Search

Although nevus count is an established risk factor for melanoma, relationships between nevus number and patient and tumor characteristics have not been well studied and the influence of nevus count on melanoma-specific survival is equivocal. Using data from the Genes, Environment and Melanoma (GEM) study, a large population-based study of primary cutaneous melanoma, we evaluated associations between number of nevi and patient features, including sun-sensitivity summarized in a phenotypic index, and tumor characteristics. We also assessed the association of nevus count with melanoma-specific survival. Higher nevus counts were independently and positively associated with male gender and younger age at diagnosis, and they were inversely associated with lentigo maligna histology. We observed a borderline significant trend of poorer melanoma-specific survival with increasing quartile of nevus count, but little or no association between number of nevi and pigmentary phenotypic characteristics or prognostic tumor features.

© 2016 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Autophagy has been linked with melanoma risk and survival, but no polymorphisms in autophagy-related (ATG) genes have been investigated in relation to melanoma progression. We examined five single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in three ATG genes (ATG5; ATG10; and ATG16L) with known or suspected impact on autophagic flux in an international population-based case–control study of melanoma. DNA from 911 melanoma patients was genotyped. An association was identified between (GG) (rs2241880) and earlier stage at diagnosis (OR 0.47; 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) = 0.27–0.81, P = 0.02) and a decrease in Breslow thickness (P = 0.03). The ATG16L heterozygous genotype (AG) (rs2241880) was associated with younger age at diagnosis (P = 0.02). Two SNPs in ATG5 were found to be associated with increased stage (rs2245214 CG, OR 1.47; 95% CI = 1.11–1.94, P = 0.03; rs510432 CC, OR 1.84; 95% CI = 1.12–3.02, P = 0.05). Finally, we identified inverse associations between ATG5 (GG rs2245214) and melanomas on the scalp or neck (OR 0.20, 95% CI = 0.05–0.86, P = 0.03); ATG10 (CC) (rs1864182) and brisk tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) (OR 0.42; 95% CI = 0.21–0.88, P = 0.02), and ATG5 (CC) (rs510432) with nonbrisk TILs (OR 0.55; 95% CI = 0.34–0.87, P = 0.01). Our data suggest that ATG SNPs might be differentially associated with specific host and tumor characteristics including age at diagnosis, TILs, and stage. These associations may be critical to understanding the role of autophagy in cancer, and further investigation will help characterize the contribution of these variants to melanoma progression.

Background Menarche and menopause mark the onset and cessation, respectively, of ovarian activity associated with reproduction, and affect breast cancer risk. Our aim was to assess the strengths of their effects and determine whether they depend on characteristics of the tumours or the affected women.Methods Individual data from 117 epidemiological studies, including 118 964 women with invasive breast cancer and 306 091 without the disease, none of whom had used menopausal hormone therapy, were included in the analyses. We calculated adjusted relative risks (RRs) associated with menarche and menopause for breast cancer overall, and by tumour histology and by oestrogen receptor expression.Findings Breast cancer risk increased by a factor of 1.050 (95% CI 1.044-1.057; p < 0.0001) for every year younger at menarche, and independently by a smaller amount (1.029, 1.025-1.032; p < 0.0001), for every year older at menopause. Premenopausal women had a greater risk of breast cancer than postmenopausal women of an identical age (RR at age 45-54 years 1.43, 1.33-1.52, p < 0.001). All three of these associations were attenuated by increasing adiposity among postmenopausal women, but did not vary materially by women's year of birth, ethnic origin, childbearing history, smoking, alcohol consumption, or hormonal contraceptive use. All three associations were stronger for lobular than for ductal tumours (p < 0.006 for each comparison). The effect of menopause in women of an identical age and trends by age at menopause were stronger for oestrogen receptor-positive disease than for oestrogen receptor-negative disease (p < 0.01 for both comparisons).Interpretation The effects of menarche and menopause on breast cancer risk might not be acting merely by lengthening women's total number of reproductive years. Endogenous ovarian hormones are more relevant for oestrogen receptor-positive disease than for oestrogen receptor-negative disease and for lobular than for ductal tumours.Funding Cancer Research UK.

