Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Biologic Treatment of Basal Cell Carcinoma

Biologic Treatment of Basal Cell Carcinoma 0.85), and having spent some time outdoors for an oc- sociated with intermittent exposure is less consistent but cupation held in recent adult life yielded an adjusted OR still suggestive, especially if UV radiation exposure oc- of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.99). Subgroup analysis con- curred during adolescence. firmed these results; no major risk differences were ob- The limitations of this study included accuracy, va- served by body site (trunk vs no trunk), by histological lidity, and appropriateness of UV radiation exposure in- diagnosis (although lentigo maligna melanoma was more dicators. Recall bias might have occurred as a result of strongly associated with intermittent exposure [ad- the long period of recall that was required to answer some justed OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.27 to 5.09]), by age at diag- of the questions. However, as the authors point out, mis- nosis (although more pronounced effects of beach vaca- classification is nondifferentiating, given that results are tion at age 12 years were observed for young people in opposing directions for continuous vs intermittent UV [adjusted OR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.85 to 7.06]), and by host radiation exposure. susceptibility (burners vs no burners). The authors also In conclusion, these results provide http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA Dermatology American Medical Association

Biologic Treatment of Basal Cell Carcinoma

Bavinck, Jan N. Bouwes
JAMA Dermatology , Volume 136 (6) – Jun 1, 2000
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/biologic-treatment-of-basal-cell-carcinoma-SEQjh1n78I

References (4)

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright 2000 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
2168-6068
eISSN
2168-6084
DOI
10.1001/archderm.136.6.774
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

0.85), and having spent some time outdoors for an oc- sociated with intermittent exposure is less consistent but cupation held in recent adult life yielded an adjusted OR still suggestive, especially if UV radiation exposure oc- of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.99). Subgroup analysis con- curred during adolescence. firmed these results; no major risk differences were ob- The limitations of this study included accuracy, va- served by body site (trunk vs no trunk), by histological lidity, and appropriateness of UV radiation exposure in- diagnosis (although lentigo maligna melanoma was more dicators. Recall bias might have occurred as a result of strongly associated with intermittent exposure [ad- the long period of recall that was required to answer some justed OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.27 to 5.09]), by age at diag- of the questions. However, as the authors point out, mis- nosis (although more pronounced effects of beach vaca- classification is nondifferentiating, given that results are tion at age 12 years were observed for young people in opposing directions for continuous vs intermittent UV [adjusted OR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.85 to 7.06]), and by host radiation exposure. susceptibility (burners vs no burners). The authors also In conclusion, these results provide

Journal

JAMA Dermatology – American Medical Association

Published: Jun 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.