Skin cancer has become an 'epidemic' in the U.S., researchers say

Non-melanoma skin cancer is the most common type of cancer in the U.S. But just how common is it? According to a new estimate, more than 2.1 million Americans were treated for 3.5 million cases of the cancers in 2006.

Since cases of non-melanoma skin cancer usually aren’t reported to cancer registries, experts must rely on estimates. Until this week, the most recent national estimate had been from 1994 – back then, researchers pegged the number of cancers at 900,000 to 1.2 million per year.

To reach the new figure, researchers used two Medicare databases to tally the number of skin cancer procedures performed on patients covered by the government health plan. Then they used national survey data to extrapolate those figures to the entire U.S. population.

The results indicate that the incidence of skin cancer is “about double” what it was in 1994, the researchers wrote in Archives of Dermatology. Not only are more people getting non-melanoma skin cancer, but the number of procedures per patient is rising too. “There is an epidemic of [non-melanoma skin cancer] in the United States,” according to the report.

This type of skin cancer usually isn’t deadly if found early, but the toll is still significant. The American Academy of Dermatology says that treatment of non-melanoma skin cancer cost $1.5 billion in 2004.

The researchers didn’t say why they thought the rates were rising so fast – perhaps the rise of tanning salons is partly to blame. They did note that “educational programs emphasizing sun protection have mainly been disappointing in slowing skin cancer rates.” Of course, they conclude that more research is needed.

-- Karen Kaplan

Photo: These sunbathers may be helping to drive the skin cancer “epidemic” in the U.S. Photo credit: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

Comments

[Al]

Here is a new study that shows that tanning beds have nothing to do with melanoma skin cancer.

New Study by SUNARC Shows Tanning and Melanoma Link Scientifically Flawed

SAN FRANCISCO, CA -- 03/15/10 -- A new study published in the peer-reviewed journal "Dermato-Endocrinology" shows that there is no statistically significant connection between sunbeds and melanoma in those who can develop suntans (skin type II-VI), with increased risk centered only on those whose skin is so fair it cannot tan (skin type I).

William B. Grant, PhD, a former NASA atmospheric research scientist and founder of SUNARC, Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC), re-examined the same epidemiological data used by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) group from their findings in 2007 titled, "The association of use of sunbeds with cutaneous malignant melanoma and other skin cancers: a systematic review." Grant's study strongly challenges this review and argues it is both flawed and cannot be used as the basis for U.S. health policy.
The IARC review originally claimed a 15% increased risk of melanoma for ever use of sunbeds and a 75% increased risk in melanoma for respondents who had ever used or first used a tanning bed prior to age 35. Grant's findings show that with the removal of those with skin type I who possess the greatest genetic risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM), there fails to be any statistically significant link between ever use of indoor tanning facilities and CMM.
ACCORDING TO GRANT'S ANALYSIS:

-- The reported 75% increased risk of melanoma for those ever having used a sunbed prior to age 35 drops to a 25% reduced risk of melanoma in the United States based on a scientifically-centered reanalysis of the data in the IARC report.-- When skin type I is omitted from the IARC analysis, the reported 15% increased risk in melanoma fails to remain statistically significant. This is based on a meta-analysis of the 14 studies not from the UK, where skin type I is most prevalent.-- The IARC study inappropriately combined four studies from northern Europe, one from the UK, one from Canada, and one from the U.S. in the analysis of first use of sunbeds before the age of 35 years. There are vast differences between American and European sunbed regulations and use. US regulations do not allow Skin Type I patrons to tan, European tanning beds are often used at home or are unsupervised and do not follow the regulations in the U.S. The study fails to state that its findings are not, and should not be considered "universal findings." Source link and more information:New Study by SUNARC Shows Tanning and Melanoma Link Scientifically Flawed...

[Ed Dwulet]

“Real” skin cancer and “treatment” for skin cancer (what this study is based upon) are two different things. There is no doubt that there has been an “epidemic of diagnosis” and subsequent "treatment" of all types of “cancer” to include prostate, breast and skin — by our “for profit” medical system.

This report and its publication feeds into the medical-industrial complex fear based “cancer scare” tactics to simply increase profits and for no other reason. Everyone I know who has visited a dermatologist in the past 20 years has come away with a “pre-cancer” removed and annual visits for the rest of their lives to have more removed = steady income for dermatologists = swimming pool and McMansion payments =higher insurance premiums for all of us . Don’t forget your equally useless twice a year teeth cleanings. And don’t forget your “free” brake inspections at Midas. No difference -- the profit motive at work.

Pre-cancer??? When a dermatologist once told me (about 10 years ago) ... that I had a pre-cancerous lesion that should be removed ... I reached back to the late great George Carlin's quote regarding the over-use of the prefix “pre”: “Pre suck my genital situation! ” ( note ... the "lesion" is still there and looks exactly like it did 10 years ago).

Health care reform has to begin with controlling costs -- and stopping the proliferation of medical-industrial complex propaganda like this article. And stopping the "ask your doctor about _____" direct to the public advertising that is nothing but a national embarrassment.

[Joe Schuster]

Interesting that the AAD points to sunbeds as the possible cause of the increase rather than the more plausible reason: Derms are seeing an increase in skin cancer screenings--and treating more. Is there a financial interest (and future liability reason) in treating more "questionable" lesions?

A new British study considers this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS187982+22-Jun-2009+PRN20090622

[Alison Fiano Perry]

The general population applies so many chemicals (this includes sunscreen- for all of you unaware ones) to their skin, not to mention the pollutants we are all exposed to daily.

Stop it with the sun and tanning beds. For once, use due diligence and investigate what chemicals you are applying and exposed to.

[AllenJ]

How many "precancerous skin" removals were done as a cosmetic procedure masked by the term cancer. I know many people who have has cysts removed and the doctor had it biopsied just to have it covered by insurance, these were purely cosmetic procedures. Please quatifiy the "rising number or tanning salons" that you note as a potential reason for this increase.

This report is so poorly research and the Doctor not challanged, it is not even journalism. And yes I am in the tanning industry, but at least I am a professional at what I do.