Background Menarche and menopause mark the onset and cessation, respectively, of ovarian activity associated with reproduction, and affect breast cancer risk. Our aim was to assess the strengths of their effects and determine whether they depend on characteristics of the tumours or the affected women. Methods Individual data from 117 epidemiological studies, including 118 964 women with invasive breast cancer and 306 091 without the disease, none of whom had used menopausal hormone therapy, were included in the analyses. We calculated adjusted relative risks (RRs) associated with menarche and menopause for breast cancer overall, and by tumour histology and by oestrogen receptor expression. Findings Breast cancer risk increased by a factor of 1.050 (95% CI 1.044-1.057; p

Background The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer has brought together and reanalysed the worldwide epidemiological evidence on the relation between breast cancer risk and use of hormonal contraceptives. Methods Individual data on 53297 women with breast cancer and 100 239 women without breast cancer from 54 studies conducted in 25 countries were collected, checked, and analysed centrally. Estimates of the relative risk for breast cancer were obtained by a modification of the Mantel-Haenszel method. All analyses were stratified by study, age at diagnosis, parity, and, where appropriate, the age a woman was when her first child was born, and the age she was when her risk of conception ceased. Findings The results provide strong evidence for two main conclusions. First, while women are taking combined oral contraceptives and in the 10 years after stopping there is a small increase in the relative risk of having breast cancer diagnosed (relative risk [95% CI] in current users 1.24 [1.15-1.33], 2p

The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer has brought together and reanalysed the worldwide epidemiological evidence on breast cancer risk and use oi hormonal contraceptives. Original data from 54 studies, representing about 90% of the information available on the topic, were collected, checked and analysed centrally. The 54 studies were performed in 26 countries and include a total of 53,297 women with breast cancer and 100,239 women without breast cancer. The studies were varied in their design, setting and timing. Most information came from case-control studies with controls chosen from the general population; most women resided in Europe or North America and most cancers were diagnosed during the 1980s. Overall 41% of the women with breast cancer and 40% of the women without breast cancer had used oral contraceptives at some time: the median age at first use was 26 years, the median duration of use was 3 years, the median year of first use was 1968, the median time since first use was 16 years, and the median time since last use was 9 years. The main findings, summarised elsewhere,I are that there is a small increase in the risk of having breast cancer diagnosed in current users of combined oral contraceptives and in women who had stopped use in the past 10 years but that there is no evidence of an increase in the risk more than 10 years after stopping use. In addition, the cancers diagnosed in women who had used oral contraceptives tended to be less advanced clinically than the cancers diagnosed in women who had not used them. Despite the large number of possibilities investigated, few factors appeared to modify the main findings either in recent or in past users. For recent users who began use before age 20 the relative risks are higher than for recent users who began at older ages. For women whose use of oral contraceptives ceased more than 10 years before there was some suggestion of a reduction in breast cancer risk in certain subgroups, with a deficit of tumors that had spread beyond the breast, especially among women who had used preparations containing the highest doses of oestrogen and progestogen. These findings are unexpected and need to be confirmed. Although these data represent most of the epidemiologi cal evidence on the topic to date, there is still insufficient information to comment reliably about the effects of specific types of oestrogen or of progestogen. What evidence there is suggests, however, no major differences in the effects for specific types of oestrogen or of progestogen and that the pattern of risk associated with use of hormonal contraceptives containing progestogens alone may be similar to that observed for preparations containing both oestrogens and progestogens. On the basis of these results, there is little difference between women who have and have not used combined oral contraceptives in terms of the estimated cumulative number of breast cancers diagnosed during the period from starting use up to 20 rears after stopping. The cancers diagnosed in women who have used oral contraceptives are, however, less advanced clinically than the cancers diag nosed in never users. Further research is needed to establish whether the associations described here are due to earlier diagnosis of breast cancer in women who have used oral contraceptives, to the biological effects of the hormonal contraceptives or to a combination of both. Little information is as yet available about the effects on breast cancer risk of oral contraceptive use that ceased more than 20 years before and as such data accumulate it will be necessary to reexamine the worldwide evidence. RI Ranstam, Jonas/A-4386-2009; Colditz, Graham/A-3963-2009

