Conflicting views in experimental carcinogenesis: a commentary on design and methodological deficiencies in the follow-up validation studies on radiofrequency radiation.

Conflicting views in experimental carcinogenesis often arise due to differences in study design among reported studies. For carcinogenicity assessments, regulatory agencies, such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and intergovernmental advisory organizations, such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), specify the use of at least three dose levels plus control group for trend analyses, with the highest dose inducing a measurable toxic response. In addition, there needs to be a sufficient number of animals per group to have adequate power to detect a true carcinogenic effect. Departure from such recommendations can weaken the interpretations of study results. We examine here two recent carcinogenicity studies from Japan and Korea that were conducted following the positive carcinogenicity study of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in experimental animals by the National Toxicology Program (NTP). The Japan and Korea follow-up studies used fewer animals per group, a single RFR exposure group, and a lower exposure level than the NTP study. Not surprisingly, while the NTP study revealed the carcinogenicity of RFR, the Japanese and Korean studies, which had reduced statistical power compared to the NTP study, issued conclusions conflicting with those of the more substantial NTP study on the health effects of RFR. In general, carcinogenicity studies with weaker doses, fewer exposure groups, and reduced statistical power should not be used to test the validity of more robust studies.