MILAN (ITALPRESS) – “In recent days we have observed a growing spread, also through social media and media, of wrong interpretations regarding a scientific study published in 2023 in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (Jeremian R. et al., PMID: 37642678). Some comments have mistakenly argued that the study would demonstrate how the use of creams with solar filters increases the risk of melanoma and other skin cancers, even suggesting that exposure to the sun without protection would be safer. This interpretation is scientifically incorrect and does not correspond to the conclusions of the Authors.” The ISPLAD Board of directors consists of dermatologists involved in the prevention and early diagnosis of skin cancers Giuseppe Scarcella, Ornella De Pità, Alda Malasoma, Mariuccia Bucci, Elisabetta Perosino, Laura Colonna, Marina Romagnoli, Andrea Romani, Giulio Ferranti and Antonino Di Pietro. The study, underline experts, is an important epidemiological and genetic analysis conducted on the UK Biobank, one of the largest biomedical databases available internationally. The main objective of the research was to assess how genetic variants involved in DNA repair interact with different environmental and behavioral factors in determining the risk of skin cancer. The use of solar filters simply represented one of the many variables collected, along with: phototype cutaneous; history of burns; skin color; color of hair; mode of exposure to the sun; ability to tan; genetic predisposition. The study, reads, “was not designed to assess the effectiveness or safety of solar filters, nor to determine whether they cause skin cancer.” Why did people using sunscreen present skin cancer more frequently? “This represents the point that generated the greatest misunderstanding – they replicate –. People who claim to use sunscreens are often the ones that already have a higher risk of developing skin cancer, because they have: very clear skin; numerous snows; a greater susceptibility to burns; an important exposure to the sun; a familiarity for melanoma; sometimes a personal history of skin cancers. In epidemiology this phenomenon is known as confounding by indication: the observed factor (the use of cream) identifies a population already at high risk, but does not necessarily represent the cause of increased tumors. Confuse a statistical association with a cause-effect ratio is a well-known methodological error. “ Authors do not conclude at any point in the article that solar filters are carcinogenic, nor do they invite them to reduce their use. On the contrary – they emphasize from ISPLAD – the main message of the study concerns the importance of interactions between genetic predisposition and environmental factors in the development of skin cancers. The current recommendations of major international scientific societies and health authorities remain fully valid. Prevention of skin cancer includes: avoiding sunburn; limiting intense sunlight exposure, especially in the central hours of the day; using protective clothing, hats and sunglasses; correctly apply large-spectrum sunscreens as part of a comprehensive photoprotection strategy, without considering them the only means of prevention; periodically subject to dermatologic controls, especially in risk subjects.” “Modern medicine – ending dermatologists – is based on a correct interpretation of scientific evidence. Extracting a single statistical data from the context of a study can generate misleading conclusions and potentially harmful messages for public health. We invite youso much health professionals, means of information and citizens to refer to the entire content of the scientific article and to the recommendations of scientific societies, avoiding interpretations not supported by the evidence.”.
– photos www.pexels.com – (ITALPRESS).
