Sunscreens - Which and what for?

It is well established that sun exposure is the main cause for the development of skin cancer. Chronic continuous UV radiation is believed to induce malignant melanoma, whereas intermittent high-dose UV exposure contributes to the occurrence of actinic keratosis as precursor lesions of squamous cell carcinoma as well as basal cell carcinoma. Not only photocarcinogenesis but also the mechanisms of photoaging have recently become apparent. In this respect the use of sunscreens seemed to prove to be more and more important and popular within the last decades. However, there is still inconsistency about the usefulness of sunscreens. Several studies show that inadequate use and incomplete UV spectrum efficacy may compromise protection more than previously expected. The sunscreen market is crowded by numerous products. Inorganic sunscreens such as zinc oxide and titanium oxide have a wide spectral range of activity compared to most of the organic sunscreen products. It is not uncommon for organic sunscreens to cause photocontact allergy, but their cosmetic acceptability is still superior to the one given by inorganic sunscreens. Recently, modern galenic approaches such as micronization and encapsulation allow the development of high-quality inorganic sunscreens. The potential systemic toxicity of organic sunscreens has lately primarily been discussed controversially in public, and several studies show contradictory results. Although a matter of debate, at present the sun protection factor (SPF) is the most reliable information for the consumer as a measure of sunscreen filter efficacy. In this context additional tests have been introduced for the evaluation of not only the protective effect against erythema but also protection against UV-induced immunological and mutational effects. Recently, combinations of UV filters with agents active in DNA repair have been introduced in order to improve photoprotection. This article reviews the efficacy of sunscreens in the prevention of epithelial and nonepithelial skin cancer, the effect on immunosuppression and the value of the SPF as well as new developments on the sunscreen market. Copyright (C) 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel

Inhibitory effect on expression of angiogenic factors by antiangiogenic agents in renal cell carcinoma

Since it has been widely recognised that renal cell carcinoma is refractory to standard therapies such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy, a new modality of treatment is needed. One of the potential alternative therapies for renal cell carcinoma may be inhibition of angiogenesis. In this study, we analysed the inhibitory effects of several potential agents on expression of angiogenic factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor, which are the main mediators in angiogenesis of renal cell carcinoma. We used medroxyprogesterone acetate, interferon-alpha, interferon-gamma, minocycline hydrochrolide and genistein, which are known to be antiangiogeneic. Northern blot analyses revealed that, among the five agents examined, genistein had a strong inhibitory effect on expression of vascular endothelial growth factor mRNA and basic fibroblast growth factor mRNA. Medroxyprogesterone acetate and interferon-alpha did not significantly decrease the level of either vascular endothelial growth factor mRNA or basic fibroblast growth factor mRNA. Interferon-gamma and minocycline had mild inhibitory effects on vascular endothelial growth factor mRNA and basic fibroblast growth factor mRNA expression. Genistein also inhibited both vascular endothelial growth factor mRNA and basic fibroblast growth factor mRNA expression after treatment with epidermal growth factor and hypoxia. These findings suggest that one of the mechanisms of the inhibition of angiogenesis by genistein is suppression of the expression of the angiogenic factors vascular endothelial growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor in renal cell carcinoma

Joint effects of citrus peel use and black tea intake on the risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Differences in tea drinking habits and/or citrus peel use are likely to vary by populations and could contribute to the inconsistencies found between studies comparing their consumption and cancer risk.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A population-based case-control study was used to evaluate the relationships between citrus peel use and black tea intake and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the skin. Moreover, we assessed the independent and interactive effects of citrus peel and black tea in the development of SCC.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Hot and iced teas were consumed by 30.7% and 51.8% of the subjects, respectively. Peel consumption was reported by 34.5% of subjects. Controls were more likely than were cases to report citrus peel use (odds ratio (OR) = 0.67) and hot tea intake (OR = 0.79). After adjustment for hot and iced tea intake, the ORs associated with citrus peel use were 0.55 and 0.69, respectively, whereas the corresponding adjusted ORs for hot and iced tea intake after adjustment for citrus peel use were 0.87 and 1.22 respectively. Compared with those who did not consume hot black tea or citrus peel, the adjusted ORs associated with sole consumption of hot black tea or citrus peel were 0.60 and 0.30, respectively. Subjects who reported consumption of both hot black tea and citrus peel had a significant marked decrease (OR= 0.22; 95% CI = 0.10 – 0.51) risk of skin SCC.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These results indicate that both citrus peel use and strong (hot) black tea have independent potential protective effects in relation to skin SCC.</p