# RF-014 — Heavy phone use categories in CERENAT

Why this matters
People reporting the heaviest lifetime phone use had higher odds of two types of diagnosed brain tumour in this French study. Regular use overall showed no significant association. Better exposure histories could help clarify the heavy-use finding, because memory and participation biases can distort such comparisons.

Id: RF-014

Author: Coureau et al.

Full Authors: Gaëlle Coureau; Ghislaine Bouvier; Pierre Lebailly; Pascale Fabbro-Peray; Anne Gruber; Karen Leffondre; Jean-Sebastien Guillamo; Hugues Loiseau; Simone Mathoulin-Pélissier; Roger Salamon; Isabelle Baldi

Year: 2014

Title: Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study

Journal: occupational and environmental medicine

Citation: Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, Fabbro-Peray P, Gruber A, Leffondre K, Guillamo JS, Loiseau H, Mathoulin-Pélissier S, Salamon R, Baldi I. Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2014;71(7):514-522. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101754.

Doi: 10.1136/oemed-2013-101754

Pmid: 24816517

Topic: Human tumour associations

Verification Group: Original text reviewed

Record Role: Original text reviewed

Featured: True

Exposure: Recalled mobile-phone use; regular use >=one call weekly for >=six months. Main analyses exclude use in the year before diagnosis; categories based on control distribution, highest >=90th percentile.

Design: France 2004-2006; 253 gliomas, 194 meningiomas, 892 matched controls. Conditional logistic models: glioma adjusted for education and ionising radiation; meningioma for education. Exposure-variable sample sizes vary.

Finding: In the >=896-h recalled cumulative-call category, adjusted ORs were 2.89 (95% CI 1.41-5.93) for glioma (24 cases/22 controls in category) and 2.57 (1.02-6.44) for meningioma (13/9). Regular use overall was not significantly associated with either tumour.

Boundary: Retrospective case-control association, with recall/selection bias, proxy interviews, small extreme-use cells and multiple analyses. Call duration is not absorbed dose; no harmful SAR threshold follows. Main Table 3 estimates are distinct from later laterality recalculations.

Protection Question: Does the heavy-use association reflect a real cancer risk or biases in recalled use and participation? It raises a long-term exposure question without converting reported call time into absorbed dose.

Access: Original article PDF methods, Tables 2-4 and disclosures reviewed; journal final metadata verified

Locator: Original online-first PDF pp.2-3 methods; p.5 Table 3 with covariates; p.6 Table 4; p.8 funding

Notice: No formal retraction/concern located in Scite and targeted publisher/DOI search. Author response DOI 10.1136/oemed-2014-102649 revisits laterality analysis; no revised laterality estimate is used here.

Funding: Fondation de France; AFSSET; Association pour la Recherche contre le Cancer; Ligue contre le Cancer; INSERM ATC Environnement et Sante.

Conflicts: Authors state none.

Source Url: https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2013-101754

Retrieval Links: https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2013-101754 | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24816517/ | https://sageliving.us/wp-content/uploads/9-Coureau-2014-CERENET.pdf | https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2014-102649

Verification Date: 2026-10-20