Search

In recent decades, the possibility that use of mobile communicating devices, particularly wireless (mobile and cordless) phones, may increase brain tumour risk, has been a concern, particularly given the considerable increase in their use by young people. MOBI-Kids, a 14-country (Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain) case-control study, was conducted to evaluate whether wireless phone use (and particularly resulting exposure to radiofrequency (RF) and extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields (EMF)) increases risk of brain tumours in young people. Between 2010 and 2015, the study recruited 899 people with brain tumours aged 10 to 24 years old and 1,910 controls (operated for appendicitis) matched to the cases on date of diagnosis, study region and age. Participation rates were 72% for cases and 54% for controls. The mean ages of cases and controls were 16.5 and 16.6 years, respectively; 57% were males. The vast majority of study participants were wireless phones users, even in the youngest age group, and the study included substantial numbers of long-term (over 10 years) users: 22% overall, 51% in the 20-24-year-olds. Most tumours were of the neuroepithelial type (NBT; n = 671), mainly glioma. The odds ratios (OR) of NBT appeared to decrease with increasing time since start of use of wireless phones, cumulative number of calls and cumulative call time, particularly in the 15-19 years old age group. A decreasing trend in ORs was also observed with increasing estimated cumulative RF specific energy and ELF induced current density at the location of the tumour. Further analyses suggest that the large number of ORs below 1 in this study is unlikely to represent an unknown causal preventive effect of mobile phone exposure: they can be at least partially explained by differential recall by proxies and prodromal symptoms affecting phone use before diagnosis of the cases. We cannot rule out, however, residual confounding from sources we did not measure. Overall, our study provides no evidence of a causal association between wireless phone use and brain tumours in young people. However, the sources of bias summarised above prevent us from ruling out a small increased risk. Funding for the coordination of the MOBI-Kids study was obtained from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreements number 226873 and 603794, and from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MINECO). In Spain, additional funding was obtained from the Spanish Health Research Fund (FIS) of the National Institute for Health Carlos III, and from the Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Salud. Proyecto PI-0317-2010. ISGlobal also acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities through the “Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa 2019-2023” Program (CEX2018-000806-S), support from the Generalitat de Catalunya through the CERCA Program and support from the Secretariat of Universities and Research of the Department of Business and Knowledge of the Generalitat of Catalonia through AGAUR (the Catalan Agency for Management of University and Research Grants) (Project 2017 SGR 1487). Australian participation in MOBI-Kids was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council with a five-year research grant (grant number: 546130). Austrian participation in MOBI-Kids was partly supported by a grant from the Ministry of Science. In Canada, participation in MOBI-Kids was supported by a university-industry partnership grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), reference number 110835, with the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) serving as the industrial partner. CWTA provides technical information on wireless telecommunications in Canada and facilitates access to billing records from Canadian network operators, but has no involvement in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the MOBI-KIDS study. French participation was also supported by the French National Agency for Sanitary Safety of Food, Environment and Labour (ANSES, contract FSRF2008-3), French National Cancer Institute (INCa), Pfizer Foundation and League against cancer. The German study centre received additional funding from the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) under grant number 3609S30010. In Greece, the study was partially supported by the Hellenic Society for Social Pediatrics and Health Promotion, ELKE (Special Account for Research Grants of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) and GGET (General Secretariat for Research and Technology). Mobi-Kids India was supported by Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences (BRNS, sanction no: 2013/38/01-BRNS).

We analysed 1.6 million population-based EUROCARE-4 cancer cases (26 cancer sites, excluding sex-specific sites, and breast) from 23 countries to investigate the role of sex in cancer survival according to age at diagnosis, site, and European region. For 15 sites (salivary glands, head and neck, oesophagus, stomach, colon and rectum, pancreas, lung, pleura, bone, melanoma of skin, kidney, brain, thyroid, Hodgkin disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) age- and region-adjusted relative survival was significantly higher in women than men. By multivariable analysis, women had significantly lower relative excess risk (RER) of death for the sites listed above plus multiple myeloma. Women significantly had higher RER of death for biliary tract, bladder and leukaemia. For all cancers combined women had a significant 5% lower RER of death. Age at diagnosis was the main determinant of the women's advantage, which, however, decreased with increasing age, becoming negligible in the elderly, suggesting that sex hormone patterns may have a role in women's superior ability to cope with cancer. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Summary Background Cancer is rare before age 20 years. We aimed to use the European database of childhood and adolescent cancer cases, within the Automated Childhood Cancer Information System project, to estimate patterns and trends of incidence and survival within Europe. Methods Comparable, high-quality data from 63 European population-based cancer registries consisted of 113000 tumours in children and 18 243 in adolescents diagnosed in 1970–99. Incidence rates and survival were compared by region (east vs west), period, and malignant disease. Findings In the 1990s, age-standardised incidence rates were 140 per million for children (0–14 years) and 157 per million for ages 0–19 years. Over the three decades, overall incidence increased by 1·0% per year (p Interpretation Our results are clear evidence of an increase of cancer incidence in childhood and adolescence during the past decades, and of an acceleration of this trend. Geographical and temporal patterns suggest areas for further study into causes of these neoplasms, as well as providing an indicator of progress of public-health policy in Europe.

