley InterScience

International Journal of Andrology

Volume 30 Issue 2, Pages 115 - 122

Published Online: 20 Dec 2006

The Official Journal of the European Academy of Andrology

Go to Society Site

< Previous Abstract | Next Abstract >

Save Article to My Profile Download Citation Request Permissions

Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 459K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Use of cellular and cordless telephones and risk of testicular cancer

L. Hardell*†, M. Carlberg*, C.-G. Ohlson‡**, H. Westberg†‡, M. Eriksson§ and K. Hansson Mild†¶

*Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro , †Department of Natural Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro , ‡Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital, Örebro , §Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Lund , ¶National Institute for Working Life, Umeå , and **Institution of Clinical Medicine, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

Correspondence to Lennart Hardell, Department of Oncology, Örebro University Hospital, SE-701 85 Örebro, Sweden. E-mail: lennart.hardell@orebroll.se

KEYWORDS

case–control study • non-seminoma • seminoma • wireless communication

Summary

A case–control study on testicular cancer included use of cellular and cordless telephones. The results were based on answers from 542 (92%) cases with seminoma, 346 (89%) with non-seminoma, and 870 (89%) controls. Regarding seminoma the use of analog cellular phones gave odds ratio (OR) = 1.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.9–1.6, digital phones OR = 1.3, CI = 0.9–1.8, and cordless phones OR = 1.1, CI = 0.8–1.5. The corresponding results for non-seminoma were OR = 0.7, CI = 0.5–1.1, OR = 0.9, CI = 0.6–1.4, and OR = 1.0, CI = 0.7–1.4, respectively. There was no dose–response effect and OR did not increase with latency time. No association was found with place of keeping the mobile phone during standby, such as trousers pocket. Cryptorchidism was associated both with seminoma (OR = 4.2, CI = 2.7–6.5) and non-seminoma (OR = 3.3, CI = 2.0–5.6), but no interaction was found with the use of cellular or cordless telephones.

Received 26 June 2006; revised 5 September 2006; accepted 11 September 2006

DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)

10.1111/j.1365-2605.2006.00721.x About DOI