Rachel D Zamoiski1, Elizabeth K Cahoon2, D Michal Freedman2, Martha S Linet2. 1. Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, United States. Electronic address: rachel.zamoiski@nih.gov. 2. Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sunscreens protect against skin cancer and other harmful effects of solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR). Epidemiologic and public health surveys often rely on self-reported sunscreen use to estimate sun exposure and avoidance, but questions remain about the validity of self-reports. Benzophenone-3 (BP-3), a common sunscreen ingredient, can be detected in the urine. Prior studies suggest that BP-3 concentrations increase after application of sunscreen. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the validity of self-reported frequency of sunscreen use in relation to urinary BP-3 concentrations in a representative sample of the general US population, including in sub-groups defined by age, sex and race/ethnicity. METHODS: To assess the relationship between categorical self-reported sunscreen use and creatinine-corrected urinary BP-3 concentrations, we conducted a linear regression adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, six-month time period, body mass index, education, and sun avoidance behaviors. We tested for effect modification by age, sex, ethnicity and time period of measurement using multiplicative interaction terms and a F test. RESULTS: BP-3 was positively associated with self-reported frequency of sunscreen use across all ages, sexes, race/ethnicities, and time periods. Crude and multivariate adjusted models were all statistically significant. R-square was relatively low for all models, ranging from 0.15 to 0.43. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary BP-3 is positively associated with self-reported frequency of sunscreen use in the general US population, even in groups with overall low sunscreen use. These results suggest that self-report is a valid, although weak, way of assessing relative frequencies of sunscreen usage in a population-based study. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Sunscreens protect against skin cancer and other harmful effects of solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR). Epidemiologic and public health surveys often rely on self-reported sunscreen use to estimate sun exposure and avoidance, but questions remain about the validity of self-reports. Benzophenone-3 (BP-3), a common sunscreen ingredient, can be detected in the urine. Prior studies suggest that BP-3 concentrations increase after application of sunscreen. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the validity of self-reported frequency of sunscreen use in relation to urinary BP-3 concentrations in a representative sample of the general US population, including in sub-groups defined by age, sex and race/ethnicity. METHODS: To assess the relationship between categorical self-reported sunscreen use and creatinine-corrected urinary BP-3 concentrations, we conducted a linear regression adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, six-month time period, body mass index, education, and sun avoidance behaviors. We tested for effect modification by age, sex, ethnicity and time period of measurement using multiplicative interaction terms and a F test. RESULTS:BP-3 was positively associated with self-reported frequency of sunscreen use across all ages, sexes, race/ethnicities, and time periods. Crude and multivariate adjusted models were all statistically significant. R-square was relatively low for all models, ranging from 0.15 to 0.43. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary BP-3 is positively associated with self-reported frequency of sunscreen use in the general US population, even in groups with overall low sunscreen use. These results suggest that self-report is a valid, although weak, way of assessing relative frequencies of sunscreen usage in a population-based study. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Margaret P Staples; Mark Elwood; Robert C Burton; Jodie L Williams; Robin Marks; Graham G Giles Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2006-01-02 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Latrice C Pichon; Joni A Mayer; Donald J Slymen; John P Elder; Elizabeth C Lewis; Gabriel R Galindo Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: David B Buller; Marianne Berwick; Kathy Lantz; Mary Klein Buller; James Shane; Ilima Kane; Xia Liu Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: M Schlumpf; B Cotton; M Conscience; V Haller; B Steinmann; W Lichtensteiger Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Antonia M Calafat; Lee-Yang Wong; Xiaoyun Ye; John A Reidy; Larry L Needham Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Lidia Mínguez-Alarcón; Yu-Han Chiu; Feiby L Nassan; Paige L Williams; John Petrozza; Jennifer B Ford; Antonia M Calafat; Russ Hauser; Jorge E Chavarro Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 7.963
Authors: Samantha Schildroth; Lauren A Wise; Amelia K Wesselink; Traci N Bethea; Victoria Fruh; Kyla W Taylor; Antonia M Calafat; Donna D Baird; Birgit Claus Henn Journal: Chemosphere Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 8.943
Authors: Margaret Banker; Muraly Puttabyatappa; Patrick O'Day; Jaclyn M Goodrich; Angela S Kelley; Steven E Domino; Yolanda R Smith; Dana C Dolinoy; Peter X K Song; Richard J Auchus; Vasantha Padmanabhan Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Christine G Parks; Helen C S Meier; Todd A Jusko; Jesse Wilkerson; Frederick W Miller; Dale P Sandler Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2022-09-13 Impact factor: 8.786