BACKGROUND: EUROCARE-3 collected data from 45 population-based cancer registries in 20 countries on 24 620 European children aged from 0 to 14 years diagnosed with malignancy in the period 1990-1994. METHODS: Five-year survival between countries was compared for all malignancies and for the major diagnostic categories, adjusting for age, and estimated average European survival weighting for differences in childhood populations. RESULTS: For all cancers combined, survival variation was large (45% in Estonia to 90% in Iceland), and was generally low (60-70%) in eastern Europe and high (> or =75%) in Switzerland, Germany and the Nordic countries (except Denmark). The Nordic countries had the highest survival for four of the seven major tumour types: nephroblastoma (92%), acute lymphoid leukaemia (85%), CNS tumours (73%) and acute non-lymphocytic leukaemia (62%). The eastern countries had lowest survival: 89% for Hodgkin's disease, 71% for nephroblastoma, 68% for acute lymphoid leukaemia, 61% for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 57% for central nervous system (CNS) tumours and 29% for acute non-lymphocytic leukaemia. CONCLUSIONS: The Nordic countries represent a survival gold standard to which other countries can aspire. Since most childhood cancers respond well to treatment, survival differences are attributable to differences in access (including referral and timely diagnosis) and use of modern treatments; however, the obstacles to access and application of standard treatments probably vary markedly with country.

EUROCARE-3 analysed the survival of 1815584 adult cancer patients diagnosed from 1990 to 1994 in 22 European countries. The results are reported in tables, one per cancer site, coded according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 classification. The main findings of the tables are summarised and commented on in this article. For most solid cancers, wide differences in survival between different European populations were found, as also reported by EUROCARE-1 and EUROCARE-2, despite a remarkable (10%) overall increase in cancer survival from 1985 to 1994. Survival was highest in northern Europe (Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland), and fairly good in central-southern Europe (France, Switzerland, Austria and Spain). Survival was particularly low in eastern Europe, low in Denmark and the UK, and fairly low in Portugal and Malta. The mix of tumour stage at diagnosis explains much of the survival differences for cancers of the digestive tract, female reproductive system, breast, thyroid, and also skin melanoma. For tumours of the urinary tract and prostate, the differences were explained mainly by differences in diagnostic criteria and procedures. The case mix by anatomic subsite largely explains differences in survival for head and neck cancers. For oesophagus, pancreas, liver and brain cancer, with poor prognoses, survival differences were limited. Tumours, for which highly effective treatments are available, such as testicular cancer, Hodgkin's lymphoma and some haematological malignancies, had fairly uniform survival across Europe. Survival for all tumours combined (an indicator of the overall cancer care performance of a nation's health system) was better in young than old patients, and better in women than men. The affluence of countries influenced overall cancer survival through the availability of adequate diagnostic and treatment procedures, and screening programmes.

Summary International differences and trends in cancer survival withinEurope are larger than can reasonably be accounted for by arte-fact, bias or chance. The geographical patterns and trends in sur-vival are often broadly consistent with geographical differences ortrends in the type of cancer, diagnostic investigations or overallinvestment in health care, and for several major cancers, support-ing evidence is available from population-based studies of clinicalinformation. Incomplete ascertainment of cancer cases, particu-larly of long-term survivors, may contribute to some regional andinternational differences in survival, however, and more system-atic information on completeness is required. We may concludethat large international differences in survival do exist for manycancers, but we should be cautious in drawing quantitative orcausal conclusions from observational survival data.We do not yet have a fully satisfactory interpretation of thesedifferences, but we have few alternatives to this type of study if weare to understand the determinants of improved outcome for allcancer patients, and to enable better planning of their health care.The EUROCARE Working Group has developed several strategiesto disentangle the various possible explanations [73]. These includefurther development of high-resolution studies to examine theimpact on survival differences of disease stage, staging techniquesand treatment; and further development of mathematical modelsof cure. Extension of systematic international survival compari-sons to other regions of the world, such as Australia, Canada, Japanand the USA, is also in progress (the CONCORD study) [22].Oncologists and epidemiologists may provide insight into thegeographic differences and trends in survival reported by thisstudy, and may suggest further lines of enquiry. Do we need morerefined studies of survival to monitor progress against cancer andto plan future cancer care? Will such analyses help us quantify theeffect of new treatments arising from recent progress in the basicsciences and genomics on population cancer survival rates? Sub-stantial human and financial resources are required to improve theoutcome of cancer treatment. Will future investments in cancerservices include matching investment to monitor their impact onsurvival and mortality?Earlier diagnosis and prompt, universal access to optimal treat-ment would be expected to reduce international differences incancer survival in Europe. To achieve this, oncologists and healthcare planners will need better information on the comparativeperformance of their health systems. Population-based cancer reg-istries provide some of the information for such comparisons, buttheir traditional output may no longer be sufficient to evaluate theeffectiveness of health systems, and especially to explain geo-graphical differences in survival. In some countries, their role isalso under threat. Confidentiality constraints recently inhibitedthe collection of cancer registration data in the UK [90], and thelinkage of cancer registrations and deaths is currently illegal inEstonia [91]. Both activities are essential for internationally com-parable survival rates. Legal protection for cancer registrationacross Europe will be required.The mission of cancer registries should be reconsidered, and thepriority shifted from classical descriptive epidemiology and geo-graphical pathology toward more analytical monitoring ofprogress against cancer, including the probability of survival andcure, the burden of cancer prevalence, and the late effects oftherapy. Several European studies of this type have been reportedrecently [3, 36, 9294] and others are in progress. Many cancer–registries are developing closer relationships with cancer clini-cians and general practitioners, and some now systematicallycollect detailed clinical information that was collected eitherirregularly or not at all in the past. These developments willimprove the power of population-based cancer data to explain dif-ferences in cancer survival, and should enhance their relevance toclinical practice.European average survival rates are useful for comparativepurposes, but they should not become the goal for cancer controlprogrammes: the benchmark should always be the highest achiev-able survival rates.The aim of exploring geographic differences in cancer survivalis not to establish international league tables or to excite nationalrivalries, but to estimate the range of survival rates, and to identifyregions or countries in which survival could be improved.

