Search

A copy of a booklet communicating personalised risk of melanoma.

Background: Communication of personalized melanoma genomic risk information may improve melanoma prevention behaviors.Methods: We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of communicating personalized genomic risk of melanoma to the public and its preliminary impact on behaviors and psychosocial outcomes. One hundred eighteen people aged 22 to 69 years provided a saliva sample and were randomized to the control (nonpersonalized educational materials) or intervention (personalized booklet presenting melanoma genomic risk as absolute and relative risks and a risk category based on variants in 21 genes, telephone-based genetic counseling, and nonpersonalized educational materials). Intention-to-treat analyses overall and by-risk category were conducted using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline values.Results: Consent to participate was 41%, 99% were successfully genotyped, and 92% completed 3-month follow-up. Intervention participants reported high satisfaction with the personalized booklet (mean = 8.6, SD = 1.6; on a 0–10 scale) and genetic counseling (mean = 8.1, SD = 2.2). No significant behavioral effects at 3-month follow-up were identified between intervention and control groups overall: objectively measured standard erythemal doses per day [−16%; 95% confidence interval (CI), −43% to 24%] and sun protection index (0.05; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.18). There was increased confidence identifying melanoma at 3 months (0.40; 95% CI, 0.10–0.69). Stratified by risk category, effect sizes for intentional tanning and some individual sun protection items appeared stronger for the average-risk group. There were no appreciable group differences in skin cancer–related worry or psychologic distress.Conclusions: Our results demonstrate feasibility and acceptability of providing personalized genomic risk of melanoma to the public.Impact: Genomic risk information has potential as a melanoma prevention strategy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(2); 212–21. ©2016 AACR.

Supplementary file (clean version) including Supplementary text on Materials and Methods, and the following tables: Supplementary Table 1. Genomic variants included in the genomic risk estimates and their published associations with melanoma. Supplementary Table 2. Sun Protection Index: Individual items. Supplementary Table 3. Preliminary effect of the intervention on resource use and costs at 3-months.

The study aimed to establish compliance of indoor tanning businesses with 2009 legislation, particularly with requirements to provide information on skin cancer and exclude people under 18 or with fair skin.Compliance was tested through surveys and in-person visits to 30 businesses in Melbourne, Australia. Research assistants presented as potential customers with different profiles: young adults eligible to use a sunbed, young adults with fair skin, under age customers who prompted with their age and under age customers who concealed their age and claimed to be 18 if asked.Communicating the risks of skin cancer during the visit improved from 70% in 2003, prior to the introduction of legislation, to 97% in 2009. While there were improvements in restricting access to sunbeds among high-risk groups, compliance of indoor tanning businesses with age and skin type restrictions remained less than optimal. Almost half (47%) allowed access to fair-skinned research assistants, compared with 90% in 2003. Only one of the 30 operators allowed access to a teenager who prompted with her age; in 2003, 52% of under age teenagers were granted access without parental consent. However, when teenagers concealed their age or claimed to be 18, 80% of operators granted them access.The findings suggest that regulation of the indoor tanning industry is a better approach to this health issue than voluntary standards and/or education. Nonetheless, inadequate compliance with requirements to exclude high-risk groups lends weight to calls for stricter monitoring and enforcement, or an absolute ban.