OBJECTIVE: Melanoma has been shown in numerous studies to be associated with sun exposure, and with host phenotypic factors of genetic origin. In this study we use information from a large series of incident cases of melanoma from an international population-based study to examine the patterns of incidence of melanoma in the first-degree relatives of these cases. METHODS: A total of 2508 incident cases of melanoma provided information on basic demographic data and pigmentary characteristics, in addition to detailed information on family history of melanoma. These data were used to examine the incidence rates ratios of melanoma in the relatives of cases in relation to population rates, and also with respect to phenotypic characteristics of the probands that have been shown to be associated with melanoma: mole counts, hair color, eye color, and skin sensitivity to the sun. RESULTS: The incidence rates reflect the underlying patterns of incidence in the source populations, with generally higher rates in the Australian sample, low rates in Italy, and intermediate rates in the USA and Canada. Also, rates are higher in men than in women, except at very young ages. Phenotypic characteristics of the probands were only weakly associated with the observed rates in the relatives although there is a strong inverse association with age at diagnosis. Cumulative risk of melanoma rises to 6.9% (6.1%) at age 80 in male (female) first-degree relatives of cases, and to 10.8% (9.5%) in relatives of cases diagnosed before age 50. CONCLUSIONS: Relatives of cases diagnosed with melanoma are at considerable lifetime risk of the disease, especially if the case is diagnosed at a young age

Alcohol and tobacco consumption are closely correlated and published results on their association with breast cancer have not always allowed adequately for confounding between these exposures. Over 80% of the relevant information worldwide on alcohol and tobacco consumption and breast cancer were collated, checked and analysed centrally. Analyses included 58515 women with invasive breast cancer and 95067 controls from 53 studies. Relative risks of breast cancer were estimated, after stratifying by study, age, parity and, where appropriate, women’s age when their first child was born and consumption of alcohol and tobacco. The average consumption of alcohol reported by controls from developed countries was 6.0 g per day, i.e. about half a unit/drink of alcohol per day, and was greater in ever-smokers than never-smokers, (8.4 g per day and 5.0 g per day, respectively). Compared with women who reported drinking no alcohol, the relative risk of breast cancer was 1.32 (1.19 - 1.45, P < 0.00001) for an intake of 35 - 44 g per day alcohol, and 1.46 (1.33 - 1.61, P < 0.00001) for greater than or equal to 45 g per day alcohol. The relative risk of breast cancer increased by 7.1% (95% CI 5.5-8.7%; P

The objective of this study was to examine the effects of the intake of dietary fat upon colorectal cancer risk in a combined analysis of data from 13 case-control studies previously conducted in populations with differing colorectal cancer rates and dietary practices. Original data records for 5,287 cases of colorectal cancer and 10,470 controls were combined. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) for intakes of total energy, total fat and its components, and cholesterol. Positive associations with energy intake were observed for 11 of the 13 studies. However, there was little, if any, evidence of any energy-independent effect of either total fat with ORs of 1.00, 0.95, 1.01, 1.02, and 0.92 for quintiles of residuals of total fat intake (P trend = 0.67) or for saturated fat with ORs of 1.00, 1.08, 1.06, 1.21, and 1.06 (P trend = 0.39). The analysis suggests that, among these case-control studies, there is no energy-independent association between dietary fat intake and risk of colorectal cancer. It also suggests that simple substitution of fat by other sources of calories is unlikely to reduce meaningfully the risk of colorectal cancer.

