Changing ambient UVR and future skin cancer in London, Rome and Helsinki: melanoma skin cancer (CMM)
[[Category: ]] --# : You should add at least one category. In this case, relevant categories are e.g. Intarese, UV, Climate change. --Jouni 18:54, 17 August 2011 (EEST)
This page is a assessment.
The page identifier is Op_en5333 |
|---|
| Moderator:iranjon_95 (see all) |
| This page is a stub. You may improve it into a full page, and then a rating bar will appear here. |
| Upload data
|
Add at least one category above.
Add moderator to the template above.
--# : The two lines above are instructions for the editor. You can remove them after reading. --Jouni 18:54, 17 August 2011 (EEST)
It is widely accepted that ambient UVR is carcinogenic (Lucas et al 2006). This assessment will focus on the impact on malignant melanoma skin cancer (CMM). ⇤# : Put the reference to the original source after the first paragraph. If the page is long, this reference should be repeated in every main block. For using the same reference several times on one page, see examples below. --Jouni 18:54, 17 August 2011 (EEST)
[1] This is how you write when you use the reference again.
The international mechanism for protecting the ozone layer is the “Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer” that came into force in 1989 and its subsequent amendments (UNEP 2006). The production of the most harmful ozone depleting substances (ODS) are now phased out worldwide. The atmospheric concentrations of these gases is anticipated to decline over the next decades (IPCC 2005). As a result stratospheric ozone is expected to increase and, subsequently, ambient UVR is anticipated to decrease. Hence, a decrease in melanoma skin cancer is expected, but other factors may play an important role as well such as the ageing of the population.
Scope
Description
We explore the effects of changing exposure to ambient ultraviolet radiation (UVR) on melanoma skin cancer, accounting for the recovery of the ozone layer due to decreasing emission of ODS and future emissions of CH4 and N20 (IPCC 2005). We also account for future demographic change
Scenario(s) and Type of Assessment
Type of assessment: prognostic.
UVR scenarios: IPCC (2000) SRES A2 and B1: future population & emissions/concentrations of ODS, CH4 and N2O.
SRES population scenarios were downscaled from the regional to the city-level.
| IPCC Senario | SRES-A2 | SRES-B1 |
|---|---|---|
| ODS Emission | Decreasing trend
Same B1 |
Decreasing trend
same as A2 |
| CH4 Emission | Higher Increase | Lower Increase |
| N2O Emission | Higher Increase | Lower Increase |
| Population | Higher Growth | Lower growth |
| Age Structure | Slower Aging | Higher Aging |
Geographical and temporal scope:
Study area(s): City of Helsinki, Greater London, City of Rome
Populations: 5-year age groups up to 85+; males/females
Timeframe: 2001, 2030, 2050
Environmental and health factors:
Source: emissions of ODS (decreasing), N2O (increasing) and CH4 (increasing) ,affecting ozone fields
Environmental hazard: ambient UVR (erythemal dose).
Other risk factor: age.
Health outcomes: melanoma skin cancer (CMM) incidence/mortality (rates)
Stakeholders:
| Stakeholder | Interest | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Health authorities, policy/decision makers and health promotion agencies | Healthy population | Issue recommendations on solar exposure |
| Health care providers | Disease prevention, treatment | Treatment and advice particularly to groups at risk |
| Societies (cancer, osteoporosis, etc) | Support member interests | Issue public information |
| Advocacy groups | Protecting vulnerable groups | Reduce health impacts related to UVR. |
| Researchers | Research | Further knowledge of UVR-related health effects |
Results
Main findings
[2]UVR exposure: UVR exposures are higher (and ozone recovery slower) in SRES-B1 compared to SRES-A2. The larger increase in ozone column in SRES-A2 can probably be explained by the higher abundance of CH4in this scenario.
Health impact model 1 only accounts for future change in population size and structure, without accounting for future changes in incidence and mortality rates. The growing and ageing population results in a future increase in skin cancer incidence/mortality in both scenarios. As population growth is highest in SRES-A2, the total number of cases and deaths is also higher in this scenario compared to SRES-B1. For Helsinki and London, skin cancer incidence and mortality rates in the total population, however, are higher in the SRES-B1 scenario compared to the results for SRES-A2; this can be explained by the faster ageing of the population in SRES-B1.
Health impact model 2 also accounts for the future recovery of the ozone layer. The modelling shows a decrease in age-specific skin cancer incidence rates due to the recovery of the ozone layer. As expected, skin cancer incidence/mortality (rates) are lower in model 2 compared to model 1. The SRES-B1 scenario (i.e. the alternative with the lower recovery of the ozone layer) has somewhat higher UVR levels and, consequently, higher age-specific incidence rates than SRES-A2.
Similar conclusions for model 1 and model 2 can be drawn for the DALY calculations.
The sensitivity analyses shows that the choices regarding the PAF(high estimate is 0.9; low estimate is 0.5) had a large influence (circa 44%) on the health outcomes. Hence for policy purposes, it might be recommended to present all results using both the high and low PAF estimates. Applying age weights and discounting simultaneously to the DALY calculations decreased the number of DALY’s with more than 46%. The choice regarding the imr showed a relative large effect on the outcomes (25% decrease in DALYs compared to standard setting). The sensitivity analyses also shows that the additive effect of an 1°C increase in summer temperature (Van der Leun et al 2008) in 2030 (compared to baseline) could outweigh the effect of the decreasing UVR levels on age-specific incidence and mortality rates.
Assessment Method
Appraisal
See also
--# : Add "Keywords" here. --Jouni 18:54, 17 August 2011 (EEST)
References
--# : add "Related files" (with mfiles template) here. --Jouni 18:54, 17 August 2011 (EEST)
--# : Overall, this looks good. You can remove my comments when you have made the corrections. --Jouni 18:54, 17 August 2011 (EEST)
