Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35664979›Full record

ReviewSkin health and disease2021

Sex disparity in skin carcinogenesis and potential influence of sex hormones.

V Collier, M Musicante, T Patel, F Liu-Smith

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Skin health and disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

V CollierKaplan-Amonette Department of Dermatology The University of Tennessee Health Science Center Memphis Tennessee USA.
M MusicanteCollege of Medicine University of Tennessee Health Science Center Memphis Tennessee USA.
T PatelKaplan-Amonette Department of Dermatology The University of Tennessee Health Science Center Memphis Tennessee USA.
F Liu-SmithKaplan-Amonette Department of Dermatology The University of Tennessee Health Science Center Memphis Tennessee USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3963-0651
University of Tennessee Health Science Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Sex or gender disparity in skin cancer has been documented for a long time at the population level. UV radiation (UVR) is a common environmental risk for all three major types of skin cancer: cutaneous melanoma (CM), basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The underlying mechanism for sex disparity has been largely attributed to sex-differentiated behaviour patterns related to UVR. Non-UVR factors such as intrinsic physiological differences have been suggested but remain understudied. Aims Materials and Methods: This review summarizes and compares the known sex differences in three skin cancer types with regard to body site distribution and age influence. Results: We found a similar age-dependent sex difference pattern in CM and BCC. Specifically, CM and BCC tend to show higher incidence in young women and old men, with a switching age around menopause. The switching age suggests involvement of sex hormones, which has shown controversial influence on skin cancers at epidemiological level. Literatures regarding sex hormone receptors for oestrogen, androgen and progesterone are summarized for potential explanations at molecular level. Discussion: Overall, more and more evidence suggests non-UVR factors such as sex hormones play critical roles in skin cancer (especially CM and BCC), yet solid population and molecular evidence are required. Incidences of skin cancer are increasing which suggests limited effect for the current UVR-avoidance prevention methods. Conclusion: Fully understanding the causes of sex disparities in incidence is necessary for developing a comprehensive prevention strategy.

Identifiers

PMID35664979
PMCPMC9060035
OpenAlexW3143810603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.