Incidence of cardiovascular events is higher in hemodialysis (HD) patients than in general population. Oxidative stress represents a major specific risk factor of accelerated atheroma particularly in association with inflammation and malnutrition. The aim of our study is to evaluate a simple test of lipid peroxidation measurement using the "Free Oxygen Radical Monitor" (FORM) (Callegari, Italy). The results obtained in HD patients were compared to standard oxidative stress markers, such as thiobarbituric acid reacting substances, carbonyls and vitamin E in plasma, and glutathione, oxidized to reduced form ratio, in erythrocytes. In conclusion, the FORM system presents no sufficient sensibility and specificity to determine oxidative stress in HD patients.

Introduction: We used data from MOBI-Kids, a 14-country international collaborative case-control study of brain tumors (BTs), to study clinical characteristics of the tumors in older children (10 years or older), adolescents and young adults (up to the age of 24). Methods: Information from clinical records was obtained for 899 BT cases, including signs and symptoms, symptom onset, diagnosis date, tumor type and location. Results: Overall, 64% of all tumors were low-grade, 76% were neuroepithelial tumors and 62% gliomas. There were more males than females among neuroepithelial and embryonal tumor cases, but more females with meningeal tumors. The most frequent locations were cerebellum (22%) and frontal (16%) lobe. The most frequent symptom was headaches (60%), overall, as well as for gliomas, embryonal and 'non-neuroepithelial' tumors; it was convulsions/seizures for neuroepithelial tumors other than glioma, and visual signs and symptoms for meningiomas. A cluster analysis showed that headaches and nausea/vomiting was the only combination of symptoms that exceeded a cutoff of 50%, with a joint occurrence of 67%. Overall, the median time from first symptom to diagnosis was 1.42 months (IQR 0.53-4.80); it exceeded 1 year in 12% of cases, though no particular symptom was associated with exceptionally long or short delays.Conclusions: This is the largest clinical epidemiology study of BT in young people conducted so far. Many signs and symptoms were identified, dominated by headaches and nausea/vomiting. Diagnosis was generally rapid but in 12% diagnostic delay exceeded 1 year with none of the symptoms been associated with a distinctly long time until diagnosis. This work was supported by the MOBI-Kids study and the work in this study was obtained from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreements Number 226873—the MOBI-Kids Project—and 603794—the GERoNiMO project. Additional funds for the coordination of MOBI-Kids were obtained from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MINECO), while complementary funds for the conduct of MOBI-Kids in Spain were obtained from the Spanish Health Research Fund (FIS) of the National Institute for Health Carlos III. Italian participation is partially supported by a Ministry of Health grant (RF-2009-1546284). In Canada, funding was provided by a grant from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research under a peer-reviewed university-industry partnership program that involved the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, who provided technical data on wireless telecommunications practices in Canada. The German study centre received additional support by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS). Japanese participation in MOBI-Kids was supported by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. New Zealand participation was supported by Health Research Council and Cure Kids. In France, this study received funds from the French National Agency for Sanitary Safety of Food, Environment and Labour (ANSES, contract FSRF2008-3), French National Cancer Institute (INCa), Pfizer Foundation and League against cancer. India received funding from Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences (BRNS). The funding sources had no role in: the study design; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; the writing of the report; and the decision to submit the article for publication.