BACKGROUND: Indoor tanning has been only weakly associated with melanoma risk; most reports were unable to adjust for sun exposure, confirm a dose-response, or examine specific tanning devices. A population-based case-control study was conducted to address these limitations. METHODS: Cases of invasive cutaneous melanoma, diagnosed in Minnesota between 2004 and 2007 at ages 25 to 59, were ascertained from a statewide cancer registry; age-matched and gender-matched controls were randomly selected from state driver's license lists. Self-administered questionnaires and telephone interviews included information on ever use of indoor tanning, types of device used, initiation age, period of use, dose, duration, and indoor tanning-related burns. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were adjusted for known melanoma risk factors. RESULTS: Among 1,167 cases and 1,101 controls, 62.9% of cases and 51.1% of controls had tanned indoors (adjusted OR 1.74; 95% CI, 1.42-2.14). Melanoma risk was pronounced among users of UVB-enhanced (adjusted OR, 2.86; 95% CI, 2.03-4.03) and primarily UVA-emitting devices (adjusted OR, 4.44; 95% CI, 2.45-8.02). Risk increased with use: years (P < 0.006), hours (P < 0.0001), or sessions (P = 0.0002). ORs were elevated within each initiation age category; among indoor tanners, years used was more relevant for melanoma development. CONCLUSIONS: In a highly exposed population, frequent indoor tanning increased melanoma risk, regardless of age when indoor tanning began. Elevated risks were observed across devices. IMPACT: This study overcomes some of the limitations of earlier reports and provides strong support for the recent declaration by the IARC that tanning devices are carcinogenic in humans. Copyright 2010 AACR.
BACKGROUND: Indoor tanning has been only weakly associated with melanoma risk; most reports were unable to adjust for sun exposure, confirm a dose-response, or examine specific tanning devices. A population-based case-control study was conducted to address these limitations. METHODS: Cases of invasive cutaneous melanoma, diagnosed in Minnesota between 2004 and 2007 at ages 25 to 59, were ascertained from a statewide cancer registry; age-matched and gender-matched controls were randomly selected from state driver's license lists. Self-administered questionnaires and telephone interviews included information on ever use of indoor tanning, types of device used, initiation age, period of use, dose, duration, and indoor tanning-related burns. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were adjusted for known melanoma risk factors. RESULTS: Among 1,167 cases and 1,101 controls, 62.9% of cases and 51.1% of controls had tanned indoors (adjusted OR 1.74; 95% CI, 1.42-2.14). Melanoma risk was pronounced among users of UVB-enhanced (adjusted OR, 2.86; 95% CI, 2.03-4.03) and primarily UVA-emitting devices (adjusted OR, 4.44; 95% CI, 2.45-8.02). Risk increased with use: years (P < 0.006), hours (P < 0.0001), or sessions (P = 0.0002). ORs were elevated within each initiation age category; among indoor tanners, years used was more relevant for melanoma development. CONCLUSIONS: In a highly exposed population, frequent indoor tanning increased melanoma risk, regardless of age when indoor tanning began. Elevated risks were observed across devices. IMPACT: This study overcomes some of the limitations of earlier reports and provides strong support for the recent declaration by the IARC that tanning devices are carcinogenic in humans. Copyright 2010 AACR.
Authors: Kerri M Clough-Gorr; Linda Titus-Ernstoff; Ann E Perry; Steven K Spencer; Marc S Ernstoff Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2008-02-14 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: C Fortes; S Mastroeni; F Melchi; M A Pilla; G Antonelli; D Camaioni; M Alotto; P Pasquini Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2008-07-11 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Lill Tove N Nilsen; Merete Hannevik; Tommy N Aalerud; Bjørn Johnsen; Eva G Friberg; Marit B Veierød Journal: Photochem Photobiol Date: 2008-04-09 Impact factor: 3.421
Authors: Katherine D Hoerster; Rebecca L Garrow; Joni A Mayer; Elizabeth J Clapp; John R Weeks; Susan I Woodruff; James F Sallis; Donald J Slymen; Minal R Patel; Stephanie A Sybert Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Yu-mei Chang; Jennifer H Barrett; D Timothy Bishop; Bruce K Armstrong; Veronique Bataille; Wilma Bergman; Marianne Berwick; Paige M Bracci; J Mark Elwood; Marc S Ernstoff; Richard P Gallagher; Adèle C Green; Nelleke A Gruis; Elizabeth A Holly; Christian Ingvar; Peter A Kanetsky; Margaret R Karagas; Tim K Lee; Loïc Le Marchand; Rona M Mackie; Håkan Olsson; Anne Østerlind; Timothy R Rebbeck; Peter Sasieni; Victor Siskind; Anthony J Swerdlow; Linda Titus-Ernstoff; Michael S Zens; Julia A Newton-Bishop Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2009-04-08 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Alan C Geller; Richard W Clapp; Arthur J Sober; Lou Gonsalves; Lloyd Mueller; Cindy L Christiansen; Waqas Shaikh; Donald R Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 44.544