New Anti-Tanning Review Article Incorrectly Characterizes Results of Earlier Studies
- Research still links melanoma with intermittent sunburns, but not with indoor tanning facilities, which help prevent intermittent sunburning.
Washington, D.C. (Jan. 30) -- The Indoor Tanning Association (the ITA) issues the following statement following the publication of a review article this month in the British journal Pigment Cell Research by London dermatologist Antony R. Young:
The article oversimplifies the complex nature of the relationship between ultraviolet light and skin damage and misrepresents the findings of previous papers by other authors in his review. Consider:
The review paper states, ?Several epidemiological studies, although not all, have shown a significant relationship between the use of tanning devices and malignant melanoma.? Yet close examination of the studies cited in the paper suggests otherwise. In fact, 10 of the 12 studies reviewed in the paper showed no causative association between indoor tanning facilities and melanoma skin cancer. The two that did suggest a relationship were conducted in Sweden by the same research team: a 1994 study that produced positive results only in one very small sub-group of the study which has been widely misreported as representing the entire paper, and a 2000 study in which those who tanned most frequently actually had a lower risk - a divergent conclusion that is not explained by the authors.
- There have, in fact, been more than 20 epidemiological studies that have examined indoor tanning and melanoma. Only four of these have suggested any connection, and all four either failed to account for confounding variables or produced results that were inconsistent with the declaration of a positive statement (See Table 1).
- The most recent study conducted on this topic in 2002 concluded, ?No evidence was found for an association between sunbed use and melanoma. No result suggested a dose-response curve, and no association was even present for subjects reported more than 35 hours of cumulated sunbed use or who started their sunbed use at least 19 years before the interview. Our study does not support the possibility that sunbed use could increase the melanoma risk.? This study was conducted by P.H. Autier, who has written three such papers: A 1991 paper that showed an increase that the author could not explain, and a 1994 paper in which some tanners had a decreased risk of melanoma.
- No study on this topic conducted in the United States has ever suggested that there is a connection between indoor tanning facilities and melanoma.
- The new review article claims incorrectly, ?Several epidemiological studies show that childhood exposure to sunlight is a risk factor for malignant melanoma and this may also be the case for the use of tanning devices, especially if sunburns are obtained.? In fact, only sunburn at an early age has been implicated to be a potential risk factor - not ultraviolet light exposure obtained in a non-burning fashion. To say that UV light causes skin damage, and therefore should be avoided, is akin to saying that water causes drowning, and therefore should be avoided: It is an inaccurate and dangerous oversimplification.
- The author claims in one section of the paper, ?During the past decade or so, there has been an increasing trend, especially among young people, to use UVR emitting devices to achieve a tan.? No reference is cited for this claim, and yet in another section of the paper he cites a study that showed that sunbed use has declined 50 percent among Swedish adolescents in the period 1993-1999. In fact, the indoor tanning industry has noted no special trend for tanners aged 16-18 in this time period.
- Even the new review article admits, ?Based on current evidence, it is still difficult to categorically state that sun bed use results in malignant melanoma.? Further, the article cites two recent review articles on the same topic: ?Two recent reviews by epidemiologists conclude that a clear link between tanning devices and melanoma is yet to be proven.?
One could easily review the same material Young reviewed in this paper and write a new paper with a totally divergent conclusion - that indoor tanning facilities are not linked to melanoma. The author ignores relevant confounding information to pursue his conclusion without regard to the whole truth and mixes policy recommendations in with his review, producing an unfortunate mixture of politics and science. This paper recklessly misleads the reader and should be discredited.
* 18 of the 22 epidemiological studies conducted on this topic show no statistically significant association between indoor tanning and melanoma skin cancer. The four that do show an association do not control for confounding variables such as recreational exposure to sunlight, occupational exposure to sunlight, childhood recollection of sunburns and family history of skin cancer in such a way as to isolate indoor tanning usage as the cause of the increase in risk.
** Westerdahl?s 1994 survey was widely misreported - one sub-group in the study showed an increased risk, but the sample was less than a dozen, and the confidence interval of the statistic was well beyond statistical tolerance. The study as a whole showed no statistically significant association, and the same survey also showed that those who used sunscreens on a regular basis had nearly twice the risk of melanoma as those who didn?t use sunscreen - a divergent conclusion that is also unexplained.
# Use of tanning units at a commercial indoor tanning facility did not increase risk. According to the authors, ?Sunlamp use in commercial settings was not associated with subsequent development of melanoma.?
References
Young AR. Tanning devices - fast track to skin cancer? Pigment Cell Res. 2004;17:2-9.
Zittermann A. Vitamin D in preventive medicine: are we ignoring the evidence? Br J Nutr. 2003;89:552-72.here are also other links to melanoma, including skin type, diet (high in fat, low in antioxidants), etc.
Swerdlow, AJ, Weinstock, MA. Do Tanning Lamps Cause Melanoma? An Epidemiologic Assessment. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 1998. Vol. 38. No. 1
Klepp O, Magnus K. Some environmental and bodily characteristics of melanoma patients: a case-control study. Int J Cancer 1979;23:482-6.
Adam SA, Sheaves JK, Wright NH, Mosser G, Harris RW, Vessey MP. A case-control study of the possible association between oral contraceptives and malignant melanomas. Br J Cancer 1981;44:45-50.
Holman CDJ. Risk factors in the causation of human malignant melanoma of the skin. University of Western Australia, 1982.
Gallagher RP, Elwood JM, Hill GB. Risk factors for cutaneous malignant melanoma: the Western Canada Melanoma Study. Recent Results Cancer Res 1986;102:38-55.
Elwood JM, Williamson C, Stapleton PJ. Malignant melanoma in relation to moles, pigmentation, and exposure to fluorescent and other lighting sources. Br J Cancer 1986;53:65-74.
Holly EA, Kelly JW, Shpall SN, Chiu S-H. Number of melanocytic nevi as a major risk factor for malignant melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol 1987;17:459-68.
Nazaj na vrhLeeLooStarost: n/aPridružen: 3. feb 2004Prispevkov: 85Kraj: LjubljanaStatus:OfflineSpremljaj me Objavljeno: 2. mar 2004 22:16  Bravo palcica!
Sej ves, jst sem bolj blont, pa zlo tezko se znajdem v kurniku....ampak se bom potrudla selekcionirat koristne poste od koruze  Za solarij sem se pa itaq ze odlocla, tko da grem veselo nabirat rakave celice! PetraStarost: 44Pridružen: 17. okt 2003Prispevkov: 6817Kraj: LjubljanaStatus:OfflineSpremljaj me Objavljeno: 3. mar 2004 3:02 LeeLoo je napisal/aBravo palcica! Sej ves, jst sem bolj blont, pa zlo tezko se znajdem v kurniku....ampak se bom potrudla selekcionirat koristne poste od koruze Za solarij sem se pa itaq ze odlocla, tko da grem veselo nabirat rakave celice! Ja pametno, potem pa še kakega pokadi, boš še pljučnega rakca nafotrala SenkaStarost: n/aPridružen: 15. dec 2003Prispevkov: 3246Kraj: n/aStatus:OfflineSpremljaj me Objavljeno: 3. mar 2004 10:03 Punce, dajte no...  TanjaStarost: n/aPridružen: 14. okt 2003Prispevkov: 45033Kraj: Planet LepoteStatus:OfflineSpremljaj me Objavljeno: 3. mar 2004 14:08 LeeLoo je napisal/aBravo palcica! Sej ves, jst sem bolj blont, pa zlo tezko se znajdem v kurniku....ampak se bom potrudla selekcionirat koristne poste od koruze Za solarij sem se pa itaq ze odlocla, tko da grem veselo nabirat rakave celice! Draga LeeLoo, s tole izjavo žališ obiskovalke foruma. Ne vem, ali je to sicer tvoj način komuniciranja, ali si tako navajena z drugih forumov, ampak te prosim, da tu tega ne počneš več. Ker na tem forumu SE MED SEBOJ NE žALIMO. Hvala! A health and beauty freak. MarinkaStarost: n/aPridružen: 12. nov 2003Prispevkov: 340Kraj: MariborStatus:OfflineSpremljaj me Objavljeno: 3. mar 2004 14:32 @ LeeLoo Punce, ne vem, kaj je danes v zraku! Pa kaj res ne moremo biti vljudne? Kaj je to nekaterim res tako težko? Vse to "prepucavanje"... Če dvoumno napišeš, potem lahko z zagotovostjo računaš, da te bomo dvoumno razumeli! Kaj ni mogoče svojega (pa čeprav popolnoma drugačnega, nasprotnega) mnenja napisati VLJUDNO? Po mojem mnenju forumi niso zato, da se nekdo izživlja po domače... Izmenjava mnenj lahko poteka kultivirano, vljudno.... Je pa res, da nekateri tega očitno preprosto niso sposobni... Sama bi tvoj post (tako kot večino takih do sedaj) ignorirala, ker menim, da ni vredno reagirati na nevljudne izjave... Ampak danes je res nekaj v zraku in sem preprosto morala odreagirati. Saj nismo barbari.... pokažimo spoštovanje do drugačnih mnenj, če so ta izražena na kulturen način... Ostale nekulturne, divjaške izjave pa preprosto IGNORIRAJMO! Menim, da bo to še najbolje.... Pa brez zamere.... ampak res mi je težko danes prebirati nekatere stvari.... Lep pozdrav, Marinka palcicaStarost: n/aPridružen: 18. jan 2004Prispevkov: 1600Kraj: n/aStatus:OfflineSpremljaj me Objavljeno: 3. mar 2004 19:44 točno tako marinka SašaStarost: n/aPridružen: 17. okt 2003Prispevkov: 1763Kraj: n/aStatus:OfflineSpremljaj me Objavljeno: 3. mar 2004 21:54 robertsunStarost: n/aPridružen: 25. jan 2004Prispevkov: 227Kraj: n/aStatus:OfflineSpremljaj me Objavljeno: 4. mar 2004 20:06 cokolinaStarost: 39Pridružen: 11. dec 2006Prispevkov: 726Kraj: koperStatus:OfflineSpremljaj me Objavljeno: 13. apr 2011 13:25 še nobena tema me ni tolko nasmejala kot ta ;D PMS rulz  :D Mene tudi noben ne prepriča, da bom v senci, če mi paše igrat odbojko na soncu jo pač bom, ko bom jih imela 50 pa mi bodo zgubano kožo pač raztegnili ali 'polikali' s kakšno operacijo, ki bodo takrat smešno poceni  Ker pa se mi ne zdi zdravo bit opečena, se vedno mažem in sem letos začela obiskovat solarij, vedno po 5 minut pred sezono. Jem in pijem veliko antioksidantov, alg ter hranim kožo kolkor se pač da. Uporabljam izključno naravno kozmetiko in jem čimbolj bio hrano z lastnega vrta. Da pa se bom izogibala soncu in rjavi barvi zaradi gub pa žal ne. Rjava koža mi je nenormalno lepa in mi vedno bo. Škodljiva je kontracepcija, kajenje, alkohol, diete, ...no naštetega pač ne uporabljam, in sem rajši na soncu ali v solariju. Kako lepo, da smo si tako različni, po barvi, mnenju, obnašanju, izražanju, kulturi.... Svet je pester prav zato  magratejaStarost: n/aPridružen: 19. okt 2008Prispevkov: 2577Kraj: n/aStatus:OfflineSpremljaj me Objavljeno: 13. apr 2011 13:28 Gube niso edina nevarnost, tu je tudi kožni rak... mimikaStarost: 42Pridružen: 30. okt 2005Prispevkov: 6588Kraj: LjubljanaStatus:OfflineSpremljaj me Objavljeno: 13. apr 2011 15:27 cokolina je napisal/aŠkodljiva je kontracepcija, kajenje, alkohol, diete, ...no naštetega pač ne uporabljam, in sem rajši na soncu ali v solariju. Nočem biti (preveč) nesramna, ampak ... ammm, iščem besede, pa jih kar ne najdem O nevarnostih izpostavljanja soncu in še toliko bolj uporabe solarija je pač jasno že toliko, da je res hecno, da si naštela vse tiste druge stvari, to dvoje pa posebej izpostavila kot neškodljivo. “Be daring, be different, be impractical, be anything that will assert integrity of purpose and imaginative vision against the play-it-safers, the creatures of the commonplace, the slaves of the ordinary.” - Cecil Beaton SinthijaStarost: n/aPridružen: 12. maj 2004Prispevkov: 9772Kraj: n/aStatus:OfflineSpremljaj me Objavljeno: 13. apr 2011 17:45 No, ja, če kontracepcija bolj škodi, kot solarij ali pretirano sončenje, potem bi morala biti že 90% žensk pod rušo. Malo poglej statistiko, koliko ljudi dobi kožnega raka, potem boš pa malo premislila, preden boš kaj takšnega spet napisala. Sicer pa vsak kakor mu paše. Pameti se očitno pač res ne da kupiti. "Najlepši okras ženske je ljubezen. Najlepša oblačila na ženski pa so roke moškega, ki ga ljubi." V kateri solarij? Pojdi na stran: |
