Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Review ArticleProceedings of the Joint International Symposium “Vitamin D in Prevention and Therapy” and “Biologic Effects of Light”, June 21-23, 2017 (Homburg/Saar, Germany)R

A Critical Appraisal of the Recent Reports on Sunbeds from the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks and from the World Health Organization

JÖRG REICHRATH, PELLE G. LINDQVIST, FRANK R. DE GRUIJL, STEFAN PILZ, SAMANTHA M. KIMBALL, WILLIAM B. GRANT and MICHAEL F. HOLICK
Anticancer Research February 2018, 38 (2) 1111-1120;
JÖRG REICHRATH
1Center for Clinical and Experimental Photodermatology, The Saarland University Hospital, Homburg, Germany
2Department of Dermatology, The Saarland University Hospital, Homburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Joerg.reichrath@uks.eu
PELLE G. LINDQVIST
3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
FRANK R. DE GRUIJL
4Department of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
STEFAN PILZ
5Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
6Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SAMANTHA M. KIMBALL
7Department of Research, Pure North S'Energy Foundation, Calgary, Canada
8St. Mary's University, Calgary, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
WILLIAM B. GRANT
9Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MICHAEL F. HOLICK
10Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The European Commission's Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks and the World Health Organization recently published reports which concluded that a large proportion of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer is attributable to sunbed use, and that there is no need to use sunbeds as there are no health benefits and they are not needed to achieve an optimal vitamin D level. The overall conclusion from both bodies was that there is no safe limit for UV irradiance from sunbeds. We are, however, deeply concerned that these assessments appear to be based on an incomplete, unbalanced and non-critical evaluation of the literature. Therefore, we rebut these conclusions by addressing the incomplete analysis of the adverse health effects of UV and sunbed exposure (what is ‘safe’?) and the censored representation of beneficial effects, not only but especially from vitamin D production. The stance taken by both agencies is not sufficiently supported by the data and in particular, current scientific knowledge does not support the conclusion sunbed use increases melanoma risk.

  • SCHEER report on sunbeds
  • WHO report on sunbeds
  • solarium
  • melanoma
  • sunbed
  • melanoma risk
  • tanning
  • indoor tanning
  • review

When preparing their policies and proposals relating to consumer safety, public health and the environment, both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Commission rely on scientific committees/commissions, collaborating centers and non-governmental organizations that should be independent and should provide them with sound scientific advice and draw their attention to new and emerging problems. In November 2016, the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) adopted a “Final Opinion on Biological effects of ultraviolet radiation relevant to health with particular reference to sunbeds for cosmetic purposes“ (1) and in June 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a report entitled “Artificial Tanning Devices: Public Health Interventions to Manage Sunbeds” (2). In agreement with the WHO report, the SCHEER report concluded that: (i) sunbed use is responsible for a noticeable proportion of both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) and for a large percentage of melanomas arising before the age of 30 years; (ii) sunbed exposure has little health benefit; (iii) there is no need to use sunbeds to achieve an optimal vitamin D level; and (iv) because of evidence of the carcinogenic effects of sunbed exposure and of the nature of skin cancer induction, there is no safe limit for UV irradiance from sunbeds. While these reports were purportedly based on the best available scientific evidence, we are deeply concerned about their scientific quality and obvious lack of objectivity, most likely owing to an infusion with the laudable zeal to combat alarming increases in skin cancer. Both publications show an implicit tendency toward an unbalanced view and must be criticized because of many scientific misinterpretations and shortcomings. The main conclusions are not sufficiently supported by the data presented nor by our present scientific knowledge. Notably, both reports ignore (i) meta-analyses that show no association of sunbed use with increased melanoma risk in Europe; (ii) epidemiological and animal studies that show no increase in melanoma risk following chronic and sub-erythemal UV exposure; (iii) beneficial health effects of UV radiation; and (iv) consequences of vitamin D deficiency.

Critical Analysis of SCHEER and WHO Reports

The overall conclusion of the SCHEER report states “There is strong evidence from meta-analyses and individual studies of an increased risk of melanoma with ever use of sunbeds.” [p. 43 in (1)]. This immediately exemplifies the misleading inherent bias as this statement should at least have read “There is weak evidence…of an overall marginally increased risk of melanoma associated with ever-use of sunbeds (including one time and habitual intensive users)”. Importantly, the direct causality implied is by no means proven. This statement is not in accordance with generally accepted principles of evidence-based medicine (3). None of the supporting evidence demonstrates causation [the gold standard to prove this would be a randomized, controlled trial (RCT)]. Our present scientific knowledge on this topic is based on observational studies (case–control and cohort studies) that demonstrate associations that are confounded by other known factors and that do not demonstrate causation (4-55). Several meta-analyses of poor quality consolidate the observational study data and compound the flaws of these studies (44, 47, 48). For example, Boniol et al. (44) report a summary relative risk (SRR) of 1.20 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08-1.34] for the association of ever-exposure to UV radiation from sunbeds with melanoma risk (based on 27 studies). Overall the quality of the entire evidence is poor due to lack of interventional studies and severe limitations of case–control and cohort studies that include unobserved or unreported confounding (56). Notably, many limitations of the studies these reports rely on (3-56) do not result in an undirected bias but will inevitably cause overestimation of the association of sunbed use with melanoma risk. For example, dermatological phototherapy is often included when only sunbed use should be assessed [e.g. Landi et al. (20)], and in many studies, subgroups of individuals with presumably high UV exposure in the past (e.g. individuals with history of ‘non-melanoma skin cancer’ or ‘dermatological conditions’) are excluded from controls but not cases (control selection bias). Additionally, it should be noted that studies available are characterized by high heterogeneity and by difficulties in adjusting for important confounding factors, including solar UV and lifestyle: only a minority of studies report odds ratios (ORs) adjusted for the same confounding factors, 12 studies not for a single confounder (56). Moreover, because individual confounders were assessed using different interrogations, these studies are only partly comparable limiting the ability to interpret results of a combined estimate. and these results should not be considered reliable (56). It has to be emphasized that one has to distinguish between associations, as reported in these case–control/cohort studies and meta-analyses, and causation. In this context, the same results and risk estimates as given in Boniol et al. (44) and Colantonio et al. (47) could well be obtained in the following scenario, as indicated elsewere (56). Sunbed use has no effect on melanoma risk, lifestyle factors such as extensive sunbathing in the summer as a sun worshipper or an ‘unhealthy lifestyle’ (e.g. alcohol, smoking use), do increase melanoma risk with true OR=1.2 (it has been reported previously that sun worshippers and individuals with an ‘unhealthy lifestyle’ go more frequently to tanning salons (57)). Many of the confounding factors, including extensive sunbathing in the summer and unhealthy lifestyle, have not been adequately and systematically considered in studies performed to date. For example, the comparison of sunbed users to non-users is confounded by their lifestyle habits, with typical sunbed users found to be females who tend to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol more frequently than non-users, as well as eating less healthy food (57).

The WHO report states “…and the first use of sunbeds before the age of 35 increases the risk of developing melanoma by 59% (6)” [p. 12 in (2)]. This is not correct. As reported elsewhere (56), the report by Boniol et al. (44), that this statement refers to, and the IARC report (46) have to be criticized for defining “first use in younger age” as first use before the age of 36 years, but include studies that consider first use prior to ages 25 to 30 years (7, 26, 39). Moreover, some studies (30, 31) restricted their investigation to melanoma cases diagnosed before the age of 36 years however, this could have resulted in the exclusion of older cases and controls that may have been exposed at a younger age (21).

In strong contrast to the WHO (2) and SCHEER (1) reports, we therefore postulate (due to lack of interventional studies and severe limitations including unobserved or unrecorded confounding) that for main outcomes reported (association of ever exposure, first exposure at younger age and high/low exposure to UV radiation from a solarium with melanoma risk) (44, 46, 47), and according to generally accepted principles of evidence-based medicine (e.g. recommendations of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (3)), the resulting evidence levels and grades of recommendation are not “strong”, as inaccurately stated in the SCHEER report (which used a highly questionable classification of evidence levels) (1), but are very weak (e.g. level 3a– for systematic reviews of case–control studies with heterogeneity, and grade of recommendation D for outcome “ever” vs. “never” use of a solarium). In conclusion, our present scientific knowledge does not support the notion that sunbed use per se may increase melanoma risk.

Available Evidence Overlooked by SCHEER and WHO Reports

Criticism on inadequate epidemiological studies and analysis thereof in the “Draft summary record” of the public hearing on sunbeds held on April 12, 2016 in Luxemburg published by the European Commission gave a rather revealing explanation: “The SCENIHR representatives acknowledged that there is an insufficient number of studies on European populations, but explained that this left them with no choice but to use the best data from published peer-reviewed scientific studies available to date ……” [first paragraph on p4 (58)]. There is not an “insufficient number of studies” but insufficient evidence from a large number of EU studies. It has to be recognized that the “best data from published peer-reviewed scientific studies available to date” do not show a statistically significant association of sunbed use (“ever” vs. “never”) with melanoma risk in Europe [e.g. meta-analysis by Colantonio et al. 2014 (47)]. The lack of association in this subgroup analysis for Europe is very unlikely to be caused by a lack of power because the number of participants in studies performed in Europe is much greater as compared with studies from America that still show an association in subgroup analyses. It is unclear to us why this very important meta-analysis finding is completely ignored in this “Draft summary record” and in the “Final Opinion”.

Experimental animal models, including genetically engineered mice, the Xiphophorus hybrid fish, the South American opossum, and human skin xenografts, constitute important vehicles for elucidating the relevance of UV in melanomagenesis. Both the SCHEER and WHO reports underappreciate the large body of evidence from epidemiological and animal studies that demonstrates no increase in melanoma risk following chronic (moderate) UV exposure (59-66). As an example, important information was obtained analyzing UV-inducible melanomagenesis in the hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor (HGF/SF) transgenic mouse (59-61). Using this model, it was demonstrated that dermal melanomas arise in untreated mice with a mean age of onset of approximately 21 months, a latency that was not overtly altered in response to chronic sub-erythemal, or skin non-reddening UV irradiation (59-61). In contrast, erythemal doses to 3.5-day-old-neonatal HGF/SF mice induced cutaneous melanoma with significantly reduced latency (59-61). It should be noted that UV-induced murine melanomas frequently resemble their human counterparts with respect to histopathological appearance and graded progression. Many other studies also support the concept that sub-erythemal exposure to UV doses not only does not increase melanoma risk, but may even be protective (61-66). Occupational exposure to UV radiation was associated with a reduced risk of melanoma in a European population with lightly pigmented skin (66). It also should be noted that neither the SCHEER (1) nor the WHO (2) report discusses the fact that relevant UV signature mutations have not been reported in the B-rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma (B-RAF) gene nor in other important drivers of melanomagenesis.

It further underlines the unbalanced view of the SCHEER and WHO reports, that they conceal the large body of evidence demonstrating beneficial health effects of UV radiation (e.g. 67-127). As an example, a large cohort study reported a longer life expectancy amongst participants with active sun exposure habits, which was related to a decrease in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and non-cancer-related mortality (67). The SCHEER report also misinterprets important findings of that study, stating that the investigation showed an increased risk of death due to cancer amongst participants with active sun exposure habits. This is not true. In this large cohort study, the risk of cancer death was non-significantly decreased (67). However, due to greater survival in those with CVD and those with non-CVD/non-cancer disease, the percentage of cancer death was increased. Furthermore, low sun exposure as a risk factor for all-cause death was comparable in magnitude to smoking, and women with active sun exposure habits were found to live 1 to 2 years longer as compared to those with the lowest sun exposure habits.

Two cohort studies have reported on a relation between personal sunbed use and all-cause mortality (67, 70). Both studies found 30-40% lower all-cause mortality associated with sunbathing vacations (67, 70). In contrast, Yang et al. report all-cause mortality risk practically doubled [hazard ratio (HR)=1.9, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.3-2.7] amongst those in the upper extreme, i.e. >12 times per year of sunbed use (70). In the study of Lindqvist et al., all users of sunbeds (namely mostly those using a sunbed <12-times per year, i.e. sensible users) were at 13% lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR=0.87, 95% CI=0.8-0.98) (67). Furthermore, the SCHEER report (1) states erroneously that the study population was not a representative sample of the Swedish population, yet the sample was drawn by computerized randomization from the population registry and is a representative sample comprising 20% of the south Swedish female population of the selected age groups.

The most known and well-documented beneficial health effects of UV radiation are mediated via vitamin D (see following paragraph). However, other factors might be involved, indicating that preventing and treating vitamin D deficiency may not account for all beneficial effects of solar or artificial UV exposure. Melatonin is involved in the circadian system, with there being a higher level during the night than in the daytime. Light information from the retina influences the production of melatonin via the suprachiasmatic nuclei of the hypothalamus. A mutation of the melatonin receptor affecting the melatonin system (MTNR1B) is known to be related to increased risk of type 2 diabetes, through the inhibition of insulin release. Thus, the increased susceptibility to type 2 diabetes mellitus noted among women with low sun exposure habits might at least partly be due to interference with the melatonin system (127). Hypertension is a major determinant of CVD. Experimental and observational data support the notion that lack of UVB radiation may be involved in the pathogenesis of hypertension (79, 80) and CVD (75) by (i) suppression of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system, (ii) a direct effect on endothelial cells, and effects on (iii) calcium metabolism and (iv) blood pressure, all of which might explain the lower all-cause death risk with increasing sun exposure. Solar UVA radiation induces the release and increases the cutaneous production of NO, resulting in a sustained reduction in blood pressure and has been suggested to act in a cardioprotective manner. Both high acute and chronic stress levels have a role in the activation of coagulation factors and may increase the risk of CVD, high blood pressure and thromboembolism. The finding that UV radiation induces β-endorphin synthesis, which may attenuate stress levels and have a cardioprotective and thromboprophylactic effect, is of note (77, 132). Moreover, epidemiological evidence provides support for solar UVB protection against a number of cancer types, including breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, pancreatic and prostate cancer (72).

The SCHEER and WHO reports do not adequately consider the large body of evidence demonstrating the negative health consequences of vitamin D deficiency (e.g. 72, 78, 86-126). In fact, one of the leading theories of the evolution of skin pigmentation is that it is a compensatory mechanism for vitamin D production in low UVB environments (71). Populations with lighter skin tones (maximally depigmented skin) are those inhabiting environments with the lowest annual and summer peak levels of UVB. During hominin evolution, depigmented and tannable skin evolved numerous times. Facultative pigmentation, or tanning, developed in populations where levels of UVB varied strongly by season (71). It has been estimated that at present, although oral vitamin D supplements are easily available, approximately one billion people worldwide are vitamin D-deficient or insufficient (88). This epidemic causes serious health problems that are still widely under-recognized (e.g. 88-91) Apart from well-documented problems in bone and muscle function, there are associations between vitamin D deficiency and increased incidence of or unfavourable outcome for a broad variety of independent acute and chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes and various types of malignancies (e.g. colon, skin, and breast cancer), autoimmune, infectious, neurocognitive and cardiovascular diseases (e.g. 72, 78, 86-126). Mechanistically, vitamin D acts as an antiproliferative agent and modulates cell growth and development in many tissues (124). Furthermore, vitamin D has profound effects on immune system activity and has been found to have a protective effect against many autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, particularly those of the central nervous system (123).

A recent meta-analyses demonstrated the benefit of vitamin D supplementation in preventing respiratory tract infections (118). In pregnancy, a reduced risk of preterm delivery was found to be associated with vitamin D supplementation (110, 121), as well as of asthma and wheezing in children born to mother's taking adequate vitamin D during pregnancy (119).

A large meta-analysis assessed the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation in the prevention of mortality in healthy adults and adults in a stable phase of disease (114). In that study, 56 randomized trials with 95,286 participants provided usable data on mortality. The age of participants ranged from 18 to 107 years. Most trials included women older than 70 years. The mean proportion of women was 77%. Forty-eight of the trials randomly assigned 94,491 healthy participants. Of these, four trials included healthy volunteers, nine included postmenopausal women and 35 included older people living on their own or in institutional care. The remaining eight trials randomly assigned 795 participants with neurological, cardiovascular, respiratory or rheumatoid diseases. Vitamin D was administered for a weighted mean of 4.4 years. More than half of the trials had a low risk of bias. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. Forty-five trials (80%) reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants based on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. Participants in 19 trials had vitamin D adequacy (at or above 20 ng/ml). Participants in the remaining 26 trials had vitamin D insufficiency (less than 20 ng/ml). Vitamin D reduced mortality in all 56 trials when analyzed together [5,920/47,472 (12.5%) vs. 6,077/47,814 (12.7%); RR=0.97, 95% CI=0.94 to 0.99, p=0.02; I2=0%). ‘Worst-best case’ and ‘best-worst case’ scenario analyses demonstrated that vitamin D was associated with a dramatic increase or decrease in mortality, respectively Trial sequential analysis supported the findings regarding vitamin D3, with the cumulative Z-score breaking the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit, corresponding to 150 people treated over 5 years to prevent one additional death. Vitamin D3 statistically significantly reduced cancer mortality (RR=0.88, 95% CI=0.78 to 0.98), p=0.02; I2=0%; 44,492 participants; four trials) (114).

The SCHEER and WHO reports purport that using a sunbed is not an efficient way to generate vitamin D and that there are no health benefits associated with sunbed use beyond cosmetic outcomes, yet numerous publications support both. Sunbeds using UVB radiation lead to sufficient vitamin D production to significantly increase serum 25(OH)D concentration within 8-12 weeks (81-84) independent of ethnicity (85). Furthermore, Tangpricha et al. (86) reported 90% higher concentrations of 25(OH)D in those who used sunbeds regularly in comparison with controls. The sunbed users had significantly higher bone mass density and Z scores at the total hip than did non-users (86).

Conclusion

The generally accepted principles and ethics of medical research require that all available results are systematically collected and presented in an objective and impartial manner. This does not appear to be the case in the SCHEER (1) and WHO (2) reports, as the authors/contributors seem to have decided a priori on their position with respect to sunbed use and selectively emphasized the results they believed to support their position.

SCHEER should provide the European Commission with the scientific advice it needs when preparing policy for the European population. However, one should keep in mind that the conclusions of the SCHEER report (1) are based on data that do not reflect the present situation in Europe, while the conclusions of both reports are based on historical data that do not reflect the present situation in Europe or in other countries. Many studies included individuals with skin type I, who in Europe are at present not allowed to use a sunbed. Moreover, many studies included data obtained on technical devices that are no longer allowed to be used in Europe. It is well known that regional differences, including impact of confounding factors (e.g. solar UV exposure), technical differences of UV-emitting devices and differences in their operation, strongly influence the association of ever-exposure to UV radiation from sunbeds with melanoma risk (4-56). As mentioned above, it is alarming that this SCHEER report (1) conceals the important finding, namely that meta-analyses of studies performed in Europe do not show an association of ever-exposure to UV radiation from sunbeds with increased melanoma risk (47). Because of the high number of participants in European studies, this result is most likely not due to a lack of power, but reflects regional differences concerning impact of confounding factors, including solar UV exposure, technical differences of UV-emitting devices, and differences in their use (47).

Moreover, reductions of melanoma mortality rates during the past decades do not support the hypothesis that UV radiation from sunbeds may have increased melanoma risk. While melanoma death rates had more than doubled in light-skinned populations between 1955 and 1985, reduction in melanoma mortality rates have been observed from 1985-1990 in Australia, the United States and in many European countries. Furthermore, the authors of an article analyzing the imminent inexorable decline in light-skinned populations concluded that independently from screening or treatment, death from malignant melanoma is likely to become an increasingly rare event (128). It has been suggested that better detection methods have been in use to detect melanoma earlier, which is also a possible reason for the increased risk that has been observed (129).

In conclusion, both the SCHEER (1) and WHO (2) reports claim to assess health effects of sunbed use. Unfortunately, however, as such they are partially unbalanced and inaccurate. Both documents mainly assess negative health effects of UV exposure, conceal the large body of evidence demonstrating beneficial health effects of UV radiation, and major conclusions drawn are not sufficiently supported by current scientific knowledge. It should be emphasized that the main conclusions drawn by the SCHEER (1) and WHO (2) reports are not in accordance with generally accepted principles of evidence-based medicine, they not only are not in line with recommendations of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (3), but, as outlined in this critical appraisal, also do not fulfil the criteria proposed by Bradford Hill for examining causality in a biological system (strength of association, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment and analogy) (130). Other researchers added the ruling out of confounding factors and bias (131). With this unscientific approach, both the SCHEER (1) and WHO (2) reports are not adequate and do not properly summarize current knowledge on comparing beneficial and adverse effects of UV exposure from sunbeds.

Footnotes

  • This article is freely accessible online.

  • Received October 31, 2017.
  • Revision received December 5, 2017.
  • Accepted December 18, 2017.
  • Copyright© 2018, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/scheer/docs/scheer_o_003.pdf
  2. ↵
    http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/255695/1/9789241512596-eng.pdf?ua=1
  3. ↵
    htpp://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/
  4. ↵
    1. Autier P,
    2. Dore JF,
    3. Schifflers E,
    4. Cesarini JP,
    5. Bollaerts A,
    6. Koelmel KF,
    7. Gefeller O,
    8. Liabeuf A,
    9. Lejeune F,
    10. Lienard D
    : Melanoma and use of sunscreens: an Eortc case-control study in Germany, Belgium and France. The EORTC Melanoma Cooperative Group. Int J Cancer 61(6): 749-755, 1995.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bataille V,
    2. Winnett A,
    3. Sasieni P,
    4. Newton Bishop JA,
    5. Cuzick J
    : Exposure to the sun and sunbeds and the risk of cutaneous melanoma in the UK: a case-control study. Eur J Cancer 40(3): 429-35, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Bataille V,
    2. Boniol M,
    3. De Vries E,
    4. Severi G,
    5. Brandberg Y,
    6. Sasieni P,
    7. Cuzick J,
    8. Eggermont A,
    9. Ringborg U,
    10. Grivegnée AR,
    11. Coebergh JW,
    12. Chignol MC,
    13. Doré JF,
    14. Autier P
    : A multicentre epidemiological study on sunbed use and cutaneous melanoma in Europe. Eur J Cancer 41(14): 2141-2149, 2005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Chen YT,
    2. Dubrow R,
    3. Zheng T,
    4. Barnhill RL,
    5. Fine J,
    6. Berwick M
    : Sunlamp use and the risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma: a population-based case-control study in Connecticut, USA. Int J Epidemiol 27(5): 758-765, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Clough-Gorr KM,
    2. Titus-Ernstoff L,
    3. Perry AE,
    4. Spencer SK,
    5. Ernstoff MS
    : Exposure to sunlamps, tanning beds, and melanoma risk. Cancer Causes Control 19(7): 659-669, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Cust AE,
    2. Armstrong BK,
    3. Goumas C,
    4. Jenkins MA,
    5. Schmid H,
    6. Hopper JL,
    7. Kefford RF,
    8. Giles GG,
    9. Aitken JF,
    10. Mann GJ
    : Sunbed use during adolescence and early adulthood is associated with increased risk of early-onset melanoma. Int J Cancer 128(10): 2425-2435, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Dunn-Lane J,
    2. Herity B,
    3. Moriarty MJ,
    4. Conroy R
    : A case control study of malignant melanoma. Ir Med J 86(2): 57-59, 1993.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Elliott F,
    2. Suppa M,
    3. Chan M,
    4. Leake S,
    5. Karpavicius B,
    6. Haynes S,
    7. Barrett JH,
    8. Bishop DT,
    9. Newton-Bishop JA
    : Relationship between sunbed use and melanoma risk in a large case-control study in the United Kingdom. Int J Cancer 130(12): 3011-3013, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Elwood JM,
    2. Williamson C,
    3. Stapleton PJ
    : Malignant melanoma in relation to moles, pigmentation, and exposure to fluorescent and other lighting sources. Br J Cancer 53: 65-74, 1986.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Farley C,
    2. Alimi Y,
    3. Espinosa LR,
    4. Perez S,
    5. Knechtle W,
    6. Hestley A,
    7. Carlson GW,
    8. Russell MC,
    9. Delman KA,
    10. Rizzo M
    : Tanning beds: A call to action for further educational and legislative efforts. J Surg Oncol 112(2): 183-187, 2015.
    OpenUrl
    1. Fears TR,
    2. Sagebiel RW,
    3. Halpern A,
    4. Elder DE,
    5. Holly EA,
    6. Guerry D 4th.,
    7. Tucker MA
    : Sunbeds and sunlamps: who used them and their risk for melanoma. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res 24(3): 574-581, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Garbe C,
    2. Weiss J,
    3. Kruger S,
    4. Garbe E,
    5. Büttner P,
    6. Bertz J,
    7. Hoffmeister H,
    8. Guggenmoos-Holzmann I,
    9. Jung EG,
    10. Orfanos CE
    : The German melanoma registry and environmental risk factors implied. Recent Results Cancer Res 128: 69-89, 1993.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Han J,
    2. Colditz GA,
    3. Hunter DJ
    : Risk factors for skin cancers: a nested case–control study within the Nurses' Health Study. Int J Epidemiol 35: 1514-1521, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Holly EA,
    2. Aston DA,
    3. Cress RD,
    4. Ahn DK,
    5. Kristiansen JJ
    : Cutaneous melanoma in women. I. Exposure to sunlight, ability to tan, and other risk factors related to ultraviolet light. Am J Epidemiol 141(10): 923-933, 1995.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Holman CD,
    2. Armstrong BK,
    3. Heenan PJ,
    4. Blackwell JB,
    5. Cumming FJ,
    6. English DR,
    7. Holland S,
    8. Kelsall GR,
    9. Matz LR,
    10. Rouse IL
    : The causes of malignant melanoma: results from the West Australian Lions Melanoma Research Project. Recent Results Cancer Res 102: 18-37, 1986.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kaskel P,
    2. Lange U,
    3. Sander S,
    4. Huber MA,
    5. Utikal J,
    6. Leiter U,
    7. Krähn G,
    8. Meurer M,
    9. Kron M
    : Ultraviolet exposure and risk of melanoma and basal cell carcinoma in Ulm and Dresden, Germany. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 29(1): 134-142, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Landi MT,
    2. Baccarelli A,
    3. Calista D,
    4. Pesatori A,
    5. Fears T,
    6. Tucker MA,
    7. Landi G
    : Combined risk factors for melanoma in a Mediterranean population. Br J Cancer 85(9): 1304-1310, 2001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Lazovich D,
    2. Vogel RI,
    3. Berwick M,
    4. Weinstock MA,
    5. Anderson KE,
    6. Warshaw EM
    : Indoor tanning and risk of melanoma: a case-control study in a highly exposed population. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19(6): 1557-1568, 2010.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. MacKie RM,
    2. Freudenberger T,
    3. Aitchison TC
    : Personal risk-factor chart for cutaneous melanoma. Lancet 2: 487-490, 1989.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Naldi L,
    2. Gallus S,
    3. Imberti GL,
    4. Cainelli T,
    5. Negri E,
    6. La Vecchia C
    : Sunlamps and sunbeds and the risk of cutaneous melanoma. Italian Group for Epidemiological Research in Dermatology. Eur J Cancer Prev 9(2): 133-134, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Nielsen K,
    2. Masback A,
    3. Olsson H,
    4. Ingvar C
    : A prospective, population-based study of 40,000 women regarding host factors, UV exposure and sunbed use in relation to risk and anatomic site of cutaneous melanoma. Int J Cancer 131(3): 706-715, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Osterlind A,
    2. Tucker MA,
    3. Stone BJ,
    4. Jensen OM
    : The Danish case-control study of cutaneous malignant melanoma. II. Importance of UV-light exposure. Int J Cancer 42(3): 319-324, 1988.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Swerdlow AJ,
    2. English JS,
    3. MacKie RM,
    4. O'Doherty CJ,
    5. Hunter JA,
    6. Clark J,
    7. Hole DJ
    : Fluorescent lights, ultraviolet lamps, and risk of cutaneous melanoma. BMJ 297(6649): 647-650, 1988. Erratum in: BMJ 297(6657): 1172, 1988.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Ting W,
    2. Schultz K,
    3. Cac NN,
    4. Peterson M,
    5. Walling HW
    : Tanning bed exposure increases the risk of malignant melanoma. Int J Dermatol 46(12): 1253-1257, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Veierod MB,
    2. Adami HO,
    3. Lund E,
    4. Armstrong BK,
    5. Weiderpass E
    : Sun and solarium exposure and melanoma risk: effects of age, pigmentary characteristics, and nevi. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19(1): 111-120, 2010.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Walter SD,
    2. King WD,
    3. Marrett LD
    : Association of cutaneous malignant melanoma with intermittent exposure to ultraviolet radiation: results of a case–control study in Ontario, Canada. Int J Epidemiol 28: 418-427, 1999.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Westerdahl J,
    2. Ingvar C,
    3. Masback A,
    4. Jonsson N,
    5. Olsson H
    : Risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in relation to use of sunbeds: further evidence for UV-A carcinogenicity. Br J Cancer 82(9): 1593-1599, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Westerdahl J,
    2. Olsson H,
    3. Masback A,
    4. Ingvar C,
    5. Jonsson N,
    6. Brandt L,
    7. Jönsson PE,
    8. Möller T
    : Use of sunbeds or sunlamps and malignant melanoma in southern Sweden. Am J Epidemiol 140(8): 691-699, 1994.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Wolf P,
    2. Quehenberger F,
    3. Mullegger R,
    4. Stranz B,
    5. Kerl H
    : Phenotypic markers, sunlight-related factors and sunscreen use in patients with cutaneous melanoma: an Austrian case-control study. Melanoma Res 8(4): 370-378, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Zanetti R,
    2. Rosso S,
    3. Faggiano F,
    4. Roffino R,
    5. Colonna S,
    6. Martina G
    : A case-control study of melanoma of the skin in the province of Torino, Italy. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 36(4-5): 309-317, 1988.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Zivkovic MV,
    2. Dediol I,
    3. Ljubicic I,
    4. Situm M
    : Sun behaviour patterns and perception of illness among melanoma patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 26(6): 724-729, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Beitner H,
    2. Norell SE,
    3. Ringborg,
    4. Wennersten G,
    5. Mattson B
    : Malignant melanoma: aetiological importance of individual pigmentation and sun exposure. Br J Dermatol 122(1): 43-51, 1990.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Gallagher RP,
    2. Elwood JM,
    3. Hill GB
    : Risk factor for cutaneous malignant melanoma: the Western Canada Melanoma Study. Recent Results Cancer Res 102: 38-55, 1986.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Holly EA,
    2. Kelly JW,
    3. Shpall SN,
    4. Chiu SH
    : Number of melanocytic nevi as a major risk factor for malignant melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol 17(3): 459-468, 1987.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Klepp O,
    2. Magnus K
    : Some environmental and bodily characteristics of melanoma patients. A case–control study. Int J Cancer 23(4): 482-486, 1979.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Schmitt J,
    2. Seidler A,
    3. Heinisch G,
    4. Sebastian G
    : Effectiveness of skin cancer screening for the age group 14 through 34 years. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 9: 608-617, 2011.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Ferrucci LM,
    2. Vogel RI,
    3. Cartmel B,
    4. Lazovich D,
    5. Mayne ST
    : Indoor tanning in businesses and homes and risk of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer in 2 US case-control studies. J Am Acad Dermatol 71(5): 882-887, 2014.
    OpenUrl
    1. Veierod MB,
    2. Weiderpass E,
    3. Thörn M,
    4. Hansson J,
    5. Lund E,
    6. Armstrong B,
    7. Adami HO
    : A prospective study of pigmentation, sun exposure, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in women. J Natl Cancer Inst 95(20): 1530-1538, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Walter SD,
    2. Marrett LD,
    3. From L,
    4. Hertzman C,
    5. Shannon HS,
    6. Roy P
    : The association of cutaneous malignant melanoma with the use of sunbeds and sunlamps. Am J Epidemiol 131(2): 232-243, 1990.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Zhang M,
    2. Qureshi AA,
    3. Geller AC,
    4. Frazier L,
    5. Hunter DJ,
    6. Han J
    : Use of tanning beds and incidence of skin cancer. J Clin Oncol 30(14): 1588-1593, 2012.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Boniol M,
    2. Autier P,
    3. Boyle P,
    4. Gandini S
    : Cutaneous melanoma attributable to sunbed use: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 345: e4757, 2012.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. El Ghissassi F,
    2. Baan R,
    3. Straif K,
    4. Grosse Y,
    5. Secretan B,
    6. Bouvard V,
    7. Benbrahim-Tallaa L,
    8. Guha N,
    9. Freeman C,
    10. Galichet L,
    11. Cogliano V
    : WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. A review of human carcinogens – part D: radiation. Lancet Oncol 10(8): 751-752, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. IARC Working Group on Artificial UV light and skin cancer
    : The association of use of sunbeds with cutaneous malignant melanoma and other skin cancers: a systematic review. Int J Cancer 120: 1116-1122, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Colantonio S,
    2. Bracken MB,
    3. Beecker J
    : The association of indoor tanning and melanoma in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol 70: 847-857, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Wehner MR,
    2. Chren MM,
    3. Nameth D,
    4. Choudhry A,
    5. Gaskins M,
    6. Nead KT,
    7. Boscardin WJ,
    8. Linos E
    : International prevalence of indoor tanning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol 150: 390-400, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Gallagher RP,
    2. Spinelli JJ,
    3. Lee TK
    : Tanning beds, sunlamps, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14(3): 562-566, 2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Hirst N,
    2. Gordon L,
    3. Gies P,
    4. Green AC
    : Estimation of avoidable skin cancers and cost-savings to government associated with regulation of the solarium industry in Australia. Health Policy 89(3): 303-311, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Swerdlow AJ,
    2. Weinstock MA
    : Do tanning lamps cause melanoma? An epidemiologic assessment. J Am Acad Dermatol 38(1): 89-98, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Boniol M,
    2. Autier P,
    3. Boyle P,
    4. Gandini S
    : Cutaneous melanoma attributable to sunbed use: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 345: e8503 (correction), 2012.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. Grant WB
    : Critique of the IARCs meta-analyses of the association of sunbed use with risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma. Dermato-Endocrinology 1: 294-299, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Moan JE,
    2. Baturaite Z,
    3. Grigalavicius M,
    4. Juzeniene A
    : Sunbed use and cutaneous melanoma in Norway. Scand J Public Health 41(8): 812-817, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Adam SA,
    2. Sheaves JK,
    3. Wright NH,
    4. Mosser G,
    5. Harris RW,
    6. Vessey MP
    : A case-control study of the possible association between oral contraceptives and malignant melanoma. Br J Cancer 44(1): 45-50, 1981.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Burgard B,
    2. Schöpe J,
    3. Holzschuh I,
    4. Schiekofer C,
    5. Reichrath S,
    6. Wagenpfeil S,
    7. Pilz S,
    8. Ordonez-Mena J,
    9. März W,
    10. Vogt Th,
    11. Reichrath J
    : Solarium use and risk for malignant melanoma: evidence medicine-based systematic review and meta-analysis. Anticancer Res, in press.
  19. ↵
    1. Schneider S,
    2. Krämer H
    : Who uses sunbeds? A systematic literature review of risk groups in developed countries. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 24(6): 639-648, 2010.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/ev_20160412_mi_en.pdf
  21. ↵
    1. Jhappan C,
    2. Noonan FP,
    3. Merlino G
    : Ultraviolet radiation and cutaneous malignant melanoma. Oncogene 22(20): 3099-3112, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Noonan FP,
    2. Zaidi MR,
    3. Wolnicka-Glubisz A,
    4. Anver MR,
    5. Bahn J,
    6. Wielgus A,
    7. Cadet J,
    8. Douki T,
    9. Mouret S,
    10. Tucker MA,
    11. Popratiloff A,
    12. Merlino G,
    13. De Fabo EC
    : Melanoma induction by ultraviolet A but not ultraviolet B radiation requires melanin pigment. Nat Commun 3: 884, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Reichrath J,
    2. Rass K
    : Ultraviolet damage, DNA repair and vitamin D in nonmelanoma skin cancer and in malignant melanoma: an update. Adv Exp Med Biol 810: 208-233, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Elwood JM,
    2. Gallagher RP,
    3. Hill GB,
    4. Pearson JC
    : Cutaneous melanoma in relation to intermittent and constant sun exposure. Int J Cancer 35: 427-433, 1985.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Elwood JM,
    2. Jopson J
    : Melanoma and sun exposure: an overview of published studies. Int J Cancer 73(2): 198-203, 1997.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Gass R,
    2. Bopp M
    : Mortality from malignant melanoma: epidemiological trends in Switzerland. Schweiz. Rundsch Med Prax 94(34): 1295-1300, 2005.
    OpenUrl
    1. Kennedy C,
    2. Bajdik CD,
    3. Willemze R,
    4. De Gruijl FR,
    5. Bouwes Bavinck JN,
    6. Leiden Skin Cancer Study
    : The influence of painful sunburns and lifetime sun exposure on the risk of actinic keratosis, seborrheic warts, melanocytic nevi, atypical nevi and skin cancer. J Invest Dermatol 120(6): 1087-1093, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Grant WB
    : Role of solar UV irradiance and smoking in cancer as inferred from cancer incidence rates by occupation in Nordic countries. Dermatoendocrinol 4(2): 203-211, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Lindqvist PG,
    2. Epstein E,
    3. Landin-Olsson M
    : Avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for all-cause mortality: results from the Melanoma in Southern Sweden cohort. J Intern Med 276: 77-86, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lindqvist PG,
    2. Epstein E,
    3. Nielsen K,
    4. Landin-Olsson M,
    5. Ingvar C,
    6. Olsson H
    : Avoidance of sun exposure as a risk factor for major causes of death: a competing risk analysis of the Melanoma in Southern Sweden cohort. J Intern Med 280(4): 375-387, 2016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Yang L,
    2. Veierød MB,
    3. Löf M,
    4. Sandin S,
    5. Adami HO,
    6. Weiderpass E
    : Prospective study of UV exposure and cancer incidence among Swedish women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 20(7): 1358-1367, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Yang L,
    2. Lof M,
    3. Veierød MB,
    4. Sandin S,
    5. Adami HO,
    6. Weiderpass E
    : Ultraviolet exposure and mortality among women in Sweden. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 20(4): 683-690, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Jablonski NG,
    2. Chaplin G
    : Colloquium paper: human skin pigmentation as an adaptation to UV radiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 11(107)Suppl 2: 8962-8968, 2010.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Moukayed M,
    2. Grant WB
    : The roles of UVB and vitamin D in reducing risk of cancer incidence and mortality: a review of the epidemiology, clinical trials and mechanisms. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 18: 167-182, 2017.
    OpenUrl
    1. Hart PH,
    2. Gorman S,
    3. Finlay-Jones JJ
    : Modulation of the immune system by UV radiation: more than just the effects of vitamin D? Nat Rev Immunol 11: 584-596, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Juzeniene A,
    2. Moan J
    : Beneficial effects of UV radiation other than via vitamin D production. Dermatoendocrinol 4: 109-117, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Scragg R
    : Seasonality of cardiovascular disease mortality and the possible protective effect of ultra-violet radiation. Int J Epidemiol 10: 337-341, 1981.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Nayha S
    : Cold and the risk of cardiovascular diseases. A review. Int J Circumpolar Health 61: 373-380, 2002.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Lindqvist P,
    2. Epstein E,
    3. Olsson H
    : Does an active sun exposure habit lower the risk of venous thrombotic events? A D-lightful hypothesis JTH 7: 605-610, 2009.
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Schottker B,
    2. Jorde R,
    3. Peasey A,
    4. Thorand B,
    5. Jansen EH,
    6. Groot Ld,
    7. Streppel M,
    8. Gardiner J,
    9. Ordóñez-Mena JM,
    10. Perna L,
    11. Wilsgaard T,
    12. Rathmann W,
    13. Feskens E,
    14. Kampman E,
    15. Siganos G,
    16. Njølstad I,
    17. Mathiesen EB,
    18. Kubínová R,
    19. Pająk A,
    20. Topor-Madry R,
    21. Tamosiunas A,
    22. Hughes M,
    23. Kee F,
    24. Bobak M,
    25. Trichopoulou A,
    26. Boffetta P,
    27. Brenner H,
    28. Consortium on Health and Ageing
    : Network of Cohorts in Europe and the United States: Vitamin D and mortality: meta-analysis of individual participant data from a large consortium of cohort studies from Europe and the United States. BMJ 348: g3656, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Krause R,
    2. Buhring M,
    3. Hopfenmuller W,
    4. Holick MF,
    5. Sharma AM
    : Ultraviolet B and blood pressure. Lancet 352: 709-710, 1998.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Oplander C,
    2. Volkmar CM,
    3. Paunel-Gorgulu A
    : Whole body UVA irradiation lowers systemic blood pressure by release of nitric oxide from intracutaneous photolabile nitric oxide derivates. Circ Res 105: 1031-1040, 2009.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Weber B,
    2. Bachmann CC,
    3. Braun R,
    4. Abraham AG,
    5. Serra AL,
    6. Hofbauer GFL
    : 25-Hydroxyvitamin-D3 serum modulation after use of sunbeds compliant with European Union standards: A randomized open observational controlled trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 77(1): 48-54, 2017.
    OpenUrl
    1. Orlova T,
    2. Moan J,
    3. Lagunova Z,
    4. Aksnes L,
    5. Terenetskaya I,
    6. Juzeniene A
    : Increase in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin-D3 in humans after sunbed exposures compared to previtamin D3 synthesis in vitro. J Photochem Photobiol B 122: 32-36, 2013.
    OpenUrl
    1. Thieden E,
    2. Jørgensen HL,
    3. Jørgensen NR,
    4. Philipsen PA,
    5. Wulf HC
    : Sunbed radiation provokes cutaneous vitamin D synthesis in humans – a randomized controlled trial. Photochem Photobiol 84(6): 1487-1492, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Moan J,
    2. Lagunova Z,
    3. Cicarma E,
    4. Aksnes L,
    5. Dahlback A,
    6. Grant WB,
    7. Porojnicu AC
    : Sunbeds as vitamin D sources. Photochem Photobiol 85(6): 1474-1479, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Hakim OA,
    2. Hart K,
    3. McCabe P,
    4. Berry J,
    5. Francesca R,
    6. Rhodes LE,
    7. Spyrou N,
    8. Alfuraih A,
    9. Lanham-New S
    : Vitamin D production in UK Caucasian and South Asian women following UVR exposure. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 164: 223-229, 2016.
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Tangpricha V,
    2. Turner A,
    3. Spina C,
    4. Decastro S,
    5. Chen TC,
    6. Holick MF
    : Tanning is associated with optimal vitamin D status (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration) and higher bone mineral density. Am J Clin Nutr 80(6): 1645-1649, 2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Reichrath J
    : The challenge resulting from positive and negative effects of sunlight: how much solar UV exposure is appropriate to balance between risks of vitamin D deficiency and skin cancer? Prog Biophys Mol Biol 92: 9-16, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Holick MF
    : Vitamin D deficiency. N Engl J Med 357: 266-281, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Grant WB,
    2. Garland CF,
    3. Holick MF
    : Comparisons of estimated economic burdens due to insufficient solar ultraviolet irradiance and vitamin D and excess solar UV irradiance for the United States. Photochem Photobiol 81: 1276-1286, 2005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Holick MF
    : Sunlight “D”ilemma: risk of skin cancer or bone disease and muscle weakness. Lancet 357: 4-6, 2001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Mason RS,
    2. Reichrath J
    : Sunlight vitamin D and skin cancer. Anticancer Agents Med Chem 13: 83-97, 2013.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Kelishadi R,
    2. Salek S,
    3. Salek M,
    4. Hashemipour M,
    5. Movahedian M
    : Effects of vitamin D supplementation on insulin resistance and cardiometabolic risk factors in children with metabolic syndrome: a triple-masked controlled trial. J Pediatr (Rio J) 90(1): 28-34, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Samefors M,
    2. Östgren CJ,
    3. Mölstad S,
    4. Lannering C,
    5. Midlöv P,
    6. Tengblad A
    : Vitamin D deficiency in elderly people in Swedish nursing homes is associated with increased mortality. Eur J Endocrinol 170(5): 667-675, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Perna L,
    2. Schöttker B,
    3. Holleczek B,
    4. Brenner H
    : Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and incidence of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events: a prospective study with repeated measurements. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 98(12): 4908-4915, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Zeichner SB,
    2. Koru-Sengul T,
    3. Shah N,
    4. Liu Q,
    5. Markward NJ,
    6. Montero AJ,
    7. Glück S,
    8. Silva O,
    9. Ahn ER
    : Improved clinical outcomes associated with vitamin D supplementation during adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with HER2(+) nonmetastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 15(1): e1-e11, 2015.
    OpenUrl
    1. Uhmann A,
    2. Niemann H,
    3. Lammering B,
    4. Henkel C,
    5. Hess I,
    6. Nitzki F,
    7. Fritsch A,
    8. Prüfer N,
    9. Rosenberger A,
    10. Dullin C,
    11. Schraepler A,
    12. Reifenberger J,
    13. Schweyer S,
    14. Pietsch T,
    15. Strutz F,
    16. Schulz-Schaeffer W,
    17. Hahn H
    : Antitumoral effects of calcitriol in basal cell carcinomas involve inhibition of hedgehog signaling and induction of vitamin D receptor signaling and differentiation. Mol Cancer Ther 10(11): 2179-2188, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Kasiappan R,
    2. Sun Y,
    3. Lungchukiet P,
    4. Quarni W,
    5. Zhang X,
    6. Bai W
    : Vitamin D suppresses leptin stimulation of cancer growth through microRNA. Cancer Res 74(21): 6194-6204, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Khaw KT,
    2. Luben R,
    3. Wareham N
    : Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, mortality, and incident cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, cancers, and fractures: a 13-y prospective population study. Am J Clin Nutr 100(5): 1361-1370, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Liao Y,
    2. Huang JL,
    3. Qiu MX,
    4. Ma ZW
    : Impact of serum vitamin D level on risk of bladder cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Tumour Biol 36(3): 1567-1572, 2015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bikle DD
    : Vitamin D receptor, a tumor suppressor in skin. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 93(5): 349-354, 2015.
    OpenUrl
    1. Bikle DD,
    2. Oda Y,
    3. Tu CL,
    4. Jiang Y
    : Novel mechanisms for the vitamin D receptor (VDR) in the skin and in skin cancer. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 148: 47-51, 2014.
    OpenUrl
    1. Sidhu PS,
    2. Teske K,
    3. Feleke B,
    4. Yuan NY,
    5. Guthrie ML,
    6. Fernstrum GB,
    7. Vyas ND,
    8. Han L,
    9. Preston J,
    10. Bogart JW,
    11. Silvaggi NR,
    12. Cook JM,
    13. Singh RK,
    14. Bikle DD,
    15. Arnold LA
    : Anticancer activity of VDR-coregulator inhibitor PS121912. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 74(4): 787-798, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Jiang YJ,
    2. Bikle DD
    : LncRNA: a new player in 1α,25(OH)(2) vitamin D(3)/VDR protection against skin cancer formation. Exp Dermatol 23(3): 147-150, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Jiang YJ,
    2. Bikle DD
    : LncRNA profiling reveals new mechanism for VDR protection against skin cancer formation. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 144 Pt A: 87-90, 2014.
    OpenUrl
    1. Bikle DD,
    2. Jiang Y
    : The protective role of vitamin d signaling in non-melanoma skin cancer. Cancers (Basel) 5(4): 1426-1438, 2013.
    OpenUrl
    1. Rossdeutscher L,
    2. Li J,
    3. Luco AL,
    4. Fadhil I,
    5. Ochietti B,
    6. Camirand A,
    7. Huang DC,
    8. Reinhardt TA,
    9. Muller W,
    10. Kremer R
    : Chemoprevention Activity of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D in the MMTV-PyMT Mouse Model of Breast Cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 8(2): 120-128, 2015.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Yang HF,
    2. Zhang ZH,
    3. Chang ZQ,
    4. Tang KL,
    5. Lin DZ,
    6. Xu JZ
    : Vitamin D deficiency affects the immunity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in mice. Clin Exp Med 13(4): 265-270, 2013.
    OpenUrl
    1. Coussens AK,
    2. Wilkinson RJ,
    3. Hanifa Y,
    4. Nikolayevskyy V,
    5. Elkington PT,
    6. Islam K,
    7. Timms PM,
    8. Venton TR,
    9. Bothamley GH,
    10. Packe GE,
    11. Darmalingam M,
    12. Davidson RN,
    13. Milburn HJ,
    14. Baker LV,
    15. Barker RD,
    16. Mein CA,
    17. Bhaw-Rosun L,
    18. Nuamah R,
    19. Young DB,
    20. Drobniewski FA,
    21. Griffiths CJ,
    22. Martineau AR
    : Vitamin D accelerates resolution of inflammatory responses during tuberculosis treatment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(38): 15449-15454, 2012.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Salahuddin N,
    2. Ali F,
    3. Hasan Z,
    4. Rao N,
    5. Aqeel M,
    6. Mahmood F
    : Vitamin D accelerates clinical recovery from tuberculosis: results of the SUCCINCT Study [Supplementary Cholecalciferol in recovery from tuberculosis]. A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of vitamin D supplementation in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis'. BMC Infect Dis 13: 22, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Salamon H,
    2. Bruiners N,
    3. Lakehal K,
    4. Shi L,
    5. Ravi J,
    6. Yamaguchi KD,
    7. Pine R,
    8. Gennaro ML
    : Cutting edge: Vitamin D regulates lipid metabolism in Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. J Immunol 193(1): 30-34, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Wong GL,
    2. Chan HL,
    3. Chan HY,
    4. Tse CH,
    5. Chim AM,
    6. Lo AO,
    7. Wong VW
    : Adverse effects of vitamin D deficiency on outcomes of patients with chronic hepatitis B. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 13(4): 783-90, 2015.
    OpenUrl
    1. Lungchukiet P,
    2. Sun Y,
    3. Kasiappan R,
    4. Quarni W,
    5. Nicosia SV,
    6. Zhang X,
    7. Bai W
    : Suppression of epithelial ovarian cancer invasion into the omentum by 1α,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 and its receptor. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 148: 138-47, 2015.
    OpenUrl
    1. Bischoff-Ferrari HA,
    2. Dawson-Hughes B,
    3. Staehelin HB,
    4. Orav JE,
    5. Stuck AE,
    6. Theiler R,
    7. Wong JB,
    8. Egli A,
    9. Kiel DP,
    10. Henschkowski J
    : Fall prevention with supplemental and active forms of vitamin D: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 339: b3692, 2009.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Bjelakovic G,
    2. Gluud LL,
    3. Nikolova D,
    4. Whitfield K,
    5. Wetterslev J,
    6. Simonetti RG,
    7. Bjelakovic M,
    8. Gluud C
    : Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1: CD007470, 2014.
    1. Heyne K,
    2. Heil TC,
    3. Bette B,
    4. Reichrath J,
    5. Roemer K
    : MDM2 binds and inhibits vitamin D receptor. Cell Cycle 14(13): 2003-2010, 2015.
    OpenUrl
    1. Reichrath J,
    2. Reichrath S,
    3. Heyne K,
    4. Vogt T,
    5. Roemer K
    : Tumor suppression in skin and other tissues via cross-talk between vitamin D- and p53-signaling. Front Physiol 5: 166, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Reichrath J,
    2. Zouboulis CC,
    3. Vogt T,
    4. Holick MF
    : Targeting the Vitamin D Endocrine System (VDES) for the management of inflammatory and malignant skin diseases: an historical view and outlook. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 17(3): 405-417, 2016.
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Martineau AR,
    2. Jolliffe DA,
    3. Hooper RL,
    4. Greenberg L,
    5. Aloia JF,
    6. Bergman P,
    7. Dubnov-Raz G,
    8. Esposito S,
    9. Ganmaa D,
    10. Ginde AA,
    11. Goodall EC,
    12. Grant CC,
    13. Griffiths CJ,
    14. Janssens W,
    15. Laaksi I,
    16. Manaseki-Holland S,
    17. Mauger D,
    18. Murdoch DR,
    19. Neale R,
    20. Rees JR,
    21. Simpson S Jr..,
    22. Stelmach I,
    23. Kumar GT,
    24. Urashima M,
    25. Camargo CA Jr..
    : Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ 356: i6583, 2017.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Litonjua AA,
    2. Carey VJ,
    3. Laranjo N,
    4. Harshfield BJ,
    5. McElrath TF,
    6. O'Connor GT,
    7. Sandel M,
    8. Iverson RE,
    9. Lee-Paritz A,
    10. Strunk RC,
    11. Bacharier LB,
    12. Macones GA,
    13. Zeiger RS,
    14. Schatz M,
    15. Hollis BW,
    16. Hornsby E,
    17. Hawrylowicz C,
    18. Wu AC,
    19. Weiss ST
    : Effect of prenatal supplementation with vitamin D on asthma or recurrent wheezing in offspring by age 3 years – the VDAART randomized controlled trial. JAMA 315: 362-370, 2016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. McDonnell SL,
    2. Baggerly KA,
    3. Baggerly CA,
    4. Aliano JL,
    5. French CB,
    6. Baggerly LL,
    7. Ebeling MD,
    8. Rittenberg CS,
    9. Goodier CG,
    10. Mateus Nino JF,
    11. Wineland RJ,
    12. Newman RB,
    13. Hollis BW,
    14. Wagner CL
    : Maternal 25(OH)D concentrations ≥40 ng/mL associated with 60% lower preterm birth risk among general obstetrical patients at an urban medical center. PLOS One 12(7): e0180483, 2017.
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. Zhou SS,
    2. Tao YH,
    3. Huang K,
    4. Zhu BB,
    5. Tao FB
    : Vitamin D and risk of preterm birth: up-to-date meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 43(2): 247-256, 2017.
    OpenUrl
    1. Wang H,
    2. Chen W,
    3. Li D,
    4. Yin X,
    5. Zhang X,
    6. Olsen N,
    7. Zheng SG
    : Vitamin D and chronic diseases. Aging Dis 8(3): 346-353, 2017.
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. DeLuca GC,
    2. Kimball SM,
    3. Kolasinski J,
    4. Ramagopalan SV,
    5. Ebers GC
    : The role of vitamin D in nervous system health and disease. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 39(5): 458-484, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Moukayed M,
    2. Grant WB
    : Molecular link between vitamin D and cancer prevention. Nutrients 5: 3993-4023, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Caini S,
    2. Boniol M,
    3. Tosti G,
    4. Magi S,
    5. Medri M,
    6. Stanganelli I,
    7. Palli D,
    8. Assedi M,
    9. Marmol VD,
    10. Gandini S
    : Vitamin D and melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer risk and prognosis: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 50(15): 2649-2658, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Dutta D,
    2. Mondal SA,
    3. Choudhuri S,
    4. Maisnam I,
    5. Hasanoor Reza AH,
    6. Bhattacharya B,
    7. Chowdhury S,
    8. Mukhopadhyay S
    : Vitamin-D supplementation in prediabetes reduced progression to type 2 diabetes and was associated with decreased insulin resistance and systemic inflammation: an open label randomized prospective study from Eastern India. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 103(3): e18-23, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Lindqvist PG,
    2. Olsson H,
    3. Landin-Olsson M
    : Are active sun exposure habits related to lowering risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in women, a prospective cohort study? Diabetes Res Clin Pract 90(1): 109-114, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Autier P,
    2. Koechlin A,
    3. Boniol M
    : The forthcoming inexorable decline of cutaneous mortality in light-skinned populations. Eur J Cancer 51: 869-878, 2015.
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    1. Levell NJ,
    2. Beattie CC,
    3. Shuster S,
    4. Greenberg DC
    : Melanoma epidemic: a midsummer night's dream? Br J Dermatol 161(3): 630-634, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Hill AB
    : The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? Proc R Soc Med 58: 295-300, 1965.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Weed DL,
    2. Gorelic LS
    : The practice of causal inference in cancer epidemiology. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 5: 303-311, 1996.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  52. ↵
    1. Lindqvist PG,
    2. von Känel R
    : How to avoid venous thromboembolism in women at increased risk – with special focus on low-risk periods. Thromb Res 136(3): 513-518, 2015.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 38 (2)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 38, Issue 2
February 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Critical Appraisal of the Recent Reports on Sunbeds from the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks and from the World Health Organization
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
3 + 5 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
A Critical Appraisal of the Recent Reports on Sunbeds from the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks and from the World Health Organization
JÖRG REICHRATH, PELLE G. LINDQVIST, FRANK R. DE GRUIJL, STEFAN PILZ, SAMANTHA M. KIMBALL, WILLIAM B. GRANT, MICHAEL F. HOLICK
Anticancer Research Feb 2018, 38 (2) 1111-1120;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
A Critical Appraisal of the Recent Reports on Sunbeds from the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks and from the World Health Organization
JÖRG REICHRATH, PELLE G. LINDQVIST, FRANK R. DE GRUIJL, STEFAN PILZ, SAMANTHA M. KIMBALL, WILLIAM B. GRANT, MICHAEL F. HOLICK
Anticancer Research Feb 2018, 38 (2) 1111-1120;
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Critical Analysis of SCHEER and WHO Reports
    • Available Evidence Overlooked by SCHEER and WHO Reports
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Relevance of Vitamin D in Melanoma Development, Progression and Therapy
  • Sunbeds and Melanoma Risk: Many Open Questions, Not Yet Time to Close the Debate
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Tandem Affinity Purification and Nano HPLC-ESI-MS/MS Reveal Binding of Vitamin D Receptor to p53 and other New Interaction Partners in HEK 293T Cells
  • Partial Body UV Exposure in Chronic Kidney Disease and Extrarenal Vitamin D Metabolism
  • Vitamin D Status, Supplementation and Cardiovascular Disease
Show more Proceedings of the Joint International Symposium “Vitamin D in Prevention and Therapy” and “Biologic Effects of Light”, June 21-23, 2017 (Homburg/Saar, Germany)

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • SCHEER report on sunbeds
  • WHO report on sunbeds
  • solarium
  • Melanoma
  • sunbed
  • melanoma risk
  • tanning
  • indoor tanning
  • review
Anticancer Research

© 2023 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire