Lifetime skin cancer prevalence in sexual minority (SM) Americans varied by race, ethnicity, and individual sexual identity compared with that in heterosexual peers, according to a large cross-sectional study. Addressing dynamics of each SM subgroup will require increasingly tailored prevention, screening, and research efforts, the study authors said.
“We identified specific subgroups within the sexual-minority community who are at higher risk for skin cancer, specifically White gay males and Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black SM men and women — particularly individuals who identify as bisexual,” senior author Matthew Mansh, MD, said in an interview. He is an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of California San Francisco. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology on July 17.
Using data of adults in the US general population from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from January 2014 to December 2021, investigators included more than 1.5 million respondents. The proportions of SM women and men (who self-identified as bisexual, lesbian, gay, “something else,” or other) were 2.6% and 2.0%, respectively.
Lifetime skin cancer prevalence was higher among SM men than among heterosexual men (7.4% vs 6.8%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.16). In analyses stratified by racial and ethnic group, AORs for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic SM men vs their heterosexual counterparts were 2.18 and 3.81, respectively. The corresponding figures for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic SM women were 2.33 and 2.46, respectively.
When investigators combined all minority respondents along gender lines, lifetime skin cancer prevalence was higher in bisexual men (AOR, 3.94), bisexual women (AOR, 1.51), and women identifying as something else or other (AOR, 2.70) than in their heterosexual peers.
“I wasn’t expecting that Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black SMs would be at higher risk for skin cancer,” Mansh said. Even if these groups have more behavioral risk factors for UV radiation (UVR) exposure, he explained, UVR exposure is less strongly linked with skin cancer in darker skin than in lighter skin. Reasons for the counterintuitive finding could include different screening habits among SM people of different racial and ethnic groups, he said, and analyzing such factors will require further research.
Although some effect sizes were modest, the authors wrote, their findings may have important implications for population-based research and public health efforts aimed at early skin cancer detection and prevention. Presently, the United States lacks established guidelines for skin cancer screening. In a 2023 statement published in JAMA, the US Preventive Services Task Force said that there is insufficient evidence to determine the benefit-harm balance of skin cancer screening in asymptomatic people.
“So there has been a lot of recent talk and a need to identify which subset groups of patients might be higher risk for skin cancer and might benefit from more screening,” Mansh told Medscape Medical News. “Understanding more about the high-risk demographic and clinical features that predispose someone to skin cancer helps identify these high-risk populations that could be used to develop better screening guidelines.”
Identifying groups at a higher risk for skin cancer also allows experts to design more targeted counseling or public health interventions focused on these groups, Mansh added. Absent screening guidelines, experts emphasize changing modifiable risk factors such as UVR exposure, smoking, and alcohol use. “And we know that the message that might change behaviors in a cisgender heterosexual man might be different than in a gay White male or a Hispanic bisexual male,” he said.
A review published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors in 2017 showed that interventions to reduce behaviors involving UVR exposure, such as indoor tanning, among young cisgender women focused largely on aging and appearance-based concerns. A study published in the British Journal of Dermatology in 2019 showed that messages focused on avoiding skin cancer may help motivate SM men to reduce tanning behaviors.
Furthermore, said Mansh, all electronic health record products available in the United States must provide data fields forsexual orientation. “I don’t believe many dermatologists, depending on the setting, collect that information routinely. Integrating sexual orientation and/or gender identity data into patient intake forms so that it can be integrated into the electronic health record is probably very helpful, not only for your clinical practice but also for future research studies.”
Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, MPH, who was not involved with the study, told Medscape Medical News that its impact on clinical practice will be challenging to ascertain. She is chief of dermatology with the VA Boston Healthcare System, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, and director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, all in Boston.
“The study found significant adjusted odds ratios,” Hartman explained, “but for some of the different populations, the overall lifetime rate of skin cancer is still quite low.” For example, 1.0% for SM non-Hispanic Black men or a difference of 2.1% vs 1.8% in SM Hispanic women. “Thus, I am not sure specific screening recommendations are warranted, although some populations, such as Hispanic sexual minority males, seemed to have a much higher risk (3.8-fold on adjusted analysis) that warrants further investigation.”
For now, she advised assessing patients’ risks for skin cancer based on well-established risk factors such as sun exposure/indoor tanning, skin phototype, immunosuppression, and age.
Mansh reported no relevant conflicts or funding sources for the study. Hartman reported no relevant conflicts.
John Jesitus is a Denver-based freelance medical writer and editor.
Source link : https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/skin-cancer-prevalence-varies-sexual-orientation-and-racial-2024a1000dmk?src=rss
Author :
Publish date : 2024-07-24 13:30:08
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.