Category Archives: Public Health Policy

Bridging Cancer Epidemiology and Social Evolution

Research Design 2Modern epidemiology is a direct result of the paradigm shift from a population-based (upstream) to a downstream (individual) approach. The impact of modern epidemiology such as ‘molecular’ and ‘genetic’ epidemiology (Loomis & Wing, 1990; Diez-Roux, 1998) requires an explanatory power that mostly dependent upon the advances in technology and information systems. Moreover, before estimating the economic effect of a specific intervention before it is implemented, nor assess the economic and/or quality-of-life value of an ongoing or anticipated intervention (Rothermel, 2013); it is critical to recognize not only the significance of sophisticated technologies that go beyond the established genome, proteome, and gene expression platforms, but also new techniques of study design and data analysis (Pearce, 1996; Verma, Khoury & Ioannidis, 2013). Given the remarkable progress in the last decade in advanced technology and new methods for biologic measurements, the reductionist approach of modern epidemiology often ignored the significant causes of disease. Pearce (1996) argue that epidemiology must reintegrate itself into public health and must rediscover the population perspective. However, while the new paradigm could produce a lifestyle approach to social policy, the cumulative outcome of research in cancer epidemiology could equate positive implications to population health.

The key figures in the new epidemiologic model not only acknowledges the development of new techniques of study design and data analysis but also recognize the need for a multidisciplinary approach (social, biologic, statistical), and specifying the population group as the unit of study (Susser, 1985). While occupational carcinogens can be controlled with some difficulty through regulatory measures (Pearce, 1996), it is essential to acknowledge the fundamental problem of tobacco use, not by its consumption but in its production. Pearch (1996) focused on some of these fundamental changes in epidemiology over the past few decades and considered the concepts of causality involved, as well as their ideological and practical consequences. While smoking cessation could be the probable social implication, it is important to stress the epidemiologic value of a study on the apparent correlation between gender and age, modification effect of tobacco use among individuals with pancreatic cancer (PC) and cancer types with a shared-gene association (CTSG-A). The outcome of a risk factor epidemiologic study in individual terms could uplift precision medicine to meet the challenges in tailoring medical interventions based on patient’s biological profile, genetic and epigenetic traits, giving a better understanding of the environment, genetic, biodemographic interactions (EGBIs).

Embraced by both biomedical and social determinist frameworks, the interlinking of the traditional epidemiologic level of intervention (upstream or distal) and the modern epidemiologic level of intervention (downstream or proximal) put public health in the conundrum of the proximal-distal divide. Signal the importance of the argument of the 2008 study of Krieger in replacing the terms proximal and distal from the public health lexicon, supports the recommendation of Wemrell et al. (2016) on the critical need for open interdisciplinary debates on the contribution of social theory to the epidemiological inquiry. While coping with the demand of the 21st-century, global health could still be viewed and approached within the mindset of traditional epidemiology, and the purview of molecular and cancer epidemiology.

The discovery of tobacco smoking as a cause of lung cancer in the early 1950s gave the field of epidemiology its recognition (Pearce, 1996), shifting the epidemiologic paradigm in the object of study in the mid-20th century on the role of multiple causes. Establishing the correlation of age, gender a modifiable risk factor (smoking) with PC and CTSG-A requires the use of early and current epidemiologic theories, and contemporary mainstream epidemiologic concept coalescing to a United Paradigm of Cancer Causation (UPCC). The complex, integrative approach of UPCC supports the views of Loomis, and Wing (1990), Pearce (1996), and McEwen and Getz (2013) in embracing the new epidemiologic paradigm congruent to the advances in cancer genome sequencing. Theorizing the pathopoiesis mechanism of smoking, inherited genes, and association of gender and age in the etiopathogenesis of PC/CTSG-A warrants exploration of its causal footprints, conjoining both biomedical and lifestyle (Krieger, 2011).

Follow-up and future research on the role of molecular epidemiology in emphasizing individual susceptibility to PC will assess the relative contribution of modifiable risk factors to non-modifiable genetic factors. In this premise, the etiopathogenesis of the disease could be explored from the bottom up. Bridging cancer epidemiology and social evolution will be dependent upon the incorporation of the strength of the social network and social contagion theory. The testable assumption of the social network theory as its strength states that the social structure of the network itself be primarily responsible for determining individual behavior and attitudes by shaping the flow of resources which determines access to opportunities and constraints on behavior (Berkman et al., 2000). Why choose if a single theory cannot make a change? Incorporating these ideas in addition to the composite and underpinnings of UPCC could springboard a priori argument on the role of social networks in the spread of an intervention such as smoking cessation, or amplifying the promotion of the significance of early screening to improve mortality and morbidity.

While the causal nature of peer effects could be associated with tobacco use; the social contagion theory of Christakis and Fowler (2013) set an argument on human social networks exhibiting a “three degrees of separation.” Such association could support the assumption of spreading the interpersonal influence that acknowledges the significance of early screening, and the promise of a novel therapeutic approach. Like the widely discussed classic paper of Travers and Milgram (1969) on ‘six degrees of separation,’ the three degrees of separation or the three degrees of separation rule (Christakis & Fowler, 2009) agreed on the premise that telegraph phrases are meant to be evocative, and not definitive. For example, the role of interpersonal influence in spreading novel ideas such as advances in early screening to achieve a more significant therapeutic outcome. The preponderance of the evidence that points to the added significance of a passive-broadcast viral messaging to create social contagion warrants the recognition of the approach. Taking into account factors such as the promise of the outcome of a research study in the quality of life, social and economic incentives could expand the social network and amplify social support needed by individuals with PC or any deadly diseases. According to Kroenke et al. (2013), effective social support interventions need to evolve beyond social-emotional interventions and need to account for disease severity and treatment status.


Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science & Medicine51(6), 843-857.

Christakis, N.A & Fowler, J.H. (2009). Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives. (First ed.). New York: Little, Brown, and Company.

Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2013). Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Statistics in medicine32(4), 556-577. doi: 10.1002/sim.5408

Diez-Roux, A. V. (1998). On genes, individuals, society, and epidemiology. American Journal of Epidemiology148(11), 1027-1032.

Krieger, N. (2008). Proximal, Distal, and the Politics of Causation: What’s Level Got to Do With It?  American Journal of Public Health (AJPH), 98(2).

Krieger, N. (2011). Epidemiology and the people’s health: theory and context (Vol. 213). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kroenke, C. H., Kwan, M. L., Neugut, A. I., Ergas, I. J., Wright, J. D., Caan, B. J., … & Kushi, L. H. (2013). Social networks, social support mechanisms, and quality of life after breast cancer diagnosis. Breast cancer research and treatment139(2), 515-527. doi:  10.1007/s10549-013-2477-2

Labilles, U. (2015a). Reevaluating the Impact of Cigarette Smoking on Pancreatic Cancer. Unpublished manuscript, College of Health Sciences, Public Health, Epidemiology, Walden University, Minneapolis.

Labilles, U. (2015b, September 27). A Promise to a Dying Brother [Web log post]. Retrieved from

Labilles, U. (2015c). Prospectus: Tobacco Use and Family Cancer History in the Pathopoiesis of Pancreatic Cancer. Unpublished manuscript, College of Health Sciences, Public Health, Epidemiology, Walden University, Minneapolis.

Labilles, U. (2016). The New Public Health: Beyond Genetics and Social Inequalities. Unpublished manuscript, College of Health Sciences, Public Health, Epidemiology, Walden University, Minneapolis.

Labilles, U. (2017). Pathopoiesis Mechanism of Smoking and Shared Genes in Pancreatic Cancer. ProQuest-CSA, LLC. Library of Congress, Copyright R# TX 8-490-984, Washington DC. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30721.35681

Loomis, D., & Wing, S. (1990). Is molecular epidemiology a germ theory for the end of the twentieth century?. International journal of epidemiology, 19(1), 1-3.

McEwen, B. S., & Getz, L. (2013). Lifetime experiences, the brain, and personalized medicine: An integrative perspective. Metabolism62, S20-S26.

Pearce, N. (1996). Traditional epidemiology, modern epidemiology, and public health. American journal of public health86(5), 678-683.

Rothermel, C. (2013). What is health economics and outcomes research? A primer for medical writers. AMWA Journal, 28(3)

Susser, M. (1985). Epidemiology in the United States after World War II: the evolution of technique. Epidemiologic reviews7(1), 147-177.

Travers, J., & Milgram, S. (1969). An experimental study of the small world problem. Sociometry, 425-443. doi: 10.2307/2786545

Verma, M., Khoury, M. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2013). Opportunities and challenges for selected emerging technologies in cancer epidemiology: mitochondrial, epigenomic, metabolomic, and telomerase profiling. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention22(2), 189-200.

Wemrell, M., Merlo, J., Mulinari, S., & Hornborg, A. C. (2016). Contemporary epidemiology: a review of critical discussions within the discipline and a call for further dialogue with social theory. Sociology Compass10(2), 153-171. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12345


Continuing the Journey to Make a Difference

Innovative Management and Development (Inno MD) from Uly Labilles, DMD, Ph.D on Vimeo.

An Executive Summary

Screenshot (94)Pathopoiesis Mechanism of Smoking and Shared Genes in Pancreatic Cancer

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.63362

To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks the real advance in science (Einstein & Infeld, 1938, p. 92).

Pancreatic cancer (PC) at the start of the 21st century continues to be a vital unresolved health problem, remaining as one of the deadliest human cancers. By the year 2030, it is projected that PC will be the second leading cause of cancer death after lung cancer among the major types of cancer (Rahib et al. 2014). The outcome of this study would provide valuable insights into the etiopathogenesis of PC and cancer types with a shared-gene association (CTSG-A), as well as the possible recognition of the probable unique pattern of PC malignancy among defined age groups, between men and women, in correlation to the modification effect of smoking to cancer predisposition genes (CPG), or its combined impact. Additional understanding of the pathopoiesis dynamics of smoking status, gender, and age in individuals with CPG in the induction and promotion of PC could help promote pre- and post behavioral diagnosis change. This study may assist in developing a novel patient management approach to accurately assess the disease burden under the lens of public health and modern epidemiology. Although genetic changes can be either somatic or hereditary, described as de novo (new), PC does not arise de novo (Maitra & Hruban, 2008), but rather initiated by a probable gene mutation such as p16/CDKN2A that results to debilitating metabolic effects of uncontrolled growth. Given the assumption that a disease is caused by a factor that can be controlled, exploring the relationship between modifiable health behaviors such as smoking and family cancer history (FCH), CPG or shared genes was a legitimate endeavor. In this study, genetic syndromes associated with PC were interchangeably referred to as FCH, CPG, or shared genes. Pancreatic cancer and other cancers found to have a shared-gene association (S-GA) were the dependent variables, and smoking status, age, and gender were the independent variables; this study addressed the following research questions (RQs) and hypotheses:

RQ1: Is cigarette smoking associated with the etiopathogenesis of pancreatic cancer and cancer types with shared gene association (CTSG-A)?

H01: Smoking level has no correlation with prevalence of PC and CTSG-A.

H1: Smoking can increase the risk of PC and CTSG-A.

RQ2: Is there a relationship between the combined role of age and gender in the etiopathogenesis of PC and CTSG-A?

H02: Age and gender have no correlation with prevalence of PC and CTSG-A.

H2: Age and gender are correlated with the prevalence of PC and CTSG-A.

The unique contribution of this dissertation to the current body of knowledge involved examining the links between tobacco use, gender, age, PC, and shared genes. This dissertation could promote population health, and lessons learned could reshape the current understanding of cancer epidemiology by providing the scientific justification for the implementation of screening, surveillance, and education programs. The outcome of this dissertation would fit into the practical intervention approach of adopting a healthy lifestyle such as smoking cessation as part of positive, meaningful social change to improve prognosis and quality of life during PC progression.


Pandol et al. (2012) noted the economic burden of PC with an expected yearly cost of $4.9 billion and underscored the significance of determining the mechanisms underlying the effect of smoking compounds that may provide additional insights into the pathogenesis of the disease. The investigation gave valuable insights into the etiopathogenesis of pancreatic growth from its induction and promotion. Moreover,  findings of Hart, Kennedy, and Harvey (2008); and Schenk et al. (2001) support the unique probable contribution of this dissertation to the existing body of knowledge, generating a snapshot of a possible correlation of smoking, gender, and age to the development of PC and CTSG-A, enhancing the knowledge on the pathopoiesis mechanism of these predictors in disease induction and promotion. The plethora of findings of the past and present studies highlighted the causal significance of modifiable risk factors and genetics in the pathosis of PC. The goal of these studies falls largely within the confines of understanding the insights of genetic alterations and specific modifiable risk factors. Much of the recent research concentrates in this line of inquiry; therefore, recognizing the modifying effect of smoking to individuals with family aggregation justifies the merit of this dissertation and future endeavors.

Blackford et al. (2009) noted that previous researchers overlooked the distinction between the passenger and driver mutations that explains the often unconvincing associations between smoking and driver mutations. Recognizing this gap, and while there are continued studies on different aspects of the PC genomic landscape, this dissertation intends to provide a descriptive analysis of the prevalence pattern of PC and CTSG-A known to have increased risk of extrapancreatic malignancies versus nonsmokers. The mechanisms through which smoking, gender, age, and CPG affect PC remain unknown, making it critical to explore the role of these three predictors in the disease clustering to develop a more efficient management and clinical approach. With an exhaustive understanding of the patterns of somatic alteration in pancreatic carcinogenesis comes the opportunity to understand the influence of these factors on metastatic progression (Yachida & Iacobuzio-Donahue, 2013). The burden of chronic diseases such as PC is often neglected on the public agendas. The increasing annual economic burden of PC is beyond genetics and social inequalities, making it necessary to embrace the shift in the level of analysis from traditional to modern epidemiologic and New Public Health approach. The significance of the successful delivery of the New Public Health both at the level of society and individual behavior (Halpin et al., 2010) justifies the intent of this dissertation on the need for further exploration of the pathopoiesis mechanism of tobacco use and FCH, the etiopathogenic role of gender and age. The unveiling of the “Precision Medicine Initiative” during the State of the Union Address of President Barack Obama on January 20, 2015, springboard the new effort of revolutionizing a new model of patient-powered research that could accelerate biomedical discoveries and provide clinicians with new tools, knowledge, and therapies. New research directions are warranted to reverse the lethal outcome of this disease.

Study Design and Approach

The causality of tobacco-related mutagenic risk factors and the correlation between gender and age and CPG will not only raise awareness of the significance of cancer risk screening and counseling but will also increase the understanding of environmental, genetic, and biodemographic interaction (EGBI) contributing to the development and progression of PC. The results of this study may be used to promote lifestyle change in reducing cancer risk. Improving the perceived corollary of individuals with inherited genes and quality of life during the expression or final stage of the disease is dependent on the favorable adjustment of behavioral risk factors. This study intended to explore the association between smoking, gender, and age in individuals with CPG. I used a cross-sectional design to determine the prevalence of pancreatic cancer and CTSG-A among smokers and non-smokers.  The potential association of smoking, gender, and age as predictors of the outcome variable (PC/CTSG-A) were explored using a cross-sectional design. Secondary data were recoded and randomized using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, Version 23, 64-bit edition). Although logistic regression makes no assumptions about the distributions of the predictor variables (smoking, gender, age), ordinal modeling was the fundamental property of the design of this study to test whether smoking level and age are effect modifiers to inherited genes or combined causative predictors in the induction and promotion of PC and CTSG-A.

The population for the study was defined as participants of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey. Subject selection criteria were set narrowly, by selecting specifically those who smoke and do not smoke with PC/CTSG-A (survivorship module), versus non-smokers with PC/CTSG-A. Association between smoking, age, gender, PC, and PC/CTSG-A are explored using hypothetical conceptual cohort. A hypothetical conceptual cohort is defined as participants from the 2014 BRFSS survey who qualified as high-risk based on the level of smoking. The dependent variable under Level 1 or Category 1 in this dissertation comprised cancer types with P16(CDKN2A) and PRSS1 mutations. The cancer types that were included as part of this category were pancreatic, melanoma, esophageal, leukemia, lung, bladder, renal, brain, osteosarcoma (bone), and cancer of the head and neck. Level two or category two includes cancer types with BRCA1, STK11, and LKB1 mutations. While p16 is related to breast cancer, BRCA1 is two times to have a relative risk of PC, with higher risk by age 70. The cancer types that are considered to be part of this category are breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. Level three or category three are composed of cancer types with bMLH1, and bMSH2 mutations. The cancer types in this category are endometrial, colorectal, and stomach cancer. Regression methods were used to assess and adjust for confounding, and determine whether there is effect modification, as well as simultaneously evaluate the relationships of risk factors (smoking, age, gender). Given that this study involves PC/CTSG-A, and more than one independent variables, ordinal logistic regression analysis was performed to assess confounding and effect modification. The impact of multiple risk factors (smoking, gender, age) is examined as opposed to focusing on a single risk factor. Two separate logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess differences in induction and promotion of pancreatic cancer/CTSG-A by gender and three age groups (<51, 52-69, 70>).

Research Findings

The effect of tobacco use, age, and sex in the etiopathogenesis of PC and CTSG-A was assessed using cumulative odds ordinal logistic regression with proportional odds. While the results of this study supported the null hypotheses that smoking does not correlate with the prevalence of PC and CTSG-A as confirmed by the GENLIN parameter estimates, both gender and age are statistically significant predictors with <.05 p-values. The odds of male respondents developing PC and CTSG-A versus the female respondents is .418 (95% Cl, .344 to .509) with a statistically significant effect, X2 (1) = 75.507. The odds ratio of 1.374 (95% CI, 1.184 to 1.595), Wald χ2(1) = 17.538 is suggestive to the increased probability of developing the disease as the persons reach the age between 62 and 69 years of age. Separate binomial logistic regression analysis shows age was associated with an increased likelihood of developing the disease. Analogous to the results of the ordinal logistic regression analysis, the odds of the male participants of the 2014 BRFSS survey is 2.472 times greater to develop the disease as opposed to female respondents. The findings of this study could support the importance of behavioral risk factor and their roles in reducing the prevalence of PC and CTSG-A, enhancing the late-stage quality of life.

Ab-initio studies have established that family history of PC can manifest due to genetic factors and shared environmental factors. The scientific perspective of this dissertation, current, and past studies are parallel to Albert Einstein’s concept of “natura naturans”—everything is connected. In this dissertation, the assumption that P16(CDKN2A), PRSS1, BRCA1, STK11, LKB1, bMLH1, and bMSH2 are correlated with the development of the disease is mathematically or statistically correct and deserves further investigation.

Presenting a New Metatheory

The Unified Paradigm of Cancer Causation (UPCC), a metatheory introduced in this dissertation could provide arguments on the positive association (synergism) between tobacco use and FCH, giving more clarity to Rothman’s notion of epidemiologic interaction or the paradigm of sufficient cause. UPCC is a composite construct of the germ theory and the somatic mutation theory of carcinogenesis (SMT) in combination with the traditional or Darwinian evolutionary system (Greaves & Maley, 2012), Knudson’s two-hit theory (Hermanowicz, 2015), genome theory, Darwinian theory of social change (Richerson & Boyd, 2000), and the multi-level biologic, social integrative construct (MBASIC). The theoretical cocktail of UPCC could interlock new insights on tumor initiation, metastases diagnostic, and treatment strategies. The dynamic interplay of gene-culture transmission recognized in UPCC could initiate the evolution of culture that embraces the value of evidence-based screening, surveillance, management, and personal genomics. Central to human adaptations is the use of socially learned information (Richerson, Boyd & Henrich, 2010), from literacy program of a health system, emphasizing the significance of 21st-century approach. The combined causal association of a variety of levels as recognized by Lynch and Rebbeck (2013) that are linked to cancer incidence and mortality justify the supposition of UPCC. It is critical to underscore the magnitude of intercalating the mandatory early screening, and management of the health system. The complex, integrative approach of UPCC supports the views of Loomis, and Wing (1990), Pearce (1996), and McEwen and Getz (2013) in embracing the new epidemiologic paradigm congruent to the advances in cancer genome sequencing. Theorizing the pathopoiesis mechanism of smoking, inherited genes, and association of gender and age in the etiopathogenesis of PC/CTSG-A warrants exploration of its causal footprints, conjoining both biomedical and lifestyle (Krieger, 2011).

New Public Health at the Level of Society and Individual Behavior

Darwinism is a collection of concepts, empirical methods and mathematical tools designed to understand the dynamics of genetics and cultural evolution (Richerson & Boyd, 2000). Therefore, this dissertation supports the rationale of cultural value transmission of smoking cessation that could lower the risk to individuals with CPG. Smoking cessation as a cultural item is a clear implication for positive social change. While smoking cessation is the probable social implication of this dissertation, it is important to stress the epidemiologic value of a study on the apparent correlation between gender and age, modification effect of tobacco use among individuals with PC and CTSG-A. The outcome of a risk factor epidemiologic study in individual terms could uplift precision medicine to meet the challenges in tailoring medical interventions based on patient’s biological profile, genetic and epigenetic traits, giving a better understanding of EGBIs. The results of this dissertation have several implications for social change, such as recognizing cultural values in developing effective communication structured from the statistically significant etiopathogenic role of gender and age in the development of PC and CTSG-A. This will give a clear understanding of what to ask, and what actions to take, allowing the family to openly explore treatment alternatives during the terminal phase of the illness (Ballard-Reisch & Letner, 2003). Primary prevention must be prioritized as an integral part of global cancer control. No regulatory standards nor advanced innovations could change the hearts and minds of the general population unless evidence-based studies support it. Social change will be dependent upon the continued dissemination of current cancer research built on integrative social molecular pathological epidemiology (MPE). Pearce (1996) argue that epidemiology must reintegrate itself into public health and must rediscover the population perspective. However, while the new paradigm of downstream (individual) approach could produce a lifestyle approach to social policy, the cumulative outcome of research in cancer epidemiology could equate positive implications to population health.

Improving the future of individuals diagnosed with PC through the concerted efforts of policymakers, public health professionals, clinicians and scientists, the Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act of 2012 lays the foundation for a heightened focused on further development and use of prevention, screening and therapeutic strategy (Rahib et al., 2014). The genuine progress against PC as recalcitrant cancer warrants strategic direction and guidance on the continued understanding, development of efficient early detection strategy and identifying therapeutic targets that could stem the tide of its growing economic burden.


Amundadottir, L. T., Thorvaldsson, S., Gudbjartsson, D. F., Sulem, P., Kristjansson, K., Arnason, S.,…Stefansson, K. (2004). Cancer as a complex phenotype: Pattern of cancer distribution within and beyond the nuclear family. PLoS Med1(3), e65. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0010065

Ballard-Reisch, D. S., & Letner, J. A. (2003). Centering families in cancer communication research: Acknowledging the impact of support, culture and process on client/provider communication in cancer management. Patient Education and Counseling, 50(1), 61-66.

Blackford, A., Parmigiani, G., Kensler, T. W., Wolfgang, C., Jones, S., Zhang, X., … & Goggins, M. (2009). Genetic mutations associated with cigarette smoking in pancreatic cancer. Cancer research69(8), 3681-3688. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-0015

Einstein, A & Infeld, L. (1938). The evolution of modern physics. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Garcia, M., Jemal, A., Ward, E. M., Center, M. M., Hao, Y., Siegel, R. L., & Thun, M. J. (2007). Global cancer facts & figures 2007. Atlanta, GA: American cancer society1(3), 52.

Greaves, M., & Maley, C. C. (2012). Clonal evolution in cancer. Nature, 481(7381), 306-313. doi: 10.1038/nature10762

Halpin, H.A., Morales-Suarez-Varela, M. M., & Martin-Moreno, J. M. (2010). Chronic disease prevention and the new public health. Public Health Reviews32(1), 120.

Hart, A. R., Kennedy, H., & Harvey, I. (2008). Pancreatic cancer: a review of the evidence on causation. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 6(3), 275-282.

Hermanowicz, S. (2015). The Impact of BRCA2 on Homologous Recombination and PARP Inhibitor Sensitivity Examined in BRCA2 Heterozygous Cell Lines. Retrieved from

Hidalgo, M. (2010). Pancreatic cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(17), 1605-1617.

Hidalgo, M., Cascinu, S., Kleeff, J., Labianca, R., Löhr, J. M., Neoptolemos, J., … & Heinemann, V. (2015). Addressing the challenges of pancreatic cancer: future directions for improving outcomes. Pancreatology15(1), 8-18.

Hoeijmakers, J. H. (2009). DNA damage, aging, and cancer. New England Journal of Medicine361(15), 1475-1485. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra0804615

Krieger, N. (2011). Epidemiology and the people’s health: theory and context (Vol. 213). New York: Oxford University Press.

Krier, J. B., & Green, R. C. (2013). Management of incidental findings in clinical genomic sequencing. Current Protocols in Human Genetics, 9-23. doi: 10.1002/0471142905.hg0923s77

Labilles, U. (2015a). Reevaluating the Impact of Cigarette Smoking on Pancreatic Cancer. Unpublished manuscript, College of Health Sciences, Public Health, Epidemiology, Walden University, Minneapolis.

Labilles, U. (2015b, September 27). A Promise to a Dying Brother [Web log post]. Retrieved from

Labilles, U. (2015c). Prospectus: Tobacco Use and Family Cancer History in the Pathopoiesis of Pancreatic Cancer. Unpublished manuscript, College of Health Sciences, Public Health, Epidemiology, Walden University, Minneapolis.

Labilles, U. (2016). The New Public Health: Beyond Genetics and Social Inequalities. Unpublished manuscript, College of Health Sciences, Public Health, Epidemiology, Walden University, Minneapolis.

Loomis, D., & Wing, S. (1990). Is molecular epidemiology a germ theory for the end of the twentieth century?. International journal of epidemiology, 19(1), 1-3.

Lynch, S. M., & Rebbeck, T. R. (2013). Bridging the gap between biologic, individual, and macroenvironmental factors in cancer: a multilevel approach. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention22(4), 485-495. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0010

Maitra, A., & Hruban, R. H. (2008). Pancreatic cancer. Annu. Rev. pathmechdis. Mech. Dis.3, 157-188. doi:  10.1146/annurev.pathmechdis.3.121806.154305

Makohon-Moore, A., Brosnan, J. A., & Iacobuzio-Donahue, C. A. (2013). Pancreatic cancer genomics: insights and opportunities for clinical translation. Genome medicine5(3), 26.

McEwen, B. S., & Getz, L. (2013). Lifetime experiences, the brain and personalized medicine: An integrative perspective. Metabolism62, S20-S26.

Pandol, S. J., Apte, M. V., Wilson, J. S., Gukovskaya, A. S., & Edderkaoui, M. (2012). The burning question: why is smoking a risk factor for pancreatic cancer?. Pancreatology12(4), 344-349. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2012.06.002

Pearce, N. (1996). Traditional epidemiology, modern epidemiology, and public health. American journal of public health86(5), 678-683.

Rahib, L., Smith, B. D., Aizenberg, R., Rosenzweig, A. B., Fleshman, J. M., & Matrisian, L. M. (2014). Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: the unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States. Cancer research74(11), 2913-2921. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0155

Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2000). Evolution: The Darwinian theory of social change: an homage to Donald T. Campbell. Paradigms of Social Change: Modernization, Development, Transformation, Evolution, pp. 1-30.

Richerson, P. J., Boyd, R., & Henrich, J. (2010). Gene-culture coevolution in the age of genomics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(Supplement 2), 8985-8992. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0914631107

Schenk, M., Schwartz, A. G., O’Neal, E., Kinnard, M., Greenson, J. K., Fryzek, J. P., … & Garabrant, D. H. (2001). Familial risk of pancreatic cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute93(8), 640-644.

Yachida, S., & Iacobuzio-Donahue, C. A. (2013). Evolution and dynamics of pancreatic cancer progression. Oncogene32(45), 5253-5260. doi: 10.1038/onc.2013.29

Indoor Tanning and Melanoma: A Public Health Issue

Indoor TanningIndoor Tanning and Melanoma: A Public Health Issue

Ulysses Labilles and Jennifer Beito

In Minnesota and other parts of the U.S., increase melanoma continue to be common among women than men younger than 50 years. Lazovich et al. (2016) highlighted the gap between age- and the sex-specific association studies between indoor tanning and melanoma. It was found that the strongest correlation between indoor tanning and melanoma is the anatomic site, commonly developed on the trunk in women. Lazovich et al. (2016) stated that while not as strong as for women, 2-fold increase among men who tanned indoors was found to have a higher risk of developing melanomas of the trunk. Furthermore, the findings in this 2016 study are “consistent with the divergent pathway hypothesis for melanoma, which suggest that intermittent solar ultraviolet radiation exposure among those with many nevi, in contrast to chronic solar ultraviolet radiation exposure in persons with fewer nevi, induce the development of the lesion at a younger age, with tumors developing on anatomic sites typically protected from the sun” (Lazovich et al., 2016). Whereas Lazovich et al. (2016) found considerable variation in the correlation between indoor tanning and melanoma by anatomic site, confirming indoor tanning as a possible predictor, responsible for the increased among younger women. Given the timing of increased risk among women indoor tanning users, it is expected for the melanoma epidemic to continue unless indoor tanning is restricted and reduced (Lazovich et al., 2016).


The field of melanoma genetics with new platforms to investigate, makes this area epidemiology move at a high pace. According to Ribero, Glass and Bataille (2016), genes involved in the cell cycle and senescence, identified in the genome-wide association studies over the last ten years, explains the development of the lesion, in addition to telomere biology that further links to reduced senescence. In this study, the role of clinicians was highlighted in recognizing the phenotypic, environmental, and familial risk factors for melanoma to identify those patients at risk who require screening and long-term follow-up (Ribero et al., 2016, p. 338). In this country, skin cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and increasingly becoming a major public health problem with more than 60,000 melanomas diagnosed in 2010 (Rogers et al. 2015; Guy et al. 2015). The potential causality for increased melanoma incidence was discussed by  Rivera, Han, and Qureshi (2013), traced to the 1980 obbligato explosion in indoor tanning. It is, therefore, essential for continued investigation from scientists, professional societies and legislators (Rivera et al., 2013). Using REP resources aggregated from residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota between 1970 and 2009, 256 young adults their first lifetime diagnosis of melanoma, between the ages of 18 and 39 years of age (Reed et al. (2012). The study confirms the arguments of Bleyer et al. (2006) that “the incidence of cutaneous melanoma is increasing among young adults, with this rate increasing more than 6-fold among adult men than women, but incidence are reversed among young adults and adolescents, with the female-male incidence ratio of 1.8 in young adults aged 20 to 24 years.” (Reed et al., 2012, p. 331) Reed et al. (2012) noted that the results of studies from the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) might be explained by some sex-specific behaviors such the increase likelihood of young women to participate to different UV light exposure than young men. While De Giorgi et al. (2012) stated that only minimal changes in mortality had been observed, there is a continuous increase in melanoma incidence worldwide. De Giorgi et al. (2012) supported the argument that indoor tanning may have been responsible for increased melanoma incidence in women and younger tanning bed users with higher estimated risk ratio in the general population. Debates over reducing indoor tanning tend to dominate discussions for its potential to reduce melanoma incidence, mortality, and treatment costs, the findings of the 2016 study of Guy et al. underscored the increased economic benefits and quantified the significance of continued efforts to reduce indoor tanning in preventing melanoma. Using a Markov model to estimate the expected number of melanoma cases,  lives and treatment costs saved, Guy et al. (2016) estimated 61,839 melanoma cases, prevent 6735 melanoma deaths, saving $342.9 million in treatment costs over the lifetime of the 61.2 million youth age 14 years or younger in the U.S. by restricting the use of  indoor tanning among minors younger than 18 years (, n.d.).

Discussion. Melanoma remains a public health issue, despite efforts to reduce indoor tanning, making melanoma incidence to rise continuously in the U.S. and globally, over and above-attempted prevention efforts (Le Clair, & Cockburn, 2016). The increased risk of malignant melanoma and other forms of skin cancer are found to be correlated with the ultraviolet radiation from indoor tanning device, considered to be an urgent public health issue need to adopt the Action Model to Achieve Healthy People 2020. Ultraviolet light emitted from tanning beds is classified carcinogenic by the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2009, as an interceptive response to the associated risk of exposure with the initiation of melanoma (El Ghissassi et al., 2009). Tanning beds and its carcinogen, the length of time the skin is exposed, and whether or not the skin is protected with prescribed protection such sunscreen are all the key influences contributing the increased risk. Many individuals are exposed to sunlight during their quotidian lives, and popular alfresco activities elevate a person’s chance of developing skin cancer. For example, athletes who spend countless hours training and competing in the sun, workers who need to be under the direct sun exposure all day and children who play outside for countless hours are more prone to developing skin cancer. Exposure to UV radiation during childhood plays is a major role in the future development of melanoma and non-melanoma skin conditions. Many studies have determined that even short, intermittent but excruciating exposure to sunlight during childhood and adolescence significantly increase one’s risk of developing melanoma. More than one moiety of a person’s lifetime UV exposure occurs during childhood and adolescence. If a person has a history of one or more blistering sunburns during childhood or adolescence, such exposure could put these individuals two times greater risk to developing melanoma than those who did not have such exposures (Glanz, & Wechsler, 2002). Ultraviolet radiation is divided into three wavelengths ranges, however; only two of the ranges authentically perforate our atmosphere, UVA, and UVB. Scientists initially believed that only UVB rays played a role in the formation of skin cancer. UVB light does cause deleterious transmutations in skin cell DNA. UVB rays are responsible for sunburn and many basal and squamous cell cancers (English, Canchola & Finley, 1998). However, there are no safe UV rays. UVA rays withal contribute to skin cancer. These rays could cause a deeper skin damage than UVB, emasculates the skin’s immune system and increases the peril of cancer development, especially melanoma. Tanning lamps and tanning beds distribute high doses of UVA, which makes them especially hazardous (Goldstein & Goldstein, 2001). A 2002 Dartmouth study as noted by Goldstein and Goldstein (2001) showed tanning bed users had 2.5 times the peril of SCC and 1.5 times the jeopardy for BCC. Individuals more predisposed than others to the damaging effects of UV radiation could develop skin cancers. The increased risk of melanoma is shown to be higher among individual with family history. Melanoma and other types of skin cancer, risk factors include light or fair skin color, natural blond or red hair, sun sensitivity, immune suppression disease, vocation and geographic location (Goldstein & Goldstein, 2001).

Cases ascertained by a population-based, statewide cancer registry known as the Minnesota Cancer Surveillance System Skin Health Study and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Minnesota, Lazovich et al. (2010) addressed the limitations on past studies in adjusting sun exposure and dose response of individuals using indoor tanning. Individuals diagnosed with any histologic type of melanoma between July 2004 and December 2007, between the ages of 25 and 59 was collected based on state driver’s license or state identification card. Previous studies show that indoor tanning use decreases with age. Therefore, the researchers truncated the age limit to 59 years old. Multiple regression was performed, and adjusted odd ratios show the likelihood of melanoma among users of indoor tanning, and never users were similarly elevated regardless of the age when indoor tanning began (Lazovich et al., 2010). The study of Lazovich et al. (2010) has several significant findings: “First, melanoma was found to be more frequent among indoor tanners compared with persons that never engaged in this activity. Second, measured by total hours, sessions, or years, a strong dose-response relationship was found between melanoma risk. Lastly, an increased risk of melanoma was found with the use of each type of tanning device examined as well as with each period of tanning use, suggesting that no device could be considered safe. Burns from indoor tanning seemed to be fairly common and conferred a similar risk of melanoma to sunburns, strengthening the associations explored significant even after adjusting for the potential confounding effects of known risk factors for melanoma.” (pp. OF9-OF10) Le Clair and Cockburn (2016) asserted the importance of prevention through doctor’s consultation, focusing on the significant impact of behavioral change than written intervention. The findings of this study suggest that knowledge of sun sensitivity in individuals with high UVR sensitivity may reinforce a positive outcome in sun exposure habits, and could represent a useful tool for reducing indoor tanning (Le Clair, & Cockburn, 2016, p.142). Spending an abundance of time alfresco for work or recreation without protective apparel and sunscreen increases the risk to develop skin cancers.  However, no matter what treatment you may cull; the primary cause is something which is kenned and avoidable – natural and artificial UV rays. As a result, the 2 primary aversion methods are simple to recollect, edify and implement – they are endeavored and proven (Goldstein & Goldstein, 2001): “Significantly limit exposure to the sun between the hours of 10 am and 4 pm, utilizing a sunscreen with an SPF of 15 or higher at all times each day, cover your skin with apparel, wear a hat and use sunglasses. Second, verbally express “no” to all other sources of UV radiation such as tanning beds and tanning lamps. Ergo, the next time you visually perceive someone exiting the tanning salon, relaxing midday in the direct sun at the beach or ambulating around with a flamboyantly discernible tan, do not be envious. Instead, view this person as you would a person smoking a cigarette. They are acting temerariously and jeopardizing their lives in an endeavor to imitate what is occasionally introduced by the media. Recollect, despite what the media may lead you to believe; you do not require a tan to look good. During the 2012 meeting by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it was concluded that future cases of skin cancer could be prevented, along with the associated morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs through discussion of research gaps and current body of evidence on strategies to reduce indoor. The overarching goals of Healthy People 2020 should be the framework of existing and future studies embracing the state of the evidence on strategies to reduce indoor tanning; the tools necessary to adequately assess, monitor, and evaluate the short- and long-term impact of interventions designed to reduce indoor tanning; and strategies to align efforts at the national, state, and local levels through transdisciplinary collaboration and coordination across multiple sectors (Holman et al., 2013).

Conclusion. The participation of health care providers is required for information dissemination as well as physical and psychological screenings to improve education to address the misconception about tanning safety. According to Friedman et al. (2105) “Public perception of the purported health benefits of indoor tanning can be blamed for the popularity of tanning salons as a desire to prepare the skin before sun exposure, the most commonly cited motivations for indoor tanning.” improve education to address the misconception about tanning safety. Artificial UVR is often misconceived to produce a “safer” tan than outdoor sunlight (CDC, 2014). Le Clair, & Cockburn (2016) argued that this belief is  “contradicted by scientific evidence, and must be addressed to effectively reduce the burden of indoor tanning on health outcomes worldwide.” (p. 140) According to Whitmore et al. (2001), Karagas et al. (2002), and Green et al. (2007), DNA damage in skin cells caused by exposure to indoor tanning UVR is associated with an increased risk of melanoma induction and other types of non-melanoma skin cancers. In-depth understanding of clinicians providing public health education outreach programs is critical from the epidemiology of melanoma to the increased risk of the developing tumors with the frequent use or use of tanning beds. Lobbying efforts such as the Indoor Tanning Association are the most significant barrier to state indoor tanning legislation (Obayan et al., 2010). The risk and benefits of indoor tanning was discussed during the 2012 report of the minority staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, asserted that 80 % of tanning salons told investigators that indoor tanning was beneficial to fair-skinned teenage girls, while 90 % of tanning salons denied that sunlamp use posed any health risks to this vulnerable group (Gottlieb et al., 2015). Such argument not supported by peer-reviewed study should always be challenged, and leaders both political, healthcare and public health should continue to cooperate in drafting evidence-based legislations to ease the economic and individual burden of melanoma induced by indoor tanning. It is paramount to increase the height of prevention efforts, not only limiting the use of tanning beds to children aged 18 or younger, but also to young adults over 18 years old who have increased the risk to melanoma. The transdisciplinary, multilevel, and coordinated approach has the potential to combat future cases melanoma and other forms of skin cancers by reducing indoor tanning, withal many barriers and challenges. While the role of new common sense legislation in tandem with public education campaigns is paramount, mass media campaigns are critical in introducing strategies and highlighting shared environmental risk, as well as the avoidable risk of indoor tanning use. Holman et al. (2013) posit that by reducing indoor tanning use, future cases of skin cancer could be prevented through tailored interventions following the context of comprehensive skin cancer prevention that promotes sun protection and sunburn avoidance when outdoors (Coups, Manne & Heckman,2008). Addressing contextual factors that promote tanning, including environmental and systems changes, social norms, the indoor tanning industry and the media will be dependent upon close coordination and collaboration of key partner across multiple levels. Continued literature must be encouraged among legislators, clinicians, and public health leaders, spreading its highlights through effective mass media outreach.


Bleyer, A., O’Leary, M., Barr, R., & Ries, L. A. G. (2006). NIH Publication No 06-5767. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Cancer epidemiology in older adolescents and young adults, 15, 1975-2000.

Coups, E. J., Manne, S. L., & Heckman, C. J. (2008). Multiple skin cancer risk behaviors in the US population. American journal of preventive medicine, 34(2), 87-93.

CDC (2014). The Burning Truth. Retrieved from (2014)

El Ghissassi, F., Baan, R., Straif, K., Grosse, Y., Secretan, B., Bouvard, V., … & Cogliano, V. (2009). A review of human carcinogens—part D: radiation. The lancet oncology, 10(8), 751-752.

English 3rd, J. C., Canchola, D. R., & Finley, E. M. (1998). Axillary basal cell carcinoma: a need for full cutaneous examination. American family physician, 57(8), 1860-1864.

De Giorgi, V., Gori, A., Grazzini, M., Rossari, S., Oranges, T., Longo, A. S., … & Gandini, S. (2012). Epidemiology of melanoma: is it still epidemic? What is the role of the sun, sunbeds, Vit D, betablocks, and others?. Dermatologic Therapy, 25(5), 392-396.

Faculty Expertise in Cancer – School of Public Health. (n.d.). Retrieved from

Friedman, B., English, J. C., & Ferris, L. K. (2015). Indoor tanning, skin cancer, and the young female patient: a review of the literature. Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology, 28(4), 275-283.

Glanz, K., Saraiya, M., & Wechsler, H. (2002). Guidelines for school programs to prevent skin cancer. MMWR. Recommendations and reports: Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports/Centers for Disease Control, 51(RR-4), 1-18.

Goldstein, B. G., & Goldstein, A. O. (2001). Diagnosis and management of malignant melanoma. American family physician, 63(7), 1359-68.

Gottlieb, M., Balk, S. J., Geller, A. C., & Gershenwald, J. E. (2015). Teens and Indoor Tanning: Time to Act on the US Food and Drug Administration’s Black-Box Warning. Annals of surgical oncology, 22(3), 701-703.

Green, A., Autier, P., Boniol, M., Boyle, P., Doré, J. F., Gandini, S., … & Westerdahl, J. (2007). The association of use of sunbeds with cutaneous malignant melanoma and other skin cancers. International Journal of Cancer120(5), 1116-1122.

Guy, G. P., Machlin, S. R., Ekwueme, D. U., & Yabroff, K. R. (2015). Prevalence and Costs of Skin Cancer Treatment in the US, 2002− 2006 and 2007− 2011. American journal of preventive medicine, 48(2), 183-187.

Guy, G. P., Zhang, Y., Ekwueme, D. U., Rim, S. H., & Watson, M. (2016). The potential impact of reducing indoor tanning on melanoma prevention and treatment costs in the United States: An economic analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Holman, D. M., Fox, K. A., Glenn, J. D., Guy, G. P., Watson, M., Baker, K., … & Sampson, B. P. (2013). Strategies to reduce indoor tanning: current research gaps and future opportunities for prevention. American journal of preventive medicine, 44(6), 672-681.

Increasing Incidence of Melanoma Among Young Adults: An … (n.d.). Retrieved from

Indoor tanning for kids? Might as well expose them to … (n.d.). Retrieved from

Karagas, M. R., Stannard, V. A., Mott, L. A., Slattery, M. J., Spencer, S. K., & Weinstock, M. A. (2002). Use of tanning devices and risk of basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute94(3), 224-226.

Lazovich, D., Vogel, R. I., Berwick, M., Weinstock, M. A., Anderson, K. E., & Warshaw, E. M. (2010). Indoor tanning and risk of melanoma: a case-control study in a highly exposed population. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers, 1055-9965.

Lazovich, D., Vogel, R. I., Weinstock, M. A., Nelson, H. H., Ahmed, R. L., & Berwick, M. (2016). Association between indoor tanning and melanoma in younger men and women. JAMA Dermatology, 152(3), 268-275.

Le Clair, M. Z., & Cockburn, M. G. (2016). Tanning bed use and melanoma: Establishing risk and improving prevention interventions. Preventive Medicine Reports, 3, 139-144.

Obayan, B., Geller, A. C., Resnick, E. A., & Demierre, M. F. (2010). Enacting legislation to restrict youth access to tanning beds: A survey of advocates and sponsoring legislators. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology63(1), 63-70.

Position Statement on Indoor Tanning (Approved by the … (n.d.). Retrieved from

Reed, K. B., Brewer, J. D., Lohse, C. M., Bringe, K. E., Pruitt, C. N., & Gibson, L. E. (2012). Increasing incidence of melanoma among young adults: an epidemiological study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Vol. 87, No. 4, pp. 328-334). Elsevier.

Ribero, S., Glass, D., & Bataille, V. (2016). Genetic epidemiology of melanoma. European Journal of Dermatology, 26(4), 335-339.

Rivera, A. R., Han, J., & Qureshi, A. A. (2013). Has too much blame been placed on tanning beds for the rise in melanoma diagnosis?. Expert Review of Dermatology, 8(2), 135-143.

Rogers, H. W., Weinstock, M. A., Feldman, S. R., & Coldiron, B. M. (2015). Incidence estimate of nonmelanoma skin cancer (keratinocyte carcinomas) in the US population, 2012. JAMA Dermatology151(10), 1081-1086.

US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce (2012). A new report reveals indoor tanning industry’s false and

misleading practices. Retrieved from HTTP://

Whitmore, S. E., Morison, W. L., & Potten, C. S. (2001). Tanning salon exposure and molecular alterations. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology44(5), 775-780.