The Ethics of "Choosing Wisely": The Use of Neuroimaging for Uncomplicated Headache

The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies - Part I: Most researched outcomes

BACKGROUND

The objective of this review was to assess the quality and strength of the evidence provided by human observational studies for a causal association between exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and risk of the most investigated neoplastic diseases.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria: We included cohort and case-control studies of neoplasia risks in relation to three types of exposure to RF-EMF: near-field, head-localized, exposure from wireless phone use (SR-A); far-field, whole body, environmental exposure from fixed-site transmitters (SR-B); near/far-field occupational exposures from use of hand-held transceivers or RF-emitting equipment in the workplace (SR-C). While no restrictions on tumour type were applied, in the current paper we focus on incidence-based studies of selected "critical" neoplasms of the central nervous system (brain, meninges, pituitary gland, acoustic nerve) and salivary gland tumours (SR-A); brain tumours and leukaemias (SR-B, SR-C). We focussed on investigations of specific neoplasms in relation to specific exposure sources (i.e. E-O pairs), noting that a single article may address multiple E-O pairs.

INFORMATION SOURCES

Eligible studies were identified by literature searches through Medline, Embase, and EMF-Portal. Risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment: We used a tailored version of the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) RoB tool to evaluate each study's internal validity. At the summary RoB step, studies were classified into three tiers according to their overall potential for bias (low, moderate and high).

DATA SYNTHESIS

We synthesized the study results using random effects restricted maximum likelihood (REML) models (overall and subgroup meta-analyses of dichotomous and categorical exposure variables), and weighted mixed effects models (dose-response meta-analyses of lifetime exposure intensity). Evidence assessment: Confidence in evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

We included 63 aetiological articles, published between 1994 and 2022, with participants from 22 countries, reporting on 119 different E-O pairs. RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones (ever or regular use vs no or non-regular use) was not associated with an increased risk of glioma [meta-estimate of the relative risk (mRR) = 1.01, 95 % CI = 0.89-1.13), meningioma (mRR = 0.92, 95 % CI = 0.82-1.02), acoustic neuroma (mRR = 1.03, 95 % CI = 0.85-1.24), pituitary tumours (mRR = 0.81, 95 % CI = 0.61-1.06), salivary gland tumours (mRR = 0.91, 95 % CI = 0.78-1.06), or paediatric (children, adolescents and young adults) brain tumours (mRR = 1.06, 95 % CI = 0.74-1.51), with variable degree of across-study heterogeneity (I2 = 0 %-62 %). There was no observable increase in mRRs for the most investigated neoplasms (glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma) with increasing time since start (TSS) use of mobile phones, cumulative call time (CCT), or cumulative number of calls (CNC). Cordless phone use was not significantly associated with risks of glioma [mRR = 1.04, 95 % CI = 0.74-1.46; I2 = 74 %) meningioma, (mRR = 0.91, 95 % CI = 0.70-1.18; I2 = 59 %), or acoustic neuroma (mRR = 1.16; 95 % CI = 0.83-1.61; I2 = 63 %). Exposure from fixed-site transmitters (broadcasting antennas or base stations) was not associated with childhood leukaemia or paediatric brain tumour risks, independently of the level of the modelled RF exposure. Glioma risk was not significantly increased following occupational RF exposure (ever vs never), and no differences were detected between increasing categories of modelled cumulative exposure levels.

