skin cancer/psoriasis/tanning/light therapy

[radiantquest]

I have moles and psoriasis. I tan for the psoriasis, but that creates a problem since I have moles which are high risk for skin cancer. There is no skin cancer in my family history, but I went to the derm yesterday to have a mole looked at and she decided that 3 needed removed right then. I dont know what to do. If I do the light therapy that she suggests I will have to spend an extra $160 a month plus drive 45 minutes away for the therapies 3 times a week. If I continue tanning it costs me $20 a month, it is less than 10 minutes from my house, but is bad for my moles. Can someone please chime in and give an opinion on what I should do?

 

[bebe]

Please don''t do the tanning beds.
I had a huge cancerous tumor removed from my scalp
a few months ago. It was classified as skin cancer (squamous)
but 2 different docs could not say for sure if it was from
sun damage or ???? I was not a big sun worshiper, but still
I got this - and who knows how and why.

I now wear heavy sunscreen and