This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) eLetters: Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services E-mail this article link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints/Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Beddingfield, F. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Beddingfield, F. C., III

The Melanoma Epidemic: Res Ipsa Loquitur

Department of Medicine, Division of Dermatology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA

Correspondence: Frederick C. Beddingfield, III, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Medicine, Division of Dermatology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA. Telephone: 310-206-6371; Fax: 310-206-5046; e-mail: fbeddingfield{at}mednet.ucla.edu

	LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Incidence Mortality and Survival Stage Distribution of Disease Etiology and Risk Factors Public Health Initiatives References

 
After completing this course, the reader will be able to:

1. Describe the factors suggesting the melanoma epidemic is real and not artificial.
   
2. List the major risk factors for melanoma and preventative measures.
   
3. Describe the relationships between age and gender and melanoma risk.
   

	ABSTRACT

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Incidence Mortality and Survival Stage Distribution of Disease Etiology and Risk Factors Public Health Initiatives References

 
Many have debated whether or not we are in the midst of a melanoma epidemic. Some facts are clear and helpful to this debate, while others are less clear. The incidence and mortality of melanoma have increased over the last several decades, but the incidence has risen faster than the mortality. The incidence has risen 3%–7% on average over several decades and even more rapidly among Caucasian men and the elderly. In the U.S., the incidence in men is higher than in women after the age of 40, and the difference between men and women increases from age 40 until the end of life. The incidence in the U.S. has risen most rapidly among in situ and localized lesions, but distant and regional disease have increased as well. Among localized disease, in the U.S. from 1988–1997, all stages increased by comparable amounts. This strongly argues against the idea that the increase in incidence of melanoma is only due to early detection of thin lesions or biologically benign lesions, at least during the time period studied. On the other hand, early detection of thin lesions may well account for lower increases in mortality than incidence and improvements in survival. Survival has increased from approximately 60% in the 1960s to 89% in recent years. Improvements in survival appear to be related to earlier diagnosis, rather than an improvement in survival of a given stage.

Studies consistently point to a major role for UV light exposure as the most important risk factor for those individuals with a phenotypic susceptibility. Public health efforts aim at primary and secondary prevention strategies. Primary prevention strategies attempt to prevent people from developing melanoma, primarily through avoiding exposure to UV light. There is a particular emphasis on avoidance of UV light exposure in childhood and young adulthood, when it appears the risk is greatest. When strict avoidance cannot be adhered to, sunscreens have been logically recommended. Secondary prevention strategies include screening campaigns and educational campaigns. Many of these strategies appear promising but require further rigorous testing. The melanoma epidemic has arisen for a variety of reasons including: a true increase in melanomas of malignant behavior, a particularly high increase in localized and in situ lesions, and an increase in the number of biopsies performed, which may have resulted in an increased detection of less aggressive lesions. The contribution of possible changes in the diagnostic criteria for melanoma to the increased incidence remains unknown.

Key Words. Melanoma • Epidemiology • Skin cancer • Public health • Prevention

	INTRODUCTION

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Incidence Mortality and Survival Stage Distribution of Disease Etiology and Risk Factors Public Health Initiatives References

 
Much ado has been made about whether the melanoma epidemic is a real or artificial phenomenon [1–5]. In this debate, as in most, res ipsa loquitur applies: "the thing speaks for itself" or, colloquially, "let the facts speak for themselves." Melanoma incidence and mortality have risen dramatically during this century in almost all countries and in fair-skinned populations in particular [6]. In the U.S. in 1935, one’s estimated lifetime risk of melanoma was 1 in 1,500 [4]. In the U.S. in the year 2000, the lifetime risk of melanoma was estimated at 1 in 75 persons. In Australia, the lifetime risk has been estimated at 1 in 25 [4]. These stark numbers have placed melanoma in the category of an "epidemic." The exact nature of this epidemic has been debated. Some have questioned whether the epidemic is a true public health concern, or is in fact a sign of increased efforts at screening and diagnosing the disease [2, 3]. Others do not hold this view [5]. Some have suggested much of the increase has been due to a nonmetastasizing biologically benign form of melanoma or simply to changes in the diagnostic criteria for melanoma by histopathologists [2, 3]. The implications of this debate on public health initiatives are substantial. In many countries worldwide, melanoma is of significant concern, and in those countries, public interventions are being conducted to promote earlier detection and treatment of the disease. Are these efforts worthwhile or would resources be better spent elsewhere? The answer depends not only on the interventions themselves but also on whether the epidemic is "real." The most recent data on the melanoma epidemic suggest that, while melanoma is being diagnosed earlier, accounting for much of the increase in incidence, the percent increases in localized tumors of all Breslow levels have increased since the late 1980s [7–10]. Moreover, mortality has been increasing at rates that warrant concern [9]. In this paper, the incidence, mortality, and survival data on melanoma from the U.S. and other countries are reviewed in an attempt to gain insight into the melanoma epidemic. Studies on the etiology of melanoma and preventative efforts being undertaken are also reviewed.

	INCIDENCE

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Incidence Mortality and Survival Stage Distribution of Disease Etiology and Risk Factors Public Health Initiatives References

 
The annual incidence of melanoma among Caucasians has risen rapidly, between 3% and 7% over the last several decades [8–10]. According to the most recent statistics in the U.S., the rise in incidence has not abated, though a recent Joinpoint analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) [10] data showed that the incidence rose less sharply in the most recent years [8]. The incidence of melanoma in the U.S. in 1997 was 14.3 per 100,000 [10]. This is a sharp increase from 5.7 per 100,000 in 1973 [10]. The incidence is not uniformly distributed over the population. Caucasians, the elderly, and men have the highest rates [8–9]. In the U.S., men have higher rates than women [8–10], whereas, in countries with lower incidence rates, women generally have higher rates than men [11]. For men, the U.S. 1973 and 1997 incidence rates are 6.1 and 17.2 per 100,000 [10]. For women, the comparable 1973 and 1997 statistics are 5.4 and 12.0 per 100,000. Not only are elderly men at a higher risk than elderly women, but the rate of increase in recent years among elderly men also has been higher than in elderly women [9]. Caucasians are much more at risk than Hispanics, Asians, and African-Americans, who had rates of 2.9, 1.1, and 0.8 per 100,000, respectively from 1990–1997 (SEER) [10]. In Australia, the incidence of melanoma is the highest in the world, at more than 40 per 100,000 persons, whereas, in certain Northern European countries, the incidence is less than 5 per 100,000 persons [11]. Persons with fairer skin types who move closer to the equator increase their risk of melanoma [11].

Birth cohort also influences one’s risk of melanoma, with later birth years being associated with higher age-specific incidence rates and with differences between successive birth cohorts increasing more rapidly over time [9]. There has, however, been a leveling off in the rate of rise in incidence in birth cohorts since the 1960s in Australia [6, 12, 13] and the U.S. [5]. The causes of this slowdown in the rate of rise in incidence for these latter cohorts are unknown but could relate to primary prevention effects.

Melanoma incidence is also dependent on age and gender [8–10]. Incidence rises with age, especially in men. In the U.S., women have a slightly higher risk of melanoma than men before age 40. After 40, men have a higher incidence, and the difference becomes remarkably large with increasing age. By age 85, the incidence in men is approximately twice that in women [9–10].

Recent data suggest significant increases in early-stage melanomas and in situ lesions [5, 14]. Some have questioned whether this increase is primarily due to early detection or to detection of clinically insignificant lesions [1, 2], but further empirical analysis is needed. In a recent analysis of SEER data, we found that melanomas of all stages increased from 1988 to 1997, but localized lesions and in situ lesions increased the most [8]. However, among localized lesions, there was an increase in melanomas of all Breslow thickness levels, which are the best predictors of prognosis independently and in multivariate analyses. In absolute numbers, thin lesions accounted for the majority of the increase. Yet, lesions of greater Breslow levels, though smaller in number, increased at rates comparable with thinner lesions. This strongly argues against the idea that the increase in the incidence of melanoma is only due to early detection of thin lesions, at least during the time period studied, 1988–1997. If early detection of thin lesions alone was the cause, one would expect, for a time, to see an increase in the incidence rates of thin melanomas followed by a decrease in the incidence rates of thin lesions. In that scenario, the apparent increase in incidence followed by a decline is attributable to the fact that first screenings detect the prevalent lesions and subsequent screenings detect only the cumulative incident cases since the last screening. However, in such a scenario, one would also expect a decrease in the incidence rate of thick lesions shortly after the increase in thin melanomas, ceteris paribus. This would happen because there would be fewer thin lesions to progress to thick lesions. These findings, typical of early detection campaigns and screening, were not detected in our analysis, however, and this suggests that increased screening is not the major factor responsible for the increase in melanoma incidence during the time period studied.

	MORTALITY AND SURVIVAL

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Incidence Mortality and Survival Stage Distribution of Disease Etiology and Risk Factors Public Health Initiatives References

 
Two key factors are important regarding melanoma mortality rates. First, mortality rates have risen over the last three decades [10]. Second, they have not been rising nearly as fast as incidence rates [10]. Why are these two facts important? If the melanoma epidemic was due to biologically benign lesions alone, we would expect no increase in mortality, ceteris paribus. On the other hand, if one assumes that the treatment has not changed stage-specific mortality dramatically, the fact that mortality rates have not risen as fast as incidence rates suggests a change in the stage distribution of disease. This implies that relatively more of the increase in incidence is due to the detection of lesions that are less lethal or less aggressive than is due to biologically aggressive lesions.

Mortality rates among fair-skinned people range from 1–3 per 100,000 people per year in the Northern hemisphere [4, 6]. In Australia and New Zealand, the rates are even higher, in the 5–10 per 100,000 people range. Rates have not been changing equally among all strata of the population. While mortality rates in the U.S. have risen among older cohorts, younger cohorts have seen steady or declining mortality rates in recent years. Furthermore, on subgroup analysis from 1992–1998, the mortality rate for males increased while the rate for females actually declined. The mortality rate in Caucasians also increased more than in non-Caucasians. Mortality rates, like incidence rates, also show age-specific trends. Older cohorts continue to show increases in mortality in almost all countries, while younger cohorts show no increase or falling rates [11, 13]. These trends are not succinctly explained by patterns of sun exposure alone.

While mortality rates have increased, survival for those diagnosed with melanoma has also increased in the U.S., Europe, and Australia [12–14]. For instance, the survival rate in Caucasians from 1960–1963 was estimated at 60%, the survival from 1974–1976 was 80%, and the survival from 1992–1997 was 89% [10]. The reasons for this are not quite clear, though it likely has to do with earlier diagnosis at a more favorable stage rather than improved survival of late-stage disease. These countries with improved survival also have made educational campaigns a priority, though no clear causal link to improved survival from these plans has been documented.

	STAGE DISTRIBUTION OF DISEASE

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Incidence Mortality and Survival Stage Distribution of Disease Etiology and Risk Factors Public Health Initiatives References

 
Most melanomas are localized, and the trend is for the percentage of localized disease to continue rising [9, 15, 16]. From 1992–1998, the stage distribution of U.S. melanoma cases in the SEER data were as follows: localized disease 82%, regional disease 9%, and distant disease 4%; 6% were unstaged. From 1988–1997, young patients and women had higher incidence rates of melanomas of thinner Breslow levels than older patients and men. Older patients and men had higher incidence rates of melanomas of thicker Breslow levels than younger patients and women. For instance, in women under 40 years of age, the incidence of melanomas 1 mm was nearly twice that of men. On the other hand, for men over the age of 60, the incidence of melanomas of >4 mm was over twice that of women. From 1988–1997, the incidence of in situ lesions grew faster than localized disease of Breslow thickness levels 1 to 4, which increased faster than regional disease, which increased faster than distant disease [9]. However, within localized disease, lesions of all Breslow levels increased at fairly comparable rates [9]. Because of a shift in the stage distribution of melanomas toward thinner lesions, with a disproportionate increase in incidence relative to mortality, some have questioned whether some of these thin lesions that were removed would have ever progressed [1, 2, 17, 18]. The idea those authors are suggesting is that some thin melanomas may be biologically benign and may never have become clinically relevant. Those authors suggest these lesions are simply being detected now because of the increased propensity for physicians to biopsy pigmented lesions. While this may be true, there is no consensus that such biologically benign melanomas exist. Certainly, spontaneously regressing and slow growing, often benign-behaving, and sometimes remitting variants of other cancers are thought to exist, with actinic keratoses being one example. However, once a lesion is removed, one has lost the ability to follow its natural history. It is likely that the increases in incidence and changes in stage distribution do represent changes in biopsy patterns and diagnostic criteria to some degree. However, in the U.S., increases in the incidence of lesions of higher Breslow levels are not consistent with this ‘epidemic’ solely being due to biologically benign lesions.

	ETIOLOGY AND RISK FACTORS

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Incidence Mortality and Survival Stage Distribution of Disease Etiology and Risk Factors Public Health Initiatives References

 
What has caused the dramatic increase in the incidence of melanoma over the last several decades? Studies trying to unravel the epidemiological causes of melanoma are difficult at best. Consistently though, studies point to a major role of UV light exposure as the most important risk factor for those with phenotypic susceptibility [19–21]. The dramatic increase in melanomas seen over the last decades may be the result of changes in behavioral patterns relating to sun exposure and, to a lesser extent, ozone depletion [17–19]. Studies suggest that a 1% reduction in ozone may lead to an increased incidence of malignant melanoma of 0.6% [18]. The United Nations Environment Program estimated that, in the event of a 10% decrease in stratospheric ozone, an additional 300,000 cases of nonmelanocytic skin cancers and 4,500 cases of melanoma could be expected worldwide on an annual basis. Studies show that, in general, melanoma prevalence increases with proximity to the equator, controlling for other factors such as skin type. As is almost always the case with cancer, environmental exposure affects people of different predispositions to melanoma differently. In the fair skinned, red-haired, blue-eyed person who burns easily and rarely tans, the exposure to UV light appears to have an enormous real impact on melanoma risk. As an example, the risk of melanoma in Caucasians in Australia is much higher than in Great Britain, although it is also high there, despite a common ancestry and phenotypic characteristics. The main reason for the different rates of melanomas appears predominantly to be the higher UV light exposure in Australia. A clever study from Australia showed that immigration to Australia before the age of 10 increased one’s risk of melanoma to that of a native Australian, while immigration after age 15 yielded rates that were one-fourth those of native Australians [12]. The exact manner in which UV light induces melanoma is not clear. Also, the part of the UV spectrum responsible for melanoma induction is not certain either.

It is thought that sunburns, especially in early life, are the most important risk factor for the development of melanoma. One or more severe sunburns during youth, roughly doubles the lifetime risk of melanoma [20]. Case-control studies have shown, with consistency, that intermittent exposure, particularly if sufficient to cause sunburn, is an important factor for developing skin cancer [21–23]. The male ear, which has a large amount of exposure to the sun, also has the highest incidence of melanoma of any body site per unit area [24]. Also, patients with melanoma have greater solar elastosis, actinic keratoses, and nonmelanoma skin cancers, consistent with greater UV light exposure [25]. UV light exposure appears to result in melanoma after a long lag-time of years to decades. One of the strongest correlates of melanoma development is from those who recall many childhood burns before the age of 20. Of course, such studies are prone to recall bias, that is, patients are more likely to remember they have had severe sunburns only because they have developed a melanoma and thought about it sufficiently long. It may not be young age per se that is so important as much as the behaviors associated with young age, namely, sun exposure and sunburns. Superficial spreading melanoma appears to be the melanoma type most associated with intermittent sunburns. The evidence for total sun exposure as a risk factor is less clear. In fact, work-related exposure may be protective. Lentigo maligna is the skin cancer most associated with total sun exposure and, unlike superficial spreading melanoma, is a disease almost exclusive to people older than 40, with a dramatic increase in incidence with age. It is also more common in men than in women and, from age 45 to 85+, the incidence increases approximately 15-fold [9].

From numerous studies, there appears to be a relationship between UV light exposure and the development of nevi, which are a key risk factor for the later development of melanoma [25–31]. Complicating this is the fact that skin type is related to both tendency to develop melanoma and nevi. However, even when controlling for skin type, nevi are a central risk factor for the development of melanoma [26]. Risk factors for melanoma include both clinically and or histologically ‘atypical moles,’ greater numbers of acquired ‘normal’ nevi, the dysplastic nevus syndrome, a family or personal history of melanoma, a personal history of nonmelanoma skin cancer, giant congenital nevi (>20 cm), and immunosuppression. The dysplastic nevus syndrome is found in people with at least one or two first- or second-degree relatives with melanoma and numerous nevi, some of which are atypical. People with this syndrome have a relative risk for melanoma from 33-1,269, with a cumulative lifetime risk of almost 100% [28, 29].

	PUBLIC HEALTH INITIATIVES

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Incidence Mortality and Survival Stage Distribution of Disease Etiology and Risk Factors Public Health Initiatives References

 
Efforts have been under way for years, with varying amounts of vigor, to fight the increased incidence and mortality from melanoma. Perhaps the mortality has not increased as much as incidence because of such efforts, but research has not yet determined this to be the case. Public health efforts aim at primary and secondary prevention strategies. Primary prevention strategies attempt to prevent people from developing melanoma, mostly through avoiding exposure to the primary risk factor, UV light. There is particular emphasis on avoidance of UV light exposure in childhood and young adulthood, when it appears the risk is greatest. When strict avoidance cannot be adhered to, sunscreens have been logically recommended. Interestingly, high-quality evidence to support the use of sunscreens has mostly been lacking. In fact, most reports have found either no effect or a greater risk of melanoma with sunscreen use. As untenable as this seems, it deserves further evaluation, given the findings. It must be emphasized, however, that the studies showing greater risk are, by and large, nonrandomized case series and/or retrospective analyses with inherent problems. The most obvious and foremost problem with such nonrandomized studies is that people who use more sunscreen often do so because they are, or perceive themselves to be, at greater risk for melanoma due to behavior or constitutional risk. Furthermore, most of the older studies were performed when sunscreens were neither broad spectrum nor of high sun protection factor (SPF) value. On the other hand, one recent randomized study [32] of sunscreen in school children found that children using a broad spectrum SPF 30 sunscreen developed fewer nevi than did those who were not randomized to use sunscreen (median counts 24 versus 28, p = 0.048). The authors of that study also found that sunscreen use was much more important for children with freckles than for children without and suggested that freckled children assigned to a broad-spectrum sunscreen intervention would develop 30%–40% fewer new nevi than freckled children assigned to the control group [30]. Since nevi are considered to be a primary risk factor for melanoma, reducing the development of nevi may reduce melanoma risk. Though controversial among certain academics, there appears to be little doubt among most clinicians and public health agencies of the value of sunscreens. Recently, however, public health campaigns and physicians have advocated sunscreens as part of an overall sun avoidance program and not as a substitute for directly avoiding the sun (information from American Academy of Dermatology [AAD] [33] and American Cancer Society [34]). Indeed, it has been hypothesized that one manner by which sunscreens could increase the risk of melanoma may be by reducing the sunburn associated with UVB light while allowing greater exposure time to UV light and especially harmful UVA light [32]. UVA was not previously blocked effectively by less than broad-spectrum sunscreens and, at times, still may not be blocked effectively. Many current sunscreens are still not good UVA blockers. Sunscreens using physical sunblocking products, such as zinc and titanium, appear, at this time, to provide broad-spectrum coverage, but may be less cosmetically appealing and, therefore, a combination of physical and chemical sunscreens may be best. Other research has shown that sunscreens are used incorrectly, either in the amount recommended or in the reapplication rate [35]. Thus, many believe that primary prevention campaigns should focus more on sun avoidance and protective clothing but still recommend sunscreens as part of an overall program.

Secondary prevention programs include early detection programs. Since the outcome of melanoma is directly related to the stage at diagnosis, and since it is commonly held that melanomas take months to years to reach advanced stages, early detection has the potential to save lives. Thus, programs ranging from education of the public on self-screening and recognition of melanomas to physician screenings and screenings by other health professionals have been conducted. The effect of these programs on outcomes has not been extensively studied, and there are almost no randomized trials, but there are reports of improvements in intermediate outcomes from some. Epstein et al. [36], in a retrospective study of patients presenting for treatment of melanoma, found that just over half (55%) of the cancers were patient detected, but physicians were more likely to detect thinner melanomas (median thickness 0.23 mm versus 0.9 mm, p < 0.001). Koh et al. [37] previously found that women were more likely to discover their own melanomas than men, and the study findings of Epstein et al. are in agreement with this. Studies such as these point to the fact that often a physician, or someone other than the individual with a melanoma, is needed to detect it, and that this may be associated with earlier stage melanomas. The AAD has sponsored adult skin cancer screenings performed by dermatologists since 1985, resulting in more than one million screenings. Of those screened, approximately 50,000 possible nonmelanoma skin cancers and 10,000 possible melanomas were discovered. Koh et al. [38] reviewed a 1986 and 1987 AAD-sponsored skin-cancer-screening program in Massachusetts, which screened 2,560 people. Of those screened, 787 (31%) were deemed to have a positive screen, which included suspected melanoma, squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, dysplastic nevus, and congenital nevus. They followed 22 of the 26 suspected melanomas and, of these, nine (0.35%) were actually melanomas. Of those nine melanomas, four were in situ, three were superficial spreading melanomas, one was metastatic, and the other was of unknown stage. Of note, the stage distribution of melanoma patients whose lesions were discovered by screening was better than in the SEER records of melanomas diagnosed in the general population. Freedberg et al. [39], using similar updated data from AAD screenings in a decision analysis, found screening for melanoma to be cost-effective, in the range of $30,000 per year of life saved. In a recent decision analysis, we calculated the cost-effectiveness of a one-time melanoma screening program in moderately high-risk individuals at $51,000 per year of life saved [40]. Cost of the screen and prevalence of melanoma in the target screened group were key variables affecting cost-effectiveness. An assumption of these decision analysis studies is that the lesions detected are representative of routinely detected lesions of similar levels. If a disproportionately large percentage of the lesions detected by screening is nonaggressive and slow growing, then such decision analyses will demonstrate lower cost-effectiveness ratios than would actually occur in a true screening. There is no evidence for or against the assumption that screening may yield a higher proportion of less aggressive melanomas.

Education and self-examination are other means by which improved outcomes may be obtained. Berwick et al. [41] in a case-control study of skin self-examination, found that melanoma patients who practiced self-examination had lesions that were thinner than those who did not. In a study from Scotland, educational campaigns resulted in a reduction of tumor thickness and a trend toward improved mortality among women [42]. Self-examination strategies are a low-cost and seemingly viable way to improve outcomes among those who will do such exams. However, the proportion of individuals at risk for melanoma who can realistically be discovered and educated to do such exams prior to developing a melanoma remains unclear.

Currently, only the AAD, the National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on Early Melanoma, and the American Cancer Society recommend population-based screening. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the International Union Against Cancer, and the Australian Cancer Society do not at this time recommend routine screening for melanoma. The reason for the variability in recommendation is the lack of hard evidence from quality studies such as randomized trials. In conclusion, the facts of the melanoma epidemic are that over the last several decades there have been increases in both incidence and mortality, but a higher increase in incidence than mortality. The increase in incidence may be leveling off. This epidemic has arisen for a variety of reasons including: a true increase in melanomas of malignant behavior, a particularly high increase in localized and in situ lesions, and an increase in the number of biopsies performed, which may have resulted in the increased detection of less aggressive lesions. The contribution of possible changes to the diagnostic criteria for melanoma to the increased incidence remains unknown. UV light has been conclusively shown in a large number of epidemiological studies to be a factor in the increase in incidence. A variety of primary and secondary preventive strategies for controlling the problem have been attempted and may hold promise for the future. Further evaluation of these programs is warranted.

	REFERENCES

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Incidence Mortality and Survival Stage Distribution of Disease Etiology and Risk Factors Public Health Initiatives References

 

1. Swerlick RA, Chen S. The melanoma epidemic: more apparent than real? Mayo Clin Proc 1997;72:559–564.[Abstract]
2. Swerlick RA, Chen S. The melanoma epidemic. Is increased surveillance the solution or the problem? Arch Dermatol 1996;132:881–884.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Lamberg L. "Epidemic" of malignant melanoma: true increase or better detection? JAMA 2002;287:2201.[Free Full Text]
4. Burton RC, Coates MS, Hersey P et al. An analysis of a melanoma epidemic. Int J Cancer 1993;55:765–770.[Medline]
5. Dennis LK. Analysis of the melanoma epidemic, both apparent and real: data from the 1973 through 1994 surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program registry. Arch Dermatol 1999;135:275–280.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Giles G, Thursfield V. Trends in skin cancer in Australia. Cancer Forum 1996;20:188–191.
7. Armstrong BK, Kricker A. Cutaneous melanoma. Cancer Surv 1994;19–20:219–240.
8. Jemal A, Devesa SS, Hartge P et al. Recent trends in cutaneous melanoma incidence among whites in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:678–683.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Beddingfield FC 3rd, Cinar P, Litwack S et al. An analysis of SEER and the California Cancer Registry data on gender and melanoma incidence [abstract]. J Invest Dermatol 2002.
10. National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program Public-Use Data (1973–1998). Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Released April 2001.
11. Kricker A, Armstrong BK. International trends in skin cancer. Cancer Forum 1996;20:192–195.
12. Holman CD, Armstrong BK, Heenan PJ et al. The causes of malignant melanoma: results from the West Australian Lions Melanoma Research Project. Recent Results Cancer Res 1986;102:18–37.[Medline]
13. Giles GG, Armstrong BK, Burton RC et al. Has mortality from melanoma stopped rising in Australia? Analysis of trends between 1931 and 1994. BMJ 1996;312:1121–1125.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Lipsker DM, Hedelin G, Heid E et al. Striking increase of thin melanomas contrasts with a stable incidence of thick melanomas. Arch Dermatol 1999;135:1451–1456.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Wingo PA, Ries LA, Rosenberg HM et al. Cancer incidence and mortality, 1973–1995: a report card for the U.S. Cancer 1998;82:1197–1207.[CrossRef][Medline]
16. Hall HI, Miller DR, Rogers JD et al. Update on the incidence and mortality from melanoma in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol 1999;40:35–42.[CrossRef][Medline]
17. Burton RC, Armstrong BK. Non-metastasizing melanoma? J Surg Oncol 1998;67:73–76.[CrossRef][Medline]
18. Burton RC, Armstrong BK. Recent incidence trends imply a nonmetastasizing form of invasive melanoma. Melanoma Res 1994;4:107–113.[CrossRef][Medline]
19. Lee JA. The relationship between malignant melanoma of skin and exposure to sunlight. Photochem Photobiol 1989;50:493–496.[Medline]
20. Weinstock MA, Colditz GA, Willett WC et al. Nonfamilial cutaneous melanoma incidence in women associated with sun exposure before 20 years of age. Pediatrics 1989;84:199–204.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Elwood JM. Melanoma and sun exposure: contrasts between intermittent and chronic exposure. World J Surg 1992;16:157–165.[CrossRef][Medline]
22. Kok G, Green L. Research to support health promotion practice: a plea for increased co-operation. Health Promot Internation 1990;5:303–308.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. MacKie RM. The pathogenesis of cutaneous malignant melanoma. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983;287:1568–1569.
24. Green A, Williams G. UV and skin cancer: epidemiological data from Australia and New Zealand. In: Young AR, Bjorn LO, Moan J et al., eds. Environmental UV Photobiology. London: Plenum Press, 1993;233–254.
25. Mackie RM, Marks R, Green A. The melanoma epidemic. Excess exposure to ultraviolet light is established as major risk factor. BMJ 1996;312:1362–1363.[Free Full Text]
26. Tucker MA, Halpern A, Holly EA et al. Clinically recognized dysplastic nevi. A central risk factor for cutaneous melanoma. JAMA 1997;277:1439–1444.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Swerdlow AJ, English J, MacKie RM et al. Benign melanocytic naevi as a risk factor for malignant melanoma. Br Med J (Clin Red Ed) 1986;292:1555–1559.
28. Holly EA, Kelly JW, Shpall SN et al. Number of melanocytic nevi as a major risk factor for malignant melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol 1987;17:459–468.[Medline]
29. Garbe C, Buettner PG, Weiss J et al. Risk factors for developing cutaneous melanoma and criteria for identifying persons at risk: multicenter case-control study of the Central Malignant Melanoma Registry of the German Dermatological Society. J Invest Dermatol 1994;102:695–699.[CrossRef][Medline]
30. Slade J, Marghoob AA, Salopek TG et al. Atypical mole syndrome: risk factor for cutaneous malignant melanoma and implications for management. J Am Acad Dermatol 1995;32:479–494.[CrossRef][Medline]
31. Greene MH, Clark WH Jr, Tucker MA et al. High risk of malignant melanoma in melanoma-prone families with dysplastic nevi. Ann Intern Med 1985;102:458–465.
32. Gallagher RP, Rivers JK, Lee TK et al. Broad-spectrum sunscreen use and the development of new nevi in white children: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2000;283:2955–2960.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. American Academy of Dermatology. Aad.org. Facts about sunscreens. Available at: http://www.aad.org/skincancernews/safesuntips/sunscreenfacts.html, accessed 9/09/03.
34. American Cancer Society. Cancer.org. Sun safety. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/PED_7.aps?sitearea=PED, accessed 9/09/03.
35. Neale R, Williams G, Green A. Application patterns among participants randomized to daily sunscreen use in a skin cancer prevention trial. Arch Dermatol 2002;138:1319–1325.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Epstein DS, Lange JR, Gruber SB et al. Is physician detection associated with thinner melanomas? JAMA 1999;281:640–643.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
37. Koh H, Miller DR, Geller AC et al. Who discovers melanoma? Patterns from a population-based survey. J Am Acad Dermatol 1992;26:914–919.[Medline]
38. Koh HK, Geller AC, Miller DR et al. Who is being screened for melanoma/skin cancer? Characteristics of persons screened in Massachusetts. J Am Acad Dermatol 1991;24:271–277.[Medline]
39. Freedberg KA, Geller AC, Miller DR et al. Screening for malignant melanoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol 1999;41:738–745.[CrossRef][Medline]
40. Beddingfield FC 3rd. Is screening for melanoma cost-effective? A decision analysis [abstract]. J Invest Dermatol 2002.
41. Berwick M, Begg CB, Fine JA et al. Screening for cutaneous melanoma by skin self-examination. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:17–23.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
42. MacKie RM, Hole D. Audit of public education campaign to encourage early detection of malignant melanoma. BMJ 1992;304:1012–1015.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Voit, M. Kron, G. Schafer, A. Schoengen, H. Audring, A. Lukowsky, M. Schwurzer-Voit, W. Sterry, H. Winter, and J. Rademaker Ultrasound-guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology prior to Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Melanoma Patients Ann. Surg. Oncol., December 1, 2006; 13(12): 1682 - 1689. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. L. Cummins, J. M. Cummins, H. Pantle, M. A. Silverman, A. L. Leonard, and A. Chanmugam Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma Mayo Clin. Proc., April 1, 2006; 81(4): 500 - 507. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Rubegni, M. Burroni, A. Andreassi, and M. Fimiani The Role of Dermoscopy and Digital Dermoscopy Analysis in the Diagnosis of Pigmented Skin Lesions Arch Dermatol, November 1, 2005; 141(11): 1444 - 1446. [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. M. Gallagher, O. E. Bergin, M. Rafferty, Z. D. Kelly, I.-M. Nolan, E. J.P. Fox, A. C. Culhane, L. McArdle, M. F. Fraga, L. Hughes, et al. Multiple markers for melanoma progression regulated by DNA methylation: insights from transcriptomic studies Carcinogenesis, November 1, 2005; 26(11): 1856 - 1867. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H G. Welch, S. Woloshin, and L. M Schwartz Skin biopsy rates and incidence of melanoma: population based ecological study BMJ, September 3, 2005; 331(7515): 481. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. R. Berk, D. L. Johnson, A. Uzieblo, M. Kiernan, and S. M. Swetter Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Cutaneous Melanoma: The Stanford Experience, 1997-2004 Arch Dermatol, August 1, 2005; 141(8): 1016 - 1022. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. M. Siegel and B. M. Coldiron A Chance to Cut Is a Chance to Check All Peripheral Margins: ". . . A Far, Far Better Thing That I Do" Arch Dermatol, June 1, 2004; 140(6): 743 - 744. [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. L. Meyskens Jr. Management of Human Melanoma: What Has the Last Decade Wrought? Oncologist, October 1, 2003; 8(5): 448 - 450. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) eLetters: Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services E-mail this article link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints/Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Beddingfield, F. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Beddingfield, F. C., III