These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Do cocarcinogenic effects of ELF electromagnetic fields require repeated long-term interaction with carcinogens? Characteristics of positive studies using the DMBA breast cancer model in rats.
    Author: Löscher W.
    Journal: Bioelectromagnetics; 2001 Dec; 22(8):603-14. PubMed ID: 11748679.
    Abstract:
    The carcinogenic or cocarcinogenic potential of extremely low frequency (ELF; 50 or 60 Hz) magnetic fields (MFs) has been evaluated worldwide in diverse animal model systems. Though most results have been negative, weakly positive or equivocal results have been reported in several cancer models, including the rat DMBA (7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene) model of mammary cancer. Based on the experimental conditions used in studies in which cocarcinogenic effects of ELF MF were found, it was recently proposed that MF exposure may potentiate the effects of known carcinogens only when the animals are exposed to both MF and carcinogen during an extended period of tumor development, i.e., when the carcinogen is given repeatedly during MF exposure. This review summarizes a series of experiments from our group, showing cocarcinogenic MF effects in the DMBA breast cancer model in rats, to test whether the above proposal is confirmed by existing data. Flux densities of 50 or 100 microT significantly increased the growth of mammary tumors, independent of whether DMBA was given in a single administration or repeatedly over a prolonged period. Thus, these data do not substantiate the hypothesis requiring repeated doses of DMBA during MF exposure. Instead, several other aspects of study design and experimental factors are identified that seem to be critical for the detection of cocarcinogenic effects of MF exposure in the rat DMBA mammary cancer model. These include the rat subline used, the dose of DMBA, the duration of MF exposure, the flux density, the background (sham control) tumor incidence, and the location of mammary tumors in the mammary gland complex. These and other experimental aspects may explain why some laboratories did not detect cocarcinogenic MF effects in the DMBA model. We hope that direct comparison of MF bioeffects in different rat sublines and further evaluation of other experimental differences between studies on MF exposure in the DMBA model will eventually determine which genetic and environmental factors are critical for potential carcinogenic or cocarcinogenic effects of ELF MF exposure.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]