Corrigendum to "Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review" [Environ. Int. 199 (2025) 109482]

Environment International · 2026 · Mixed · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

MixedModerate evidencePaper 6905

Across 51 studies, most systems and organs showed no or minimal evidence of RF-EMF-related cancer outcomes. Increased risks were identified with high certainty for glioma and heart schwannomas in male rats and with moderate certainty for lymphoma, pheochromoc…

Study snapshot

PublicationEnvironment International · 2026

Study typesystematic_review

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Background: More than ten years ago, the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a monograph concluding there was limited evidence in experimental animals for carcinogenicity of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field (RF EMF). Objective: The objective of this review was to systematically evaluate the effects of RF EMF exposure on cancer in experimental animals. Methods: Eligibility criteria: Based on pre-established Populations, Exposures, Comparators, Outcomes, and Study Type (PECOS) criteria, studies in experimental animals of the following study types were included: chronic cancer bioassays, initiation-(co-)promotion studies, and studies with tumor-prone animals. Information sources: MEDLINE (PubMed), Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science), and the EMF Portal. Data abstraction and synthesis: Data are publicly available online as interactive visuals with downloadable metadata. We adapted the risk-of-bias (RoB) tool developed by Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) to include considerations pertinent to the evaluation of RF EMF exposure and cancer bioassays. Study sensitivity was assessed with a tool adopted from the Report on Carcinogens (RoC). We synthesized studies using a narrative approach. Effect size was calculated as the 1% Bayesian Average benchmark dose (BMD) of a respective study when dose response or a trend was identified (see Supplementary Data 3). Evidence Assessment: Certainty of the evidence (CoE) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Developing and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, as refined by OHAT. Evidence from chronic cancer bioassays was considered the most directly applicable to evaluation of carcinogenicity. Results: We included 51 studies with 10 chronic bioassays. No studies were excluded based on risk of bias concerns. Studies were not considered suitable for meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in study design, species, strain, sex, exposure characteristics, and cancer outcome. No or minimal evidence of RF EMF exposure-related cancer outcomes was found in most systems or organs in any study. Increased risks were identified with high certainty of evidence for glioma and heart schwannomas in male rats, and moderate certainty for lymphoma, pheochromocytoma, hepatoblastomas, and lung neoplasms. Discussion: Meta-analysis was considered inappropriate due to heterogeneity in study methods. The two tumor types with high certainty of evidence in animals were the same as those identified with limited evidence in humans by the IARC Working Group. Extrapolation of risk from cancer bioassays to humans is particularly complex for RF EMF.

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 typesystematic_review

Effect directionmixed

PopulationExperimental animals in chronic cancer bioassays, initiation/co-promotion studies, and studies using tumor-prone animals

Sample size51

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 96% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Glioma
Heart schwannomas
Lymphoma
Pheochromocytoma
Hepatoblastomas
Lung neoplasms
Cancer outcomes across other organ systems

Limitations

Studies were unsuitable for meta-analysis because of heterogeneity in study design, species, strain, sex, exposure characteristics, and cancer outcomes.
Extrapolation from animal cancer bioassays to humans is particularly complex for RF EMF.
The publication is identified as a corrigendum, but the abstract does not specify the correction.

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "systematic_review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Experimental animals in chronic cancer bioassays, initiation/co-promotion studies, and studies using tumor-prone animals",
  "sample_size": 51,
  "outcomes": [
    "Glioma",
    "Heart schwannomas",
    "Lymphoma",
    "Pheochromocytoma",
    "Hepatoblastomas",
    "Lung neoplasms",
    "Cancer outcomes across other organ systems"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Across 51 studies, most systems and organs showed no or minimal evidence of RF-EMF-related cancer outcomes. Increased risks were identified with high certainty for glioma and heart schwannomas in male rats and with moderate certainty for lymphoma, pheochromocytoma, hepatoblastomas, and lung neoplasms.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Studies were unsuitable for meta-analysis because of heterogeneity in study design, species, strain, sex, exposure characteristics, and cancer outcomes.",
    "Extrapolation from animal cancer bioassays to humans is particularly complex for RF EMF.",
    "The publication is identified as a corrigendum, but the abstract does not specify the correction."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.96,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields",
    "RF EMF",
    "cancer",
    "carcinogenicity",
    "experimental animals",
    "systematic review",
    "glioma",
    "heart schwannoma",
    "lymphoma",
    "pheochromocytoma",
    "hepatoblastoma",
    "lung neoplasms",
    "IARC",
    "WHO"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.78,
      "reason": "The review directly discusses WHO/IARC evaluation of RF-EMF carcinogenicity evidence."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1016/j.envint.2026.110368
PubMed: 42442967

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library