Background: Colorectal cancer is a major public health problem in both North America and western Europe, and incidence and mortality rates are rapidly increasing in many previously low-risk countries. It has been hypothesized that increased intakes of fiber, vitamin C, and beta carotene could decrease the risk of colorectal cancer. Purpose: The objective of this study was to examine the effects of fiber, vitamin C, and beta-carotene intakes on colorectal cancer risk in a combined analysis of data from 13 case-control studies previously conducted in populations with differing colorectal cancer rates and dietary practices. The study was designed to estimate risks in the pooled data, to test the consistency of the associations across the studies, and to examine interactions of the effects of the nutrients with cancer site, sex, and age. Methods: Original data records for 5287 case subjects with colorectal cancer and 10 470 control subjects without disease were combined. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate relative risks and confidence intervals for intakes of fiber, vitamin C, and beta carotene, with the effects of study, sex, and age group being adjusted by stratification. Results: Risk decreased as fiber intake increased; relative risks were 0.79, 0.69, 0.63, and 0.53 for the four highest quintiles of intake compared with the lowest quintile (trend, P

Most attempts to relate changes in patterns of sunlight exposure to the rise in incidence of malignant melanoma have concentrated on the positive association between intermittent exposure to sunlight and risk of melanoma. The Western Canada Melanoma Study, however, also detected a significant inverse association between melanoma and chronic or long-term occupational sun exposure in men, with the lowest risk (OR = 0.5) in those with maximum occupational exposure, suggesting that chronic exposure may be protective. Data obtained from Canadian census figures indicated that since 1951 there has been a substantial reduction in the number of males engaged in outdoor occupations in Canadian society. These observations suggest that part of the increase in the incidence of melanoma in low-sunlight areas may be due to a reduction over the past 40 years of the size of this group of individuals "protected" by their exposure to UV light.

Autophagy has been linked with melanoma risk and survival, but no polymorphisms in autophagy‐related (ATG) genes have been investigated in relation to melanoma progression. We examined five single‐nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in three ATG genes (ATG5; ATG10; and ATG16L) with known or suspected impact on autophagic flux in an international population‐based case–control study of melanoma. DNA from 911 melanoma patients was genotyped. An association was identified between (GG) (rs2241880) and earlier stage at diagnosis (OR 0.47; 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) = 0.27–0.81, P = 0.02) and a decrease in Breslow thickness (P = 0.03). The ATG16L heterozygous genotype (AG) (rs2241880) was associated with younger age at diagnosis (P = 0.02). Two SNPs in ATG5 were found to be associated with increased stage (rs2245214 CG, OR 1.47; 95% CI = 1.11–1.94, P = 0.03; rs510432 CC, OR 1.84; 95% CI = 1.12–3.02, P = 0.05). Finally, we identified inverse associations between ATG5 (GG rs2245214) and melanomas on the scalp or neck (OR 0.20, 95% CI = 0.05–0.86, P = 0.03); ATG10 (CC) (rs1864182) and brisk tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) (OR 0.42; 95% CI = 0.21–0.88, P = 0.02), and ATG5 (CC) (rs510432) with nonbrisk TILs (OR 0.55; 95% CI = 0.34–0.87, P = 0.01). Our data suggest that ATG SNPs might be differentially associated with specific host and tumor characteristics including age at diagnosis, TILs, and stage. These associations may be critical to understanding the role of autophagy in cancer, and further investigation will help characterize the contribution of these variants to melanoma progression.

COLLABORATORS (in alphabetical order of institution, study name, or location) Aichi Cancer Research Institute, Nagoya, Japan: N Hamajima, K Hirose, K Tajima; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, NY, USA: T Rohan; American Cancer Society, GA, USA: EE Calle, CW Jr Heath; Atlanta, Emory University, GA, USA: RJ Coates, JM Liff; Aviano Cancer Center, Pordenone, Italy: R Talamini; Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand: N Chantarakul, S Koetsawang, D Rachawat; Breast Tumor Collaborative Study, Johns Hopkins University, MD, USA: A Morabia, L Schuman, W Stewart, M Szklo; University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia: C Bain, F Schofield, V Siskind; British Columbia Cancer Agency, BC, Canada: P Band, AJ Coldman, RP Gallagher, TG Hislop, P Yang; Cancer Research Center, University of Hawaii, Hawaii, USA: LM Kolonel, AMY Nomura; Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research Group, Canada: J Hu, KC Johnson, Y Mao; Catalán Institut of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain: S De Sanjosé; Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, GA, USA: N Lee, P Marchbanks, HW Ory, HB Peterson, HG Wilson, PA Wingo; Central Institute of Cancer Research, Berlin, Germany: K Ebeling, D Kunde, P Nishan; Centre for Genetic Epidemiology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia: JL Hopper; Channing Laboratory, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, MA, USA: G Colditz for Nurses' Health Study Research Group; Chennai Cancer Institute, Madras, India: V Gajalakshmi; Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand: N Martin, T Pardthaisong, S Silpisornkosol, C Theetranont; Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand: B Boosiri, S Chutivongse, P Jimakorn, P Virutamasen, C Wongsrichanalai; Danish Cancer Society, Aalborg, Denmark: M Ewertz; Department of Medical Epidemiology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden: HO Adami, L Bergkvist, C Magnusson, I Persson; Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg, Germany: J Chang-Claude; University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand: C Paul, DCG Skegg, GFS Spears; European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy: P Boyle, T Evstifeeva; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, WA, USA: JR Daling, WB Hutchinson, K Malone, EA Noonan, JL Stanford, DB Thomas, NS Weiss, E White; French Multicentre Breast Study, INSERM, Villejuif, France: N Andrieu, A Brêmond, F Clavel, B Gairard, J Lansac, L Piana, R Renaud; Girona Cancer Registry, Girona, Spain: A Izquierdo, P Viladiu; Hospital General de Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico: HR Cuevas, P Ontiveros, A Palet, SB Salazar; Hospital Universitario, Cali, Colombia: N Aristizabal, A Cuadros; Icelandic Cancer Society, Reykjavik, Iceland: L Tryggvadottir, H Tulinius; INSERM, Institut Gustave-Roussey, Villejuif, France: A Bachelot, MG Lê; Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK: J Peto; International Agency for Research in Cancer, Lyon, France: S Franceschi; Israel Chaim Sheba Medical Centre, Tel-Hashomer, Israel: F Lubin, B Modan, E Ron, Y Wax; Kaiser Permanente, CA, USA: GD Friedman, RA Hiatt; Institut universitaire de medecine sociale et preventive, Lausanne, Switzerland: F Levi; Cancer Research UK Genetic Epidemiology Laboratory, Leeds, UK: T Bishop; Institute of Oncology, Ljubljana, Slovenia: K Kosmelj, M Primic-Zakelj, B Ravnihar, J Stare; Loma Linda University, CA, USA: WL Beeson, G Fraser; Cancer Research UK Department of Mathematics, Statistics & Epidemiology, London: RD Bulbrook, J Cuzick, SW Duffy, IS Fentiman, JL Hayward, DY Wang; London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK: AJ McMichael, K McPherson; Long Island Breast Cancer Study, NY, USA: RL Hanson, MC Leske, MC Mahoney, PC Nasca, AO Varma, AL Weinstein; University Hospital, Lund, Sweden: TR Moller, H Olsson, J Ranstam; Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands: RA Goldbohm, PA van den Brandt; University of Philippines, Manila, Philippines: RA Apelo, J Baens, JR de la Cruz, B Javier, LB Lacaya, CA Ngelangel; Istituto ‘Mario Negri', Milan, Italy: C La Vecchia, E Negri; Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Divisione di Statistica Medica e Biometria, Milan, Italy: E Marubini; Istituto di Statistica Medica e Biometria, Milan, Italy: M Ferraroni; Montpellier Cancer Centre & INSERM, Montpellier, France: M Gerber, S Richardson, C Segala; Nairobi Centre for Research in Reproduction, Nairobi, Kenya: D Gatei, P Kenya, A Kungu, JG Mati; National Cancer Institute, MD, USA: LA Brinton, R Hoover, C Schairer; National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, MD, USA: R Spirtas; National University of Singapore, Singapore: HP Lee; The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: MA Rookus, FE van Leeuwen for the Netherlands Oral Contraceptives and Breast Cancer Study Group; New Jersey State Department of Health, NJ, USA: JA Schoenberg; New South Wales Cancer Council, Sydney, Australia: M McCredie; Columbia University School of Public Health, NY, USA: MD Gammon; Ontario Cancer Treatment & Research Foundation, Ontario, Canada: EA Clarke; Department of Public Health & Primary Care, Oxford, UK: L Jones, A Neil, M Vessey, D Yeates; Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, UK (Secretariat): P Appleby, E Banks, V Beral, D Bull, B Crossley, A Goodill, J Green, C Hermon, T Key, N Langston, C Lewis, G Reeves; Cancer Research UK/MRC/BHF Clinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit, Oxford, UK: R Collins, R Doll, R Peto; Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, Japan: K Mabuchi, D Preston; Royal College of General Practitioners Oral Contraception Study, London, UK: P Hannaford, C Kay; University of Costa Rica, San Jose, Costa Rica: L Rosero-Bixby; Shanghai Cancer Institute, Shanghai, China: YT Gao, F Jin, J-M Yuan; Shanghai Institute of Planned Parenthood Research, Shanghai, China: HY Wei, T Yun, C Zhiheng; Department of Public Health, Sydney, Australia: G Berry, J Cooper Booth, T Jelihovsky, R MacLennan, R Shearman; Tianjin Cancer Institute, Tianjin, China: Q-S Wang; Department of Public Health Sciences, Toronto, Canada: CJ Baines, AB Miller, C Wall; Tromso University, Tromso, Norway: E Lund, H Stalsberg; Vanderbilt University, TN, USA: XO Shu, W Zheng; University of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece: K Katsouyanni, A Trichopoulou, D Trichopoulos; University of Chile, Santiago, Chile: A Dabancens, L Martinez, R Molina, O Salas; University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK: FE Alexander; University of Minnesota School of Public Health, MN, USA: K Anderson, AR Folsom on behalf of the Iowa Women's Health Study; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Public Health, NC, USA: BS Hulka; University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK: CED Chilvers; University of Southern California, LA, USA: L Bernstein, S Enger, RW Haile, A Paganini-Hill, MC Pike, RK Ross, G Ursin, MC Yu; University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, WI, USA: MP Longnecker, P Newcomb for the 4 State Study; Vasteras, Sweden: L Bergkvist; World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland: A Kalache; World Health Organisation, UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Geneva, Switzerland: TMM Farley, S Holck, O Meirik. Analysis and writing committee: Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G Steering committee: Skegg D (Chairman), Colditz G, Hulka B, La Vecchia C, Magnusson C, Muller A, Peterson B, Pike M, Thomas D, Van Leeuven M.; International audience; Alcohol and tobacco consumption are closely correlated and published results on their association with breast cancer have not always allowed adequately for confounding between these exposures. Over 80% of the relevant information worldwide on alcohol and tobacco consumption and breast cancer were collated, checked and analysed centrally. Analyses included 58,515 women with invasive breast cancer and 95,067 controls from 53 studies. Relative risks of breast cancer were estimated, after stratifying by study, age, parity and, where appropriate, women's age when their first child was born and consumption of alcohol and tobacco. The average consumption of alcohol reported by controls from developed countries was 6.0 g per day, i.e. about half a unit/drink of alcohol per day, and was greater in ever-smokers than never-smokers, (8.4 g per day and 5.0 g per day, respectively). Compared with women who reported drinking no alcohol, the relative risk of breast cancer was 1.32 (1.19-1.45, P/=45 g per day alcohol. The relative risk of breast cancer increased by 7.1% (95% CI 5.5-8.7%; P