DISCUSSION

In the sensitivity analyses of glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma risks in relation to mobile phone use (ever use, TSS, CCT, and CNC) the presented results were robust and not affected by changes in study aggregation. In a leave-one-out meta-analyses of glioma risk in relation to mobile phone use we identified one influential study. In subsequent meta-analyses performed after excluding this study, we observed a substantial reduction in the mRR and the heterogeneity between studies, for both the contrast Ever vs Never (regular) use (mRR = 0.96, 95 % CI = 0.87-1.07, I2 = 47 %), and in the analysis by increasing categories of TSS ("<5 years": mRR = 0.97, 95 % CI = 0.83-1.14, I2 = 41 %; "5-9 years ": mRR = 0.96, 95 % CI = 0.83-1.11, I2 = 34 %; "10+ years": mRR = 0.97, 95 % CI = 0.87-1.08, I2 = 10 %). There was limited variation across studies in RoB for the priority domains (selection/attrition, exposure and outcome information), with the number of studies evenly classified as at low and moderate risk of bias (49 % tier-1 and 51 % tier-2), and no studies classified as at high risk of bias (tier-3). The impact of the biases on the study results (amount and direction) proved difficult to predict, and the RoB tool was inherently unable to account for the effect of competing biases. However, the sensitivity meta-analyses stratified on bias-tier, showed that the heterogeneity observed in our main meta-analyses across studies of glioma and acoustic neuroma in the upper TSS stratum (I2 = 77 % and 76 %), was explained by the summary RoB-tier. In the tier-1 study subgroup, the mRRs (95 % CI; I2) in long-term (10+ years) users were 0.95 (0.85-1.05; 5.5 %) for glioma, and 1.00 (0.78-1.29; 35 %) for acoustic neuroma. The time-trend simulation studies, evaluated as complementary evidence in line with a triangulation approach for external validity, were consistent in showing that the increased risks observed in some case-control studies were incompatible with the actual incidence rates of glioma/brain cancer observed in several countries and over long periods. Three of these simulation studies consistently reported that RR estimates > 1.5 with a 10+ years induction period were definitely implausible, and could be used to set a "credibility benchmark". In the sensitivity meta-analyses of glioma risk in the upper category of TSS excluding five studies reporting implausible effect sizes, we observed strong reductions in both the mRR [mRR of 0.95 (95 % CI = 0.86-1.05)], and the degree of heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 3.6 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistently with the published protocol, our final conclusions were formulated separately for each exposure-outcome combination, and primarily based on the line of evidence with the highest confidence, taking into account the ranking of RF sources by exposure level as inferred from dosimetric studies, and the external coherence with findings from time-trend simulation studies (limited to glioma in relation to mobile phone use). For near field RF-EMF exposure to the head from mobile phone use, there was moderate certainty evidence that it likely does not increase the risk of glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma, pituitary tumours, and salivary gland tumours in adults, or of paediatric brain tumours. For near field RF-EMF exposure to the head from cordless phone use, there was low certainty evidence that it may not increase the risk of glioma, meningioma or acoustic neuroma. For whole-body far-field RF-EMF exposure from fixed-site transmitters (broadcasting antennas or base stations), there was moderate certainty evidence that it likely does not increase childhood leukaemia risk and low certainty evidence that it may not increase the risk of paediatric brain tumours. There were no studies eligible for inclusion investigating RF-EMF exposure from fixed-site transmitters and critical tumours in adults. For occupational RF-EMF exposure, there was low certainty evidence that it may not increase the risk of brain cancer/glioma, but there were no included studies of leukemias (the second critical outcome in SR-C). The evidence rating regarding paediatric brain tumours in relation to environmental RF exposure from fixed-site transmitters should be interpreted with caution, due to the small number of studies. Similar interpretative cautions apply to the evidence rating of the relation between glioma/brain cancer and occupational RF exposure, due to differences in exposure sources and metrics across the few included studies.

OTHER

This project was commissioned and partially funded by the World Health Organization (WHO). Co-financing was provided by the New Zealand Ministry of Health; the Istituto Superiore di Sanità in its capacity as a WHO Collaborating Centre for Radiation and Health; and ARPANSA as a WHO Collaborating Centre for Radiation Protection.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021236798. Published protocol: [(Lagorio et al., 2021) DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106828].

Rationale for issuing neuroimaging requests for patients with primary headaches in China

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence of neuroimaging in patients with primary headaches and the clinician-based rationale for requesting neuroimaging in China.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

This study included patients with primary headaches admitted to hospitals and clinicians in China. We identified whether neuroimaging was requested and the types of neuroimaging conducted.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional study, and convenience sampling was used to recruit patients with primary headaches. Clinicians were interviewed using a combination of personal in-depth and topic-selection group interviews to explore why doctors requested neuroimaging.

DATA COLLECTION

We searched for the diagnosis of primary headache in the outpatient and inpatient systems according to the International Classification of Diseases-10 code of patients admitted to six hospitals in three provincial capitals by 2022.We selected three public and three private hospitals with neurology specialties that treated a corresponding number of patients.

PRINCIPLE FINDINGS

Among the 2263 patients recruited for this study, 1942 (89.75%) underwent neuroimaging. Of the patients, 1157 (51.13%) underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 246 (10.87%) underwent both head computed tomography (CT) and MRI, and 628 (27.75%) underwent CT. Fifteen of the 16 interviewed clinicians did not issue a neuroimaging request for patients with primary headaches. Furthermore, we found that doctors issued a neuroimaging request for patients with primary headaches mostly, to exclude the risk of misdiagnosis, reduce uncertainty, avoid medical disputes, meet patients' medical needs, and complete hospital assessment indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

For primary headaches, the probability of clinicians requesting neuroimaging was higher in China than in other countries. There is considerable room for improvement in determining appropriate strategies to reduce the use of low-value care for doctors and patients.

Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated with Tumors and Other Structural Anomalies in Brain MRI Performed to Rule out Secondary Headache: A Multicenter Observational Study

Headache disorders (HDs) are among the most common conditions of the central nervous system, with an estimated prevalence of 50% in adult population. The aim of this work is to analyze the prevalence of structural anomalies that may explain HDs in MRI exams performed to rule out secondary headache in real-world practice, as well as risk factors associated with these lesions. We conducted a retrospective observational study based on a consecutive case series of all patients that underwent brain MRI due to headache from 1 January 2019 to 31 May 2019. We included patients from six MRI diagnostic centers accounting for four provinces of Andalusia (southern Spain). Bivariate and multivariate logistical regression models were performed to identify risk factors associated with the outcomes (1) presence of a structural finding potentially explaining headache, (2) presence of intracranial space-occupying lesions (SOLs), and (3) presence of intracranial tumors (ITs). Of the analyzed sample (1041 patients), a structural finding that could explain headache was found in 224 (21.5%) patients. SOLs were found in 50 (6.8%) patients and ITs in 12 (1.5%) patients. The main factors associated with structural abnormalities were female sex (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.85), accompanying symptoms (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.05-1.89), use of gadolinium-based contrast agents (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.31-2.72) and previously known conditions potentially explaining headache (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.55-3.84). Female sex (p = 0.048) and accompanying symptoms (p = 0.033) were also associated with ITs in bivariate analyses. Our results may be relevant for different medical specialists involved in the diagnosis, management and prevention of headache. Moreover, the risk factors identified in our study might help the development of public health strategies aimed at early diagnosis of brain tumors. Future studies are warranted to corroborate our findings.

Trends in the Management of Headache Disorders in US Emergency Departments: Analysis of 2007-2018 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey Data

We examined trends in management of headache disorders in United States (US) emergency department (ED) visits. We conducted a cross-sectional study using 2007−2018 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data. We included adult patient visits (≥18 years) with a primary ED discharge diagnosis of headache. We classified headache medications by pharmacological group: opioids, butalbital, ergot alkaloids/triptans, acetaminophen/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antiemetics, diphenhydramine, corticosteroids, and intravenous fluids. To obtain reliable estimates, we aggregated data into three time periods: 2007−2010, 2011−2014, and 2015−2018. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined medication, neuroimaging, and outpatient referral trends, separately. Among headache-related ED visits, opioid use decreased from 54.1% in 2007−2010 to 28.3% in 2015−2018 (Ptrend < 0.001). There were statistically significant increasing trends in acetaminophen/NSAIDs, diphenhydramine, and corticosteroids use (all Ptrend < 0.001). Changes in butalbital (6.4%), ergot alkaloid/triptan (4.7%), antiemetic (59.2% in 2015−2018), and neuroimaging (37.3%) use over time were insignificant. Headache-related ED visits with outpatient referral for follow-up increased slightly from 73.3% in 2007−2010 to 79.7% in 2015−2018 (Ptrend = 0.02). Reflecting evidence-based guideline recommendations for headache management, opioid use substantially decreased from 2007 to 2018 among US headache-related ED visits. Future studies are warranted to identify strategies to promote evidence-based treatment for headaches (e.g., sumatriptan, dexamethasone) and appropriate outpatient referral and reduce unnecessary neuroimaging orders in EDs.

Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours

BACKGROUND

Brain tumours are recognised as one of the most difficult cancers to diagnose because presenting symptoms, such as headache, cognitive symptoms, and seizures, may be more commonly attributable to other, more benign conditions. Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours include national awareness initiatives, expedited pathways, and protocols to diagnose brain tumours, based on a person's presenting symptoms and signs; and interventions to reduce waiting times for brain imaging pathways. If such interventions reduce the time to diagnosis, it may make it less likely that people experience clinical deterioration, and different treatment options may be available.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that may influence: symptomatic participants to present early (shortening the patient interval), thresholds for primary care referral (shortening the primary care interval), and time to imaging diagnosis (shortening the secondary care interval and diagnostic interval). To produce a brief economic commentary, summarising the economic evaluations relevant to these interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

For evidence on effectiveness, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from January 2000 to January 2020; Clinicaltrials.gov to May 2020, and conference proceedings from 2014 to 2018. For economic evidence, we searched the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2000 to December 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include studies evaluating any active intervention that may influence the diagnostic pathway, e.g. clinical guidelines, direct access imaging, public health campaigns, educational initiatives, and other interventions that might lead to early identification of primary brain tumours. We planned to include randomised and non-randomised comparative studies. Included studies would include people of any age, with a presentation that might suggest a brain tumour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy, and the full texts of potentially eligible studies. We resolved discrepancies through discussion or, if required, by consulting another review author.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any studies for inclusion in this review. We excluded 115 studies. The main reason for exclusion of potentially eligible intervention studies was their study design, due to a lack of control groups. We found no economic evidence to inform a brief economic commentary on this topic.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this version of the review, we did not identify any studies that met the review inclusion criteria for either effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Therefore, there is no evidence from good quality studies on the best strategies to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours, despite the prioritisation of research on early diagnosis by the James Lind Alliance in 2015. This review highlights the need for research in this area.

Neuroimaging for Migraine: The American Headache Society Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guideline

OBJECTIVE

To provide updated evidence-based recommendations about when to obtain neuroimaging in patients with migraine.

METHODS

Articles were included in the systematic review if they studied adults 18 and over who were seeking outpatient treatment for any type of migraine and who underwent neuroimaging (MRI or CT). Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Clinical Trials were searched from 1973 to August 31, 2018. Reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the evidence in duplicate. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 2269 publications. Twenty three articles met inclusion criteria and were included in the final review. The majority of studies were retrospective cohort or cross-sectional studies. There were 4 prospective observational studies. Ten studies evaluated the utility of CT only, 9 MRI only, and 4 evaluated both. Common abnormalities included chronic ischemia or atrophy with CT and MRI scanning, and non-specific white matter lesions with MRI. Clinically meaningful abnormalities requiring intervention were relatively rare. Clinically significant neuroimaging abnormalities in patients with headaches consistent with migraine without atypical features or red flags appeared no more common than in the general population.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There is no necessity to do neuroimaging in patients with headaches consistent with migraine who have a normal neurologic examination, and there are no atypical features or red flags present. Grade A Neuroimaging may be considered for presumed migraine for the following reasons: unusual, prolonged, or persistent aura; increasing frequency, severity, or change in clinical features, first or worst migraine, migraine with brainstem aura, migraine with confusion, migraine with motor manifestations (hemiplegic migraine), late-life migraine accompaniments, aura without headache, side-locked headache, and posttraumatic headache. Most of these are consensus based with little or no literature support. Grade C.

Risk factors for childhood and adult primary brain tumors

Primary brain tumors account for ~1% of new cancer cases and ~2% of cancer deaths in the United States; however, they are the most commonly occurring solid tumors in children. These tumors are very heterogeneous and can be broadly classified into malignant and benign (or non-malignant), and specific histologies vary in frequency by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Epidemiological studies have explored numerous potential risk factors, and thus far the only validated associations for brain tumors are ionizing radiation (which increases risk in both adults and children) and history of allergies (which decreases risk in adults). Studies of genetic risk factors have identified 32 germline variants associated with increased risk for these tumors in adults (25 in glioma, 2 in meningioma, 3 in pituitary adenoma, and 2 in primary CNS lymphoma), and further studies are currently under way for other histologic subtypes, as well as for various childhood brain tumors. While identifying risk factors for these tumors is difficult due to their rarity, many existing datasets can be leveraged for future discoveries in multi-institutional collaborations. Many institutions are continuing to develop large clinical databases including pre-diagnostic risk factor data, and developments in molecular characterization of tumor subtypes continue to allow for investigation of more refined phenotypes. Key Point 1. Brain tumors are a heterogeneous group of tumors that vary significantly in incidence by age, sex, and race/ethnicity.2. The only well-validated risk factors for brain tumors are ionizing radiation (which increases risk in adults and children) and history of allergies (which decreases risk).3. Genome-wide association studies have identified 32 histology-specific inherited genetic variants associated with increased risk of these tumors.

[Choosing Wisely - Klug Entscheiden: conceptual and ethical considerations]

Choosing Wisely and Klug Entscheiden (KE) are recent physician-triggered campaigns that aim at identifying and reducing blatant over-treatment as well as - a specialty of KE - occurring under-treatment. This paper provides some conceptual and normative analyses of these campaigns' goals and justifications.