RE: "OCCUPATIONAL MAGNETIC FIELDS AND FEMALE BREAST CANCER: A CASE-CONTROL STUDY USING SWEDISH POPULATION REGISTERS AND NEW EXPOSURE DATA"

T. C. Erren

Institute and Policlinic for Occupational and Social Medicine, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Cologne, 50924 Cologne, Germany

Can we close the book on the issue of magnetic fields and breast cancer? No. This is the rational answer to a question possibly implied by the very large study by Forssén et al., which found "no evidence for an increased risk of breast cancer among women working in occupations with high magnetic field exposure" (1Go, p. 255). Indeed, that this—and prior studies—did not detect an increased risk does not readily imply that there is none.

Here is why: In studies of possible links between nonionizing radiation and breast cancer, exposure misclassification is of paramount concern. In their introduction, Forssén et al. (1Go) start out from the so-called melatonin hypothesis that suggests a biologically plausible and credible (2Go) mechanism for possible causal associations between exposures to extremely-low-frequency electric and/or magnetic fields and breast cancer in women via impaired pineal secretion of melatonin (3Go). A "lack of melatonin can reasonably be anticipated to be a human carcinogen" (4Go, p. 313), and "this hypothesis has thus far withstood 15 years of critical scrutiny and empirical research, inside the laboratory and out in the epidemiologic field" (5Go, p. 73). While it is to the credit of Forssén et al. that they improved assessment of women's exposure to magnetic fields, it must be emphasized that the study's underlying hypothesis implicates two distinct frequencies: extremely-low-frequency electric and/or magnetic fields and visible light. Of the two, light inhibits melatonin much more strongly and more reproducibly than magnetic fields may. It follows that light could be a much more likely culprit—at work and at home—than magnetic fields (6Go).

Intriguingly, findings from first studies of blind people and of shift workers are compatible with the notion that visible light may affect breast cancer risks; that is, risks may be reduced in the blind (7Go–11Go) and increased in female shift workers (12Go–15Go). Importantly, light could be a significant cause of breast cancer because the ubiquitous nature of visible radiation implies the possibility that even small risk elevations could lead to a substantial population burden. Moreover, since the possibly strong risk factor light was not controlled for, it remains conceivable that magnetic fields do increase breast cancer risks but that this effect has been assessed erroneously in many (or all) epidemiologic studies to date. To illustrate this crucial point with a provocative analogy: we would be prone to miss, underestimate, or overestimate possible effects of most known lung carcinogens if we did not control for differential smoking habits in study subjects (16Go).

A look at experimental work may be important here. In recent years, Thun-Battersby et al. (17Go) were able to substantiate earlier observations that magnetic field exposures enhance the development and growth of mammary tumors in the 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (DMBA) model of breast cancer in female Sprague-Dawley rats. Experimental work could also explain why a similar study conducted in the United States yielded different results, in particular because the substrains of rats used in the two laboratories differed in their susceptibility to DMBA-induced mammary cancers (18Go). Possibly, the control of light (indeed, all animals were exposed to the same light regime) may have allowed the experimental researchers to detect magnetic field effects that could be masked in the existing epidemiologic studies by uncontrolled light exposures.

It remains to be emphasized that if we decide to find out whether the melatonin hypothesis and associated predictions are valid, epidemiologic studies must collect information about magnetic fields and light (6Go). If we continue to rely on exposure assessments of magnetic fields alone, investigations shall not be sensibly interpretable and the important question for public health concerning whether magnetic fields and/or visible light may increase breast cancer risks will not be answered convincingly.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
Conflict of interest: none declared.


    References
 TOP
 References
 

  1. Forssén UM, Rutqvist LE, Ahlbom A, et al. Occupational magnetic fields and female breast cancer: a case-control study using Swedish population registers and new exposure data. Am J Epidemiol 2005;161:250–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Trichopoulos D. Are electric or magnetic fields affecting mortality from breast cancer in women? J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:885–6.[ISI][Medline]
  3. Stevens RG. Electric power use and breast cancer: a hypothesis. Am J Epidemiol 1987;125:556–61.[ISI][Medline]
  4. Portier CJ. Decisions about environmental health risks: what are the key questions and how does this apply to melatonin? In: Erren TC, Piekarski C, eds. Low frequency EMF, visible light, melatonin and cancer. Proceedings of an International Symposium, May 4–5, 2000, Cologne, Germany. (Also available under summaries at http://www.uni-koeln.de/symposium2000/).
  5. Poole C. The darkness at the end of the tunnel: summary and evaluation of an international symposium on light, endocrine systems and cancer. Neuroendocrinol Lett 2002;23(suppl 2):71–8. (Also available under summaries at http://www.uni-koeln.de/symposium2002/).[ISI][Medline]
  6. Erren TC. Biologically based study of magnetic field exposure and female breast cancer—will there be a sensible interpretation without information on a likely culprit? Epidemiology 2003;14:129–30.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  7. Hahn RA. Profound bilateral blindness and the incidence of breast cancer. Epidemiology 1991;2:208–10.[Medline]
  8. Feychting M, Osterlund B, Ahlbom A. Reduced cancer incidence among the blind. Epidemiology 1998;9:490–4.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  9. Pukkala E, Verkasalo PK, Ojamo M, et al. Visual impairment and cancer: a population-based cohort study in Finland. Cancer Causes Control 1999;10:13–20.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  10. Verkasalo PK, Pukkala E, Stevens RG, et al. Inverse association between breast cancer incidence and degree of visual impairment in Finland. Br J Cancer 1999;80:1459–60.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  11. Kliukiene J, Tynes T, Andersen A. Risk of breast cancer among Norwegian women with visual impairment. Br J Cancer 2001;84:397–9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  12. Hansen J. Increased breast cancer risk among women who work predominantly at night. Epidemiology 2001;12:74–7.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  13. Davis S, Mirick DK, Stevens RG. Night shift work, light at night, and risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1557–62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Schernhammer ES, Laden F, Speizer FE, et al. Rotating night shifts and risk of breast cancer in the Nurses' Health Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1563–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Hansen J. Light at night, shiftwork, and breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1513–15.[Free Full Text]
  16. Erren TC. A meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies of electric and magnetic fields and breast cancer in women and men. Bioelectromagnetics 2001;suppl 5:S105–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Thun-Battersby S, Mevissen M, Loscher W. Exposure of Sprague-Dawley rats to a 50-Hertz, 100-microTesla magnetic field for 27 weeks facilitates mammary tumorigenesis in the 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]-anthracene model of breast cancer. Cancer Res 1999;59:3627–33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Fedrowitz M, Kamino K, Loscher W. Significant differences in the effects of magnetic field exposure on 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene-induced mammary carcinogenesis in two substrains of Sprague-Dawley rats. Cancer Res 2004;64:243–51.[Abstract/Free Full Text]