Radiofrequency radiation from mobile phones and the risk of breast cancer: A multicenter case-control study with an additional suspected comparison group

Journal of Research in Medical Sciences · 2025 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream
HarmLow evidencePaper 2478

Compared with women reporting <10 minutes/day of mobile phone conversations, those reporting >60 minutes/day had higher odds of confirmed breast cancer (OR=3.49, 95% CI: 1.02–11.97) and higher odds of being in the suspected group (OR=10.84, 95% CI: 2.29–51.41…

Study snapshot

PublicationJournal of Research in Medical Sciences · 2025
Study typecase_control
Reported directionHarm
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Category: Epidemiology Tags: radiofrequency radiation, breast cancer, mobile phone use, EMF exposure, case-control study, Iran, women's health DOI: 10.4103/jrms.jrms_679_25 URL: journals.lww.com nd.63.aspx Background The rapid global increase in mobile phone use has raised concerns about the potential long-term health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. While most studies have focused on brain tumors, evidence regarding breast cancer remains limited. The objective of the study is to examine the association between mobile phone use and breast cancer risk among women in Iran. Materials and Methods - This multicenter case-control study involved 226 women recruited from diagnostic, mammography, and radiotherapy centers in Iran. - Participants were classified as controls (no history of breast cancer, n = 97), suspected cases (advised to undergo mammography due to breast-related complaints or physician recommendation, n = 52), and confirmed cases (histologically verified invasive breast cancer, n = 77). - Data on demographics, reproductive and lifestyle factors, and environmental exposures—including mobile phone call duration, screen time, and phone placement—were collected through structured questionnaires. - Multinomial logistic regression was used to analyze associations, adjusting for demographic, reproductive, environmental, and lifestyle variables. Findings - Women who reported more than 60 minutes of daily mobile phone conversations had higher odds of confirmed breast cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 3.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-11.97) and suspected status (OR = 10.84, 95% CI: 2.29-51.41) compared with those using phones less than 10 minutes daily. - Additional risk factors associated with increased odds included longer screen time (>4 h/day), later age at menarche, lower education level, and exposure to environmental pollutants. Conclusion Prolonged mobile phone use was associated with higher odds of breast cancer, but this does not imply causation. As the study relied on self-reported exposures and may be affected by residual confounding, its findings should be interpreted with caution. Further large-scale prospective studies with objective exposure assessment are warranted.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typecase_control
Effect directionharm
PopulationWomen in Iran recruited from diagnostic, mammography, and radiotherapy centers
Sample size226
ExposureRF · >60 minutes/day mobile phone conversations (vs <10 minutes/day); also screen time >4 h/day mentioned
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Compared with women reporting <10 minutes/day of mobile phone conversations, those reporting >60 minutes/day had higher odds of confirmed breast cancer (OR=3.49, 95% CI: 1.02–11.97) and higher odds of being in the suspected group (OR=10.84, 95% CI: 2.29–51.41). Longer screen time (>4 h/day) and several non-EMF factors were also associated with increased odds.

Outcomes measured

  • Breast cancer (histologically verified invasive breast cancer)
  • Suspected breast cancer status (advised to undergo mammography due to complaints/physician recommendation)

Limitations

  • Case-control design (cannot establish causation)
  • Exposure assessment relied on self-reported questionnaire data
  • Potential residual confounding despite adjustment
  • Wide confidence intervals for reported odds ratios
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "case_control",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": ">60 minutes/day mobile phone conversations (vs <10 minutes/day); also screen time >4 h/day mentioned"
  },
  "population": "Women in Iran recruited from diagnostic, mammography, and radiotherapy centers",
  "sample_size": 226,
  "outcomes": [
    "Breast cancer (histologically verified invasive breast cancer)",
    "Suspected breast cancer status (advised to undergo mammography due to complaints/physician recommendation)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Compared with women reporting <10 minutes/day of mobile phone conversations, those reporting >60 minutes/day had higher odds of confirmed breast cancer (OR=3.49, 95% CI: 1.02–11.97) and higher odds of being in the suspected group (OR=10.84, 95% CI: 2.29–51.41). Longer screen time (>4 h/day) and several non-EMF factors were also associated with increased odds.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "Case-control design (cannot establish causation)",
    "Exposure assessment relied on self-reported questionnaire data",
    "Potential residual confounding despite adjustment",
    "Wide confidence intervals for reported odds ratios"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency radiation",
    "mobile phone use",
    "breast cancer",
    "case-control",
    "Iran",
    "women",
    "screen time",
    "phone placement",
    "call duration"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "mobile-phones",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Study evaluates mobile phone use/call duration in relation to breast cancer risk."
    }
  ]
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.4103/jrms.jrms_679_25
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library