Dataset Information

Development of a melanoma risk prediction model incorporating MC1R genotype and indoor tanning exposure: impact of mole phenotype on model performance.

ABSTRACT: Identifying individuals at increased risk for melanoma could potentially improve public health through targeted surveillance and early detection. Studies have separately demonstrated significant associations between melanoma risk, melanocortin receptor (MC1R) polymorphisms, and indoor ultraviolet light (UV) exposure. Existing melanoma risk prediction models do not include these factors; therefore, we investigated their potential to improve the performance of a risk model.Using 875 melanoma cases and 765 controls from the population-based Minnesota Skin Health Study we compared the predictive ability of a clinical melanoma risk model (Model A) to an enhanced model (Model F) using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Model A used self-reported conventional risk factors including mole phenotype categorized as "none", "few", "some" or "many" moles. Model F added MC1R genotype and measures of indoor and outdoor UV exposure to Model A. We also assessed the predictive ability of these models in subgroups stratified by mole phenotype (e.g. nevus-resistant ("none" and "few" moles) and nevus-prone ("some" and "many" moles)).Model A (the reference model) yielded an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.72 (95% CI?=?0.69, 0.74). Model F was improved with an AUC?=?0.74 (95% CI?=?0.71-0.76, p<0.01). We also observed substantial variations in the AUCs of Models A & F when examined in the nevus-prone and nevus-resistant subgroups.These results demonstrate that adding genotypic information and environmental exposure data can increase the predictive ability of a clinical melanoma risk model, especially among nevus-prone individuals.

SUBMITTER: Penn LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4086828 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesise the literature on indoor tanning and non-melanoma skin cancer.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed (1966 to present), Embase (1974 to present), and Web of Science (1898 to present).Study selectionAll articles that reported an original effect statistic for indoor tanning and non-melanoma skin cancer were included. Articles that presented no data, such as review articles and editorials, were excluded, as were articles in languages other than English.Data extractionTwo investigators independently extracted data. Random effects meta-analysis was used to summarise the relative risk of ever use versus never use of indoor tanning. Dose-response effects and exposure to indoor tanning during early life were also examined. The population attributable risk fraction for the United States population was calculated.Results12 studies with 9328 cases of non-melanoma skin cancer were included. Among people who reported ever using indoor tanning compared with those who never used indoor tanning, the summary relative risk for squamous cell carcinoma was 1.67 (95% confidence interval 1.29 to 2.17) and that for basal cell carcinoma was 1.29 (1.08 to 1.53). No significant heterogeneity existed between studies. The population attributable risk fraction for the United States was estimated to be 8.2% for squamous cell carcinoma and 3.7% for basal cell carcinoma. This corresponds to more than 170 000 cases of non-melanoma skin cancer each year attributable to indoor tanning. On the basis of data from three studies, use of indoor tanning before age 25 was more strongly associated with both squamous cell carcinoma (relative risk 2.02, 0.70 to 5.86) and basal cell carcinoma (1.40, 1.29 to 1.52).ConclusionsIndoor tanning is associated with a significantly increased risk of both basal and squamous cell skin cancer. The risk is higher with use in early life (<25 years). This modifiable risk factor may account for hundreds of thousands of cases of non-melanoma skin cancer each year in the United States alone and many more worldwide. These findings contribute to the growing body of evidence on the harms of indoor tanning and support public health campaigns and regulation to reduce exposure to this carcinogen.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether an association exists between financial links to the indoor tanning industry and conclusions of indoor tanning literature.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, up to 15 February 2019.Study selection criteriaArticles discussing indoor tanning and health were eligible for inclusion, with no article type restrictions (original research, systematic reviews, review articles, case reports, editorials, commentaries, and letters were all eligible). Basic science studies, articles describing only indoor tanning prevalence, non-English articles, and articles without full text available were excluded.Results691 articles were included in analysis, including empiric articles (eg, original articles or systematic reviews) (357/691; 51.7%) and non-empiric articles letters (eg, commentaries, letters, or editorials) (334/691; 48.3%). Overall, 7.2% (50/691) of articles had financial links to the indoor tanning industry; 10.7% (74/691) articles favored indoor tanning, 3.9% (27/691) were neutral, and 85.4% (590/691) were critical of indoor tanning. Among the articles without industry funding, 4.4% (27/620) favored indoor tanning, 3.5% (22/620) were neutral, and 92.1% (571/620) were critical of indoor tanning. Among the articles with financial links to the indoor tanning industry, 78% (39/50) favored indoor tanning, 10% (5/50) were neutral, and 12% (6/50) were critical of indoor tanning. Support from the indoor tanning industry was significantly associated with favoring indoor tanning (risk ratio 14.3, 95% confidence interval 10.0 to 20.4).ConclusionsAlthough most articles in the indoor tanning literature are independent of industry funding, articles with financial links to the indoor tanning industry are more likely to favor indoor tanning. Public health practitioners and researchers need to be aware of and account for industry funding when interpreting the evidence related to indoor tanning.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019123617.

Dataset Information

Development of a melanoma risk prediction model incorporating MC1R genotype and indoor tanning exposure: impact of mole phenotype on model performance.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets