ARTICLE

In Vitro Sensitivity to Ultraviolet B Light and Skin Cancer Risk: A Case–Control Analysis

Li-E Wang, Ping Xiong, Sara S. Strom, Leonard H. Goldberg, Jeffrey E. Lee, Merrick I. Ross, Paul F. Mansfield, Jeffrey E. Gershenwald, Victor G. Prieto, Janice N. Cormier, Madeleine Duvic, Gary L. Clayman, Randal S. Weber, Scott M. Lippman, Christopher I. Amos, Margaret R. Spitz, Qingyi Wei

Affiliations of authors: Departments of Epidemiology (L-EW, PX, SSS, CIA, MRS, QW), Surgical Oncology (JEL, MIR, PFM, JEG, JNC), Pathology (VGP), Dermatology (MD), Head and Neck Surgery (GLC, RSW), and Clinical Cancer Prevention (SML), The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and DermSurgery Associates, Houston, TX (LHG)

Correspondence to: Qingyi Wei, MD, PhD, Department of Epidemiology, Unit 1365, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX 77030 (e-mail: qwei{at}mdanderson.org).


    ABSTRACT
 Top
 Notes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Background: Mutagen sensitivity, measured as mutagen-induced chromatid breaks per cell in primary lymphocytes in vitro, has been used to study susceptibility to various epithelial cancers. Patients with xeroderma pigmentosum are highly sensitive to ultraviolet (UV) light due to inherited defects in DNA repair and have a 1000-fold higher risk of UV-induced skin cancer than the general population. However, an association between UV-induced chromosomal aberrations and risk of skin cancer in the general population has not been established. Methods: We assessed in vitro UVB-induced chromatid breaks in a hospital-based case–control study. The study included 469 patients with skin cancer (231 with nonmelanoma skin cancer [NMSC] and 238 with cutaneous malignant melanoma [CMM]) and 329 cancer-free control subjects. Multivariable logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Compared with the frequency of UVB-induced chromatid breaks per cell in control subjects (mean = 0.28 breaks per cell, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.30), that in NMSC patients (basal cell carcinoma [BCC], n = 143, mean = 0.36 breaks per cell, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.39 and squamous cell carcinoma [SCC], n = 88, mean = 0.35 breaks per cell, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.38) was higher (P = .001 and P<.001, respectively), but that in CMM case patients (mean = 0.30 breaks per cell, 95% CI = 0.28 to 0.33) was not (P = .22). A frequency of chromatid breaks per cell above the median of control subjects was associated with nearly threefold increased risks for BCC (OR = 2.78, 95% CI = 1.79 to 4.30) and SCC (OR = 2.62, 95% CI = 1.50 to 4.60), but not with an increased risk of CMM. A dose–response relationship was evident between mutagen sensitivity and risk for both BCC (Ptrend<.001) and SCC (Ptrend<.001). Multiplicative interactions between mutagen sensitivity and sun exposure variables on risk, particularly for sunburn in BCC and hair color, tanning ability, and family history of skin cancer in SCC, were seen for NMSC but not CMM. Conclusions: UVB-induced mutagen sensitivity may play a role in susceptibility to NMSC but not to CMM.



    INTRODUCTION
 Top
 Notes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Skin cancer includes the more common but highly curable nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) (i.e., basal cell carcinoma [BCC] and squamous cell carcinoma [SCC]) and the less common but potentially lethal cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM). Although NMSC-related deaths are rare, more than 1 million new NMSC cases are diagnosed annually in the United States, an incidence approximately equivalent to that of all other cancers combined (1). In contrast, the incidence of CMM has been steadily rising in the United States for decades, and 59 580 new CMM cases and 7770 CMM deaths are expected in 2005 (1,2). Both types of skin cancer are found primarily at sun-exposed sites, and fair complexion and frequent exposure to sunlight are the major risk factors (38). Patients with xeroderma pigmentosum (XP) have inherited defects in DNA repair and a more than 1000-fold increased risk of sunlight-induced skin cancer (913), which raises the possibility that suboptimal DNA repair capacity is a risk factor for skin cancer in the general population (1418).

To investigate this question, it is important to have an assay to determine cellular capacity to repair damage caused by ultraviolet (UV) light. Such biomarkers for genetic susceptibility to cancer are vital for identifying at-risk individuals. The mutagen sensitivity assay, which measures the number of mutagen-induced chromatid breaks per cell in cultured primary peripheral blood lymphocytes exposed to a test mutagen, was developed by T. C. Hsu (19) and has been shown to provide a useful biomarker for susceptibility to different types of cancer, such as thyroid, upper aerodigestive, head and neck, lung, and colon (1924). It has been reported that bleomycin-induced chromatid breaks reflect an inherited component of disease rather than an environmental one (25,26). Because patients with these types of cancers tended to have more bleomycin-induced chromatid breaks than did cancer-free control subjects, it was postulated that the higher sensitivity to bleomycin-induced chromatid breaks originating from DNA strand breaks may reflect the DNA repair capacity of the host cells (27,28).

The mutagen sensitivity assay has since been modified using etiologically related agents as the test mutagens to assess genetic susceptibility to cancers. Benzo[a]-pyrene diol epoxide, an ultimate tobacco carcinogen, was used in studies of lung cancer (29), head and neck cancer (30), and breast cancer (31), and gamma radiation was used in studies of glioma (32,33). These studies showed that the mutagen sensitivity assay is an effective tool for measuring genetic susceptibility to cancer.

Prolonged exposure to sunlight is a well-known risk factor for skin cancer, and UV-B of wavelength 290–320 nm is the major component of the solar spectrum that induces DNA lesions (34,35). We previously showed that XP cells are highly sensitive to UV-B irradiation, as indicated by high frequencies of UV-B–induced chromatid breaks per cell (36), a finding consistent with the existence of a defect in DNA repair in XP cells. However, to the best of our knowledge, no published studies have established an association between UV-induced mutagen sensitivity and risk of skin cancer in the general population. Here, we report our results from a hospital-based case–control study of skin cancer in which we tested the hypothesis that UV-induced chromatid breaks, as detected in the mutagen sensitivity assay, are associated with the development of skin cancer, both NMSC (BCC and SCC) and CMM.


    SUBJECTS AND METHODS
 Top
 Notes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Participants

The study included patients with BCC, SCC, or CMM who registered at the Melanoma and Skin Center at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and DermSurgery Associates between July 1996 and March 2001. There was no limitation on age, sex, or ethnicity. Control subjects were reportedly cancer-free healthy people selected from unrelated visitors who were accompanying other cancer patients to the clinics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. The exclusion criteria were previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy and metastasis for patients with NMSC or CMM and previous cancer (except for NMSC for the study cases) and any blood transfusion in the last 6 months for all participants. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, and a standardized, self-administered questionnaire was used to collect demographic data and data on risk factors, including natural hair color, eye color, skin color, history of sunlight exposure (including freckling in the sun as a child, tanning ability, and number of sunburns), medical history, and family history of first-degree relatives with any cancer. Each participant donated 20 mL of blood after diagnosis for case patients and after recruitment for control subjects. Because we recruited only few minorities (NMSC: one Asian, two African Americans, 21 Mexican Americans; CMM: six Mexican Americans), this analysis focused on non-Hispanic whites only. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.

Mutagen Sensitivity Assay

Chromosome sensitivity to UV-B was measured using a modified mutagen sensitivity assay as described previously by Cherry and Hsu (19). In this assay, mutagen sensitivity is expressed as the number of UVB-induced chromatid breaks per cell measured 24 hours after a one-time exposure to incident UV-B irradiation (150 J/m2). In brief, short-term cultures of isolated fresh lymphocytes were established in RPMI 1640 medium supplemented with 20% fetal bovine serum with phytohemagglutinin at a final concentration of 56.25 µg/mL (Murex Biotech Limited, Dartford, England) to stimulate T-lymphocyte growth. After 48 hours of culture, 4 x 106 cells in 1.5 mL of culture medium were transferred to a 60-mm tissue culture dish and placed in a biologic hood without a cover for direct exposure to UV light (15 W unfiltered UV-B lamps; Sankyo Denki Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) of wavelength 302 nm at an incident dose of 150 J/m2. After irradiation, 2 mL of fresh medium was added to the dish, and the cells were allowed to grow for another 23 hours. They were then treated with colcemid (Gibco BRL, Carlsbad, CA) at a final concentration of 0.06 µg/mL to induce mitotic arrest, and the cells in suspension were collected 1 hour later by centrifugation at 250g for 7 minutes. We used conventional chromosome preparation procedures: the cells were treated for 14 minutes with 60 mM hypotonic KCl solution and were incubated for 15 minutes in freshly prepared methanol : acetic acid (3 : 1 vol/vol), after which air-dried slides were prepared as previously described (19). The slides were then stained with 4% Giemsa (Biomedical Specialties, Santa Monica, CA) for 7 minutes. Each slide was evaluated for chromosomal aberrations with a Nikon Labphoto-2 photomicroscope (Nikon, Inc., Instrument Group, Melville, NY). The number of simple chromatid breaks was scored from 50 well-spread metaphase cells for both UV-exposed and unexposed cultures from each subject and expressed as chromatid breaks per cell, because Lee et al. (37) showed that the statistical efficiency of reading 50 and 100 metaphase spreads is similar. The criteria of Cherry and Hsu (19) were used to record the aberrations: a chromatid break was scored as one break, and each isochromatid break set and exchange figure (or interstitial deletion) was scored as two breaks. Gaps were not included in the analyses.

Statistical Analysis

Because more than 95% of the aberrations were simple chromatid breaks, and because these were rare in unexposed cells, the statistical analyses focused exclusively on the frequency of UV-induced chromatid breaks per cell, and the number of chromatid breaks per cell was analyzed as a continuous variable. The Student's t test was used to compare the mean number of chromatid breaks per cell between groups. Because the chromatid breaks per cell data were not normally distributed, we also performed the Student's t test on log-transformed data. We used the medians (i.e., 0.24) and quartiles (i.e., 25th of 0.16, 50th of 0.24, and 75th of 0.36) of chromatid breaks per cell in the control group as the cutoff values to calculate crude odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Correlation analysis was used to explore the relationships among sun exposure variables that were each categorized into two groups. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses with adjustment for age and sex were performed to calculate the adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for each selected variable of interest. Some subjects did not provide information on some sun exposure variables, dysplastic nevi, or family history of skin cancer, and these variables without further information were treated as missing data in the analysis. We included all the selected variables in the multivariable logistic regression analyses for those subjects who provided complete information. Then we performed a further analysis of the interactions between UV-B-induced mutagen sensitivity and selected variables. Odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and P values for interactions and trend tests were first obtained from multivariable logistic regression models. A more-than-multiplicative interaction was suggested when OR11 > OR10 x OR01, in which OR11 = the OR when both factors were present, OR01 = the OR when only factor 1 was present, OR10 = the OR when only factor 2 was present (38). To assess evidence for departure from a multiplicative model, we modeled interaction terms between variables using standard unconditional logistic regression. We were specifically interested in searching for interactions indicating a more-than-multiplicative relationship (i.e., interaction terms from the logistic regression with positive coefficients), because these interactions identify subgroups of individuals who may be at particularly high risk for developing skin cancers. We were also interested in identifying departures from additive models. Empirically, a more-than-additive interaction was indicated if OR11 > OR10 + OR01 – 1. When the test for multiplicative interaction was not rejected, further tests for additive interaction were performed by a bootstrapping test of goodness of fit of the null hypothesis of an additive model with no interaction against an alternative hypothesis that allows an additive interaction. To perform the hypothesis test for additive models, we implemented bootstrapping using Stata 8.2 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX). All statistical tests were two-sided, and P<.05 was considered statistically significant. We analyzed all data, except for additive models, using SAS software (version 8e; SAS Institute, Cary, NC).


    RESULTS
 Top
 Notes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
This analysis included 469 case patients (143 BCC, 88 SCC, and 238 CMM) and 329 cancer-free control subjects. All subjects were non-Hispanic whites. The distributions of age, sex, and selected risk factors for skin cancer of the case patients and control subjects are presented in Table 1. The age ranges (mean ± standard deviation) were 23–85 (57.7 ± 13.0) years for BCC case patients, 34–89 (62.5 ± 11.6) years for SCC case patients, 18–87 (51.0 ± 14.4) years for CMM case patients, and 23–87 years (53.9 ± 13.6) for the control subjects. The proportion of men was higher in both SCC (85.2%) and BCC (60.8%) groups than in control subjects (48.0%) and the CMM group (47.9%) (Table 1). The differences in distribution were adjusted for in the multivariable analyses.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1.  Distribution of selected known risk factors between patients with skin cancer and control subjects and logistic regression analysis*

 
In the multivariable logistic regression analysis with adjustment for age and sex, we found that hair color, eye color, skin color, tanning ability, number of sunburns, freckling, dysplastic nevi, and family history of skin cancer were associated with statistically significantly increased risks for BCC (except for dysplastic nevi), SCC (except for hair color, eye color, freckling, and dysplastic nevi), and CMM (except for family history of skin cancer) (Table 1). For example, the most pronounced risk factors for BCC were freckling (OR = 2.55, 95% CI = 1.67 to 3.90) and family history of skin cancer (OR = 2.54, 95% CI = 1.60 to 4.03); those for SCC were family history of skin cancer (OR = 2.80, 95% CI = 1.51 to 5.19) and poor tanning ability (OR = 2.77, 95% CI = 1.58 to 4.85); and those for CMM were dysplastic nevi (OR = 5.41, 95% CI = 2.52 to 11.6) and one or more sunburns (OR = 2.43, 95% CI = 1.66 to 3.54). These known risk factors were statistically correlated with each other, as expected. For example, in control subjects, hair color was highly correlated with eye color (r = .267, P<.001), skin color (r = .208, P<.001), tanning ability (r = .150, P = .007), number of sunburns (r = .150, P = .007), and freckling in the sun (r = .194, P<.001). Overall, these data indicate that these known risk factors played a role in the development of sporadic skin cancer in this study population.

The mean spontaneous chromatid breaks per cell value derived from 50 metaphase of nonirradiated cells was 0.02 (29,39), which was less than 1/10 the frequency in UV-irradiated cells (0.28 on average in the control subjects). Therefore, we used only UV-induced chromatid breaks per cell for statistical comparisons, as recommended (40). Because there were no statistically significant differences in UV-B sensitivity, as measured by UV-induced chromatid breaks, between case patients with and without previous NMSC (60 and 83 BCC case patients, P = .738; 41 and 47 SCC case patients, P = .748; 21 and 217 CMM case patients, P = .165) (data not shown), we did not perform a separate analysis of patients with a history of NMSC.

Univariate analysis of UV-induced mutagen sensitivity revealed that the median values of chromatid breaks per cell were 0.32 (range = 0.04 to 0.92) for patients with BCC, 0.32 (range = 0.08 to 0.86) for patients with SCC, 0.28 (range = 0.06 to 1.44) for patients with CMM, and 0.24 (range = 0.02 to 1.00) for the control subjects. The mean values of chromatid breaks per cell were 0.36 (95% CI = 0.33 to 0.39) for patients with BCC, 0.35 (95% CI = 0.32 to 0.38) for patients with SCC, 0.30 (95% CI = 0.28 to 0.33) for patients with CMM, and 0.28 (95% CI = 0.27 to 0.30) for the control subjects (Table 2). Because the medians and means were similar, the results of both log-transformed and untransformed data were also similar (data not shown). Therefore, we present the results of the untransformed data only. Compared with the frequency of UV-B-induced chromatid breaks in the control subjects, those in both BCC and SCC case patients were statistically significantly higher (P =.001 and P<.001, respectively), but those in CMM case patients were not higher (P = .22) (Table 2). Among these groups, there was no difference in the means of UV-induced chromatid breaks between BCC and SCC (mean ± standard deviation = 0.36 ± 0.17 versus 0.35 ± 0.14 breaks per cell; P = .64), but both were statistically significantly higher than that of CMM (0.30 ± 0.19 breaks per cell) (P = .002 and .025, respectively).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2.  Comparison of differences in chromatid breaks per cell induced by UV-B between patients with skin cancer and control subjects*

 
When participants were stratified by age, sex, and selected known risk factors, the mean value for frequency of UV-induced chromatid breaks per cell remained statistically significantly higher in both BCC and SCC case patients than in the control subjects for most subgroups (Table 2). Only for BCC patients with no lifetime sunburns or dysplastic nevi and for female SCC patients or SCC patients with blond or red hair, good tanning ability, or freckling were the values similar to those in the control subjects. No statistically significant differences in mutagen sensitivity were found among CMM patients stratified for these variables (Table 2). Also, the mean UV-induced chromatid breaks per cell in the 92 CMM patients (mean = 0.29 breaks per cell, 95% CI = 0.25 to 0.34) with invasive melanomas was not statistically different from that of the 146 CMM patients (mean = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.28 to 0.34) with noninvasive melanomas (i.e., 10 lentigo, 16 in situ, and 120 superficial) (P = .46).

We then performed multivariable logistic regression analyses to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals with adjustment only for age and sex to avoid attrition due to missing data for selected risk factors. Mutagen sensitivity values were fitted in the logistic regression model as either continuous or categorical variables. We found that risk associated with an increment of 0.1 chromatid breaks per cell value was 1.28 (95% CI = 1.14 to 1.44) for BCC, 1.30 (95% CI = 1.11 to 1.53) for SCC, and 1.06 (95% CI = 0.97 to 1.17) for CMM, after adjustment for age and sex (Table 3). Using the median frequency value of chromatid breaks per cell of the control subjects as the cutoff point, high chromatid breaks per cell values were associated with a nearly threefold increased risk for both BCC (OR = 2.78, 95% CI = 1.79 to 4.30) and SCC (OR = 2.62, 95% CI = 1.50 to 4.60) but were not associated with an increase in CMM (OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.73) (Table 3).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3.  Logistic regression analysis of chromatid breaks per cell in patients with skin cancer and cancer-free control subjects

 
To further evaluate the trend of increasing risk associated with increasing number of chromatid breaks, we grouped the patients into quartiles according to frequency of chromatid breaks per cell of the control subjects. We found that, as the chromatid breaks per cell values increased, the odds ratios for both BCC and SCC increased but those for CMM did not. Specifically, compared with the lowest control quartile, higher frequencies of chromatid breaks per cell were associated with increased risk in a dose-dependent fashion for both BCC and SCC; however, this trend was not evident for CMM (Table 3).

Next, we included all the risk factors in the multivariable logistic regression model for those subjects who had provided complete information (i.e., 117 BCC patients, 65 SCC patients, 215 CMM patients, and 277 control subjects). With simultaneous adjustment for all variables listed in Table 1, we found that statistically significantly increased risk for BCC was associated with fair skin (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.05 to 3.06), freckling in the sun (OR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.09 to 3.26), and family history of skin cancer (OR = 2.80, 95% CI = 1.57 to 4.99); for SCC was associated with lifetime sunburns with blistering (OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 0.96 to 4.77) and family history of skin cancer (OR = 4.66, 95% CI = 2.09 to 10.4); and for CMM was associated with blond or red hair (OR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.09 to 2.67), poor tanning ability (OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.13 to 2.70), and dysplastic nevi (OR = 6.57, 95% CI = 2.86 to 15.1) (Table 4). More importantly, independent of these variables, risks associated with increased UVB-induced chromatid breaks per cell values were not substantially changed (OR = 3.28, 95% CI = 1.94 to 5.54 for BCC; OR = 3.14, 95% CI = 1.55 to 6.37 for SCC; OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.82 for CMM) (Table 4).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 4.  Multivariable logistic regression analysis of associations between the frequency of UVB-induced chromosome breaks and risk for BCC, SCC, and CMM*

 
Finally, we assessed possible interactions (or effect modifications) between UVB-induced chromatid breaks and each of the selected risk factors in multivariable logistic regression models. The hypotheses of additive and multiplicative interactions were tested when we included the interaction (or cross-product) terms (i.e., dichotomized mutagen sensitivity X each risk factor) in the multivariable logistic regression models that included age, sex, main effect of mutagen sensitivity, and corresponding selected risk factor. A departure from the multiplicative model is indicated if the odds ratio for the interactive term is greater than 1, and there was evidence of multiplicative interactions for mutagen sensitivity and lifetime sunburn in BCC (ORint = 2.86, 95% CIint = 1.13 to 7.29; Pint = .03), mutagen sensitivity and hair color in SCC (ORint = 9.65, 95% CIint = 1.69 to 55.0; Pint = .01), mutagen sensitivity and tanning ability in SCC (ORint = 8.76, 95% CIint = 2.25 to 34.1; Pint = .002), and mutagen sensitivity and family history of skin cancer in SCC (ORint = 4.02, 95% CIint = 1.01 to 16.0; Pint = .05) (Table 5, but ORs and CIs not shown). The more-than-multiplicative interactions between mutagen sensitivity and other risk factors were more pronounced in NMSC than in CMM, but none was statistically significant. However, the results of the trend tests were statistically significant for all strata combined except for family history of skin cancer in CMM (Table 5). All hypotheses that failed to reject a multiplicative model also fit an additive model, as assessed by the 95% confidence bounds, and the following pairs of variables were beyond the bounds, suggesting a possibility of more than additive effect: hair color and mutagen sensitivity, skin color and mutagen sensitivity, freckling and mutagen sensitivity, and family history and mutagen sensitivity for BCC; lifetime sunburns and mutagen sensitivity and freckling and mutagen sensitivity for SCC; and none for CMM.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 5.  Multivariable logistic regression analysis of interactions between the frequency of UVB-induced chromosome breaks (mutagen sensitivity) and sun exposure variables for BCC, SCC, and CMM

 

    DISCUSSION
 Top
 Notes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Our findings suggest that NMSC and CMM have different etiologic factors in addition to UV exposure. Although known sunlight-related risk factors were associated with risk of both NMSC and CMM in this study population, we found that UV-induced mutagen sensitivity was an independent risk factor for NMSC (i.e., BCC and SCC) but not for CMM. Patients with BCC and SCC had a higher frequency of UVB-induced chromatid breaks than control subjects and CMM patients, for whom the frequencies were similar, and a dose–response relationship was observed between mutagen sensitivity and risk for both BCC and SCC. Overall, we observed 62 BCC cases and 29 SCC cases among the 25% of subjects (n = 472 and n = 417, respectively) with the highest mutagen sensitivity (>0.36 chromatid breaks per cell) and 20 BCC cases and three SCC cases among the 25% of subjects (n = 472 and n = 417, respectively) with the lowest (≤0.16 chromatid breaks per cell). In contrast, we observed 60 CMM cases among the 25% of subjects (n = 567) with the highest mutagen sensitivity and 63 CMM cases among the 25% of subjects (n = 567) with the lowest. Also, multiplicative interactions between mutagen sensitivity and UV exposure variables on risk were observed for NMSC but not for CMM patients.

Although mutagen sensitivity was measured in peripheral lymphocytes rather than in tumor and skin tissue, it has been demonstrated that high susceptibility to induced chromatid breaks has a genetic basis (26). Furthermore, spontaneous DNA breaks and those induced by mutagens or carcinogens in lymphocytes that lead to chromosome aberrations are relevant to cutaneous carcinogenesis (36,41). In XP patients, for example, with a genetically determined defect in DNA repair and a high sensitivity to UV-induced chromosomal aberrations, risk of NMSC and CMM is extraordinarily high. However, XP patients have a much higher incidence of NMSC than CMM in their lifetime (913), suggesting that factors other than impaired DNA repair contribute to CMM in XP patients (10).

There is ample evidence that UV-radiation is associated with risk of developing NMSC and CMM in the general population (38), but the relationships between sun exposure and incidence of BCC, SCC, and CMM appear to be different. That is, risk of BCC is associated with intermittent sun exposure, but beyond a certain level, the risk does not increase as sun exposure increases (5,42), suggesting that genetic predisposition is responsible for the early onset of BCC in the low-dose exposure range (14,15). In contrast, risk of SCC is associated with total accumulated sun exposure without any threshold (5,43,44). Finally, risk of CMM is strongly associated with intermittent sun exposure, particularly that occurring in early age (45), but not with ambient solar erythemal UV radiation (mainly UV-B) (5).

It has also been shown that, in keratinocytes, low doses of UV-B can enhance DNA repair but higher doses can reduce it (46), possibly due to elimination of cells with an excess of DNA damage by apoptosis. The higher levels of chromatid breaks induced by nonlethal UV-B doses in lymphocytes from patients with BCC and SCC than in control subjects that we observed in this study provide further evidence that UV-induced chromosomal aberrations may also be involved in sunlight-related BCC and SCC. Melanocytes, the cells that give rise to CMM, are more resistant to the lethal effects of UV than keratinocytes, possibly due to resistance to apoptosis, and therefore they are more likely to survive with mutations resulting from unrepaired DNA damage (47), which may increase the probability of carcinogenesis in later life as a result of intermittent sunlight exposure at a young age (45). However, the lymphocytes from CMM patients were more resistant to the nonlethal UV-B dose used in this study than those from NMSC patients, suggesting that the UV-induced chromosomal aberrations play a lesser role in sunlight-related CMM.

Although the frequency of UV-induced chromosomal aberrations may be determined by cellular DNA repair capacity, as suggested in the XP patients (10), there are no reported data to suggest that this is the case in the general population. Several studies have investigated the association between DNA repair capacity and risk of skin cancer in the general population with a host cell reactivation assay (1418,48,49), but there are few studies that have investigated the role of UV-induced chromosomal aberrations in the etiology of skin cancer in the general population. Au et al. (50,51) reported that three patients with epidermodysplasia verruciformis, who are prone to developing skin cancer, were sensitive to UV light, as characterized by a high frequency of induced chromosome aberrations. An early study of cell lines that were derived from patients with melanoma and a family history of multiple primary melanomas in several generations showed an increased sensitivity to UV light and inhibition of DNA replication (52). Another study tested for chromosomal instability in patients with CMM (53) and found that the numbers of UV-induced micronuclei and sister chromatid exchanges were high, particularly in familial case patients, and were in a range similar to that found in XP heterozygotes. Sanford et al. (54) found that high sensitivity of lymphocytes to x-ray radiation was associated with hereditary dysplastic nevi with or without melanoma and with sporadic dysplastic nevi or sporadic melanoma. In a smaller study, patients with both CMM and dysplastic nevus syndrome had a statistically significantly lower mean chromatid breaks per cell value than patients with CMM only, suggesting that different genetic factors are involved in the etiology of CMM with and without dysplastic nevus syndrome (55). Although these studies were small, the results appeared to support the role of UV sensitivity in the etiology of CMM.

However, in this large study of 238 CMM case patients and 329 control subjects, we found no evidence that an increased risk of CMM is associated with higher UVB-induced chromatid breaks per cell values (adjusted OR = 1.24; 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.73). Our finding suggests that UVB-induced chromosomal aberrations do not play a major role in the etiology of sporadic CMM and indirectly supports the finding of Setlow et al. (56) that UV light at wavelengths higher than 320 nm are more important than UV light at lower wavelengths in the development of sun exposure–related CMM. Our finding is also consistent with the fact that UV-induced signature mutations are often found in NMSC (57,58) but not in CMM (59).

Furthermore, we found some evidence for gene–environment interaction between known risk factors and mutagen sensitivity in NMSC but not in CMM. We were interested in interactions exceeding a multiplicative relationship because these indicate potential combinations of risk factors that may be of value for identifying individuals at particularly high risk of developing skin cancer. Departure from an additive model may suggest that the factors affect different pathways, whereas factors in the same pathway may act jointly, increasing risk in a multiplicative fashion. Interestingly, most of the positive multiplicative interactions were observed for SCC. For example, high sensitivity to UV, as measured by the induction of chromatid breaks, interacted with hair color, tanning ability, and family history of skin cancer in SCC but interacted only with lifetime sunburns in BCC. Based on the reported incidence rates (5) and the mutagen sensitivity data of this study, it appears that sunlight exposure may weight less and that genetically impaired DNA repair may weight more on the occurrence of BCC (14,15). This supposition suggests that mutagen sensitivity is an independent risk factor for NMSC, because more-than-additive interactive effects were more commonly observed between mutagen sensitivity and other risk factors, such as hair color, skin color, freckling, and family history. In contrast, sunlight exposure may weight more on the occurrence of SCC (5) (also as indicated by higher risks associated with both tanning ability and lifetime sunburns and sensitivity to UV-induced chromatid breaks), but mutagen sensitivity may weight less. It remains unclear whether sunlight exposure or mutagen sensitivity may have played a role in the development of CMM, although it is clear that suboptimal DNA repair is associated with an increased risk of CMM in this study population (17).

The study has several potential limitations. Whether mutagen sensitivity measured in lymphocytes is a valid marker of UV-induced DNA damage of normal cells in the target tissue remains to be determined. Cloos et al. (60) compared the number of bleomycin-induced chromatid breaks in peripheral blood lymphocytes, oral fibroblasts, and oral keratinocytes from 30 people and found that keratinocytes were more sensitive than fibroblasts to environmental factors related to cancer risk. For skin cancer, the target tissue may also be influenced by exposure to environmental factors other than sunlight, making it difficult to determine the genetic factors involved in its etiology. Another limitation results from the study design. In our hospital case–control design, the control subjects were visitors to the hospital rather than patients, and they may not come from the same residential areas as the case patients (61). Also, some uncontrolled confounders could link to genetic factors that may be the underlying determinants of mutagen sensitivity. However, we had excluded any control subjects who were related to the case patients, and thus the possible link of mutagen sensitivity to family history should have been eliminated.

The study also has several strengths. Because all blood samples were collected before any chemotherapy or radiotherapy, the measurement of mutagen sensitivity could not have been affected by these factors. Furthermore, lymphocytes are not directly exposed to UV from the sun, so they should be useful surrogates for measuring inherent sensitivity to UV-induced chromatid breaks for the skin or the target tissue. All slides were read by only one cytogeneticist. Thus, possible personal variation in the measurements was reduced to the minimum. As a phenotype marker, the mutagen sensitivity represents the outcome of many different pathways that may have been involved in DNA damage and repair in response to UV irradiation. Because CMM is a rare disease and is clinically apparent soon after development, it is likely that there were no or nearly no prevalent undetected case patients among the control subjects.

In summary, in this hospital-based case–control study, we found that the frequency of UV-B–induced chromatid breaks was statistically significantly higher in NMSC (i.e., BCC and SCC) patients than in control subjects but was the same in CMM patients and control subjects. A higher frequency of chromatid breaks was associated with a more than twofold increased risk for both BCC and SCC, and a dose–response relationship was found between mutagen sensitivity and risk for both BCC and SCC. There was evidence of multiplicative interactions between mutagen sensitivity and selected variables on risk for NMSC but not for CMM, particularly for mutagen sensitivity with sunburn in BCC and mutagen sensitivity with hair color, tanning ability, and family history of skin cancer in SCC. These findings suggest that in vitro UVB-induced mutagen sensitivity reflects susceptibility to NMSC but not CMM. However, because of the inherent selection bias of subjects in this hospital-based case–control study, the findings need further validation by prospective studies. Also, properties of the mutagen sensitivity assay after optimal long-term storage should be investigated to make it feasible for prospective studies.


    NOTES
 Top
 Notes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Supported by the National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute grants R01 CA 100264 (Q. Wei), P01 CA 68233 (G. L. Clayman), P50 CA 093459 (E. A. Grimm), and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences grant R01 ES11740 (Q. Wei).

We thank Zhaozheng Guo, Yawei Qiao, Jianzhong He, and Kejing Xu for laboratory assistance; Xiangjun Gu for his assistance in statistical analysis; Betty Jean Larson and Joanne Sider for assistance in preparing the manuscript; and Ann Sutton for scientific editing.


    REFERENCES
 Top
 Notes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

(1) Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, Samuels A, Tiwari RC, Ghafoor A, et al. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:10–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(2) Clegg LX, Feuer EJ, Midthune DN, Fay MP, Hankey BF. Impact of reporting delay and reporting error on cancer incidence rates and trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1537–45.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(3) Strom SS, Yamamura Y. Epidemiology of nonmelanoma skin cancer. Clin Plast Surg 1997;24:627–36.[ISI][Medline]

(4) Armstrong BK, Kricker A, English DR. Sun exposure and skin cancer. Australas J Dermatol 1997;38 Suppl 1:S1–6.[Medline]

(5) Armstrong BK, Kricker A. The epidemiology of UV induced skin cancer. J Photochem Photobiol B 2001;63:8–18.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(6) Diepgen TL, Mahler V. The epidemiology of skin cancer. Br J Dermatol 2002;146 Suppl 61:1–6.[Medline]

(7) Elwood JM, Jopson J. Melanoma and sun exposure: an overview of published studies. Int J Cancer 1997;73:198–203.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(8) English DR, Armstrong BK, Kricker A, Fleming C. Sunlight and cancer. Cancer Causes Control 1997;8:271–83.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(9) Kraemer KH, Lee MM, Scotto J. DNA repair protects against cutaneous and internal neoplasia: evidence from xeroderma pigmentosum. Carcinogenesis 1984;5:511–4.[ISI][Medline]

(10) Kraemer KH, Lee MM, Andrews AD, Lambert WC. The role of sunlight and DNA repair in melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer. The xeroderma pigmentosum paradigm. Arch Dermatol 1994;130:1018–21.[Abstract]

(11) Lambert WC, Kuo HR, Lambert MW. Xeroderma pigmentosum. Dermatol Clin 1995;13:169–209.[ISI][Medline]

(12) Sarasin A, Stary A. Human cancer and DNA repair-deficient diseases. Cancer Detect Prev 1997;21:406–11.[ISI][Medline]

(13) Norgauer J, Idzko M, Panther E, Hellstern O, Herouy Y. Xeroderma pigmentosum. Eur J Dermatol 2003;13:4–9.[ISI][Medline]

(14) Wei Q, Matanoski GM, Farmer ER, Hedayati MA, Grossman L. DNA repair and aging in basal cell carcinoma: a molecular epidemiology study. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1993;90:1614–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(15) Wei Q, Matanoski GM, Farmer ER, Hedayati MA, Grossman L. DNA repair and susceptibility to skin cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1994;140:598–607.[Abstract]

(16) Wei Q, Matanoski GM, Farmer ER, Hedayati MA, Grossman L. DNA repair related to multiple skin cancers and drug use. Cancer Res 1994;54:437–40.[Abstract]

(17) Wei Q, Lee JE, Gershenwald JE, Ross MI, Mansfield PF, Strom SS, et al. Repair of UV light-induced DNA damage and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:308–15.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(18) Matta JL, Villa JL, Ramos JM, Sanchez J, Chompre G, Ruiz A, et al. DNA repair and nonmelanoma skin cancer in Puerto Rican populations. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003;49:433–9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(19) Cherry LM, Hsu TC. Bleomycin-induced chromosome damage in lymphocytes of medullary thyroid carcinoma patients and their family members. Anticancer Res 1983;3:367–72.[ISI][Medline]

(20) Spitz MR, Fueger JJ, Beddingfield NA, Annegers JF, Hsu TC, Newell GR, et al. Chromosome sensitivity to bleomycin-induced mutagenesis, an independent risk factor for upper aerodigestive tract cancers. Cancer Res 1989;49:4626–8.[Abstract]

(21) Spitz MR, Hsu TC, Wu X, Fueger JJ, Amos CI, Roth JA. Mutagen sensitivity as a biological marker of lung cancer risk in African Americans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1995;4:99–103.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(22) Cloos J, Spitz MR, Schantz SP, Hsu TC, Zhang ZF, Tobi H, et al. Genetic susceptibility to head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:530–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(23) Fireman Z, Shabtai F, Lurie B. Chromosome sensitivity to bleomycin-induced mutagenesis in lymphocytes from colorectal cancer patients under 40 years of age. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:1317–20.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(24) Ankathil R, Jyothish B, Madhavan J, Nair MK. Deficient DNA repair capacity: a predisposing factor and high risk predictive marker in familial colorectal cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 1999;18:33–7.[ISI][Medline]

(25) Cloos J, Nieuwenhuis EJ, Boomsma DI, Kuik DJ, van der Sterre ML, Arwert F, et al. Inherited susceptibility to bleomycin-induced chromatid breaks in cultured peripheral blood lymphocytes. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1125–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(26) Tedeschi B, Cicchetti R, Argentin G, Caporossi D, Pittaluga M, Parisi P, et al. Aphidicolin and bleomycin induced chromosome damage as biomarker of mutagen sensitivity: a twin study. Mutat Res 2004;546:55–64.[ISI][Medline]

(27) Hsu TC, Spitz MR, Schantz SP. Mutagen sensitivity: a biological marker of cancer susceptibility. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1991;1:83–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(28) Spitz MR, Hsu TC. Mutagen sensitivity as a marker of cancer risk. Cancer Detect Prev 1994;18:299–303.[ISI][Medline]

(29) Wei Q, Gu J, Cheng L, Bondy ML, Jiang H, Hong WK, et al. Benzo(a)pyrene diol epoxide-induced chromosomal aberrations and risk of lung cancer. Cancer Res 1996;56:3975–9.[Abstract]

(30) Wang LE, Sturgis EM, Eicher SA, Spitz MR, Hong WK, Wei Q. Mutagen sensitivity to benzo(a)pyrene diol epoxide and the risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Clin Cancer Res 1998;4:1773–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(31) Xiong P, Bondy ML, Li D, Shen H, Wang LE, Singletary SE, et al. Sensitivity to benzo(a)pyrene diol-epoxide associated with risk of breast cancer in young women and modulation by glutathione S-transferase polymorphisms: a case-control study. Cancer Res 2001;61:8465–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(32) Bondy ML, Kyritsis AP, Gu J, de Andrade M, Cunningham J, Levin VA, et al. Mutagen sensitivity and risk of gliomas: a case-control analysis. Cancer Res 1996;56:1484–6.[Abstract]

(33) Bondy ML, Wang LE, El-Zein R, de Andrade M, Selvan MS, Bruner JM, et al. Gamma-radiation sensitivity and risk of glioma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1553–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(34) Brash DE, Rudolph JA, Simon JA, Lin A, McKenna GJ, et al. A role for sunlight in skin cancer: UV-induced p53 mutations in squamous cell carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1991;88:10124–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(35) Stege H. Effect of xenogenic repair enzymes on photoimmunology and photocarcinogenesis. J Photochem Photobiol B 2001;65:105–8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(36) Wei Q, Spitz MR, Gu J, Cheng L, Xu X, Strom SS, et al. DNA repair capacity correlates with mutagen sensitivity in lymphoblastoid cell lines. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1996;5:199–204.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(37) Lee JJ, Trizna Z, Hsu TC, Spitz MR, Hong WK. A statistical analysis of the reliability and classification error in application of the mutagen sensitivity assay. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1996;5:191–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(38) Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H. Epidemiologic research: principles and quantitative methods. Delmont (CA): Lifetime Learning Publications; 1982. p. 150.

(39) Wang LE, Bondy ML, de Andrade M, Strom SS, Wang X, Sigurdson A, et al. Gender difference in smoking effect on chromosome sensitivity to gamma radiation in a healthy population. Radiat Res 2000;154:20–7.[ISI][Medline]

(40) Hsu TC, Johnston DA, Cherry LM, Ramkissoon D, Schantz SP, Jessup JM, et al. Sensitivity to genotoxic effects of bleomycin in humans: possible relationship to environmental carcinogenesis. Int J Cancer 1989;43:403–9.[ISI][Medline]

(41) Lanza A, Lagomarsini P, Casati A, Ghetti P, Stefanini M. Chromosomal fragility in the cancer-prone disease xeroderma pigmentosum preferentially involves bands relevant for cutaneous carcinogenesis. Int J Cancer 1997;74:654–63.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(42) Kricker A, Armstrong BK, English DR, Heenan PJ. A dose-response curve for sun exposure and basal cell carcinoma. Int J Cancer 1995;60:482–8.[ISI][Medline]

(43) Rosso S, Zanetti R, Martinez C, Tormo MJ, Schraub S, Sancho-Garnier H, et al. The multicentre south European study ‘Helios’. II: Different sun exposure patterns in the aetiology of basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas of the skin. Br J Cancer 1996;73:1447–54.[ISI][Medline]

(44) English DR, Armstrong BK, Kricker A, Winter MG, Heenan PJ, Randell PL. Case-control study of sun exposure and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. Int J Cancer 1998;77:347–53.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(45) Solomon CC, White E, Kristal AR, Vaughan T. Melanoma and lifetime UV radiation. Cancer Causes Control 2004;15:893–902.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(46) Maeda T, Chua PP, Chong MT, Sim AB, Nikaido O, Tron VA. Nucleotide excision repair genes are upregulated by low-dose artificial ultraviolet B: evidence of a photoprotective SOS response? J Invest Dermatol 2001;117:1490–7.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(47) de Leeuw SM, Janssen S, Simons JW, Lohman PH, Vermeer BJ, Schothorst AA. UV action spectrum for the clone-forming ability of cultured human melanocytes and keratinocytes. Photochem Photobiol 1994;59:430–6.[ISI][Medline]

(48) Landi MT, Baccarelli A, Tarone RE, Pesatori A, Tucker MA, Hedayati M, et al. DNA repair, dysplastic nevi, and sunlight sensitivity in the development of cutaneous malignant melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:94–101.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(49) Hall J, English DR, Artuso M, Armstrong BK, Winter M. DNA repair capacity as a risk factor for non-melanocytic skin cancer—a molecular epidemiological study. Int J Cancer 1994;58:179–84.[ISI][Medline]

(50) Au WW, Wilkinson GS, Tyring SK, Legator MS, El-Zein R, Hallberg L, et al. Monitoring populations for DNA repair deficiency and for cancer susceptibility. Environ Health Perspect 1996;104 Suppl 3:579–84.[ISI][Medline]

(51) El-Zein R, Shaw P, Tyring SK, Au WW. Chromosomal radiosensitivity of lymphocytes from skin cancer-prone patients. Mutat Res 1995;335:143–9.[ISI][Medline]

(52) Ramsay RG, Chen P, Imray FP, Kidson C, Lavin MF, Hockey A. Familial melanoma associated with dominant ultraviolet radiation sensitivity. Cancer Res 1982;42:2909–12.[Abstract]

(53) Rudiger HW, Breitbart E, Roser M, Weichenthal M, Frenzer S, Bielfeld V, et al. Studies on cultured fibroblasts from patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma. Acta Univ Carol [Med] (Praha) 1992;38:67–74.[Medline]

(54) Sanford KK, Parshad R, Price FM, Tarone RE, Thompson J, Guerry D. Radiation-induced chromatid breaks and DNA repair in blood lymphocytes of patients with dysplastic nevi and/or cutaneous melanoma. J Invest Dermatol 1997;109:546–9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

(55) Cloos J, Willems EM, van Warmerdam JM, Braakhuis BJ, Snow GB, Meijer S. Mutagen sensitivity in common cutaneous malignant melanoma and dysplastic naevus syndrome. Melanoma Res 1999;9:292–6.[ISI][Medline]

(56) Setlow RB, Grist E, Thompson K, Woodhead AD. Wavelengths effective in induction of malignant melanoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1993;90:6666–70.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(57) Ziegler A, Leffell DJ, Kunala S, Sharma HW, Gailani M, Simon JA, et al. Mutation hotspots due to sunlight in the p53 gene of nonmelanoma skin cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1993;90:4216–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(58) Bolshakov S, Walker CM, Strom SS, Selvan MS, Clayman GL, El-Naggar A, et al. p53 mutations in human aggressive and nonaggressive basal and squamous cell carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:228–34.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(59) Brash DE, Ponten J. Skin precancer. Cancer Surv 1998;32:69–113.[ISI][Medline]

(60) Cloos J, Reid CB, van der Sterre ML, Tobi H, Leemans CR, Snow GB, et al. A comparison of bleomycin-induced damage in lymphocytes and primary oral fibroblasts and keratinocytes in 30 subjects. Mutagenesis 1999;14:87–93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(61) Armenian HK, Lakkis NG, Sibai AM, Halabi SS. Hospital visitors as controls. Am J Epidemiol 1988;127:404–6.[ISI][Medline]

Manuscript received June 6, 2005; revised September 7, 2005; accepted November 7, 2005.



             
Copyright © 2005 Oxford University Press (unless otherwise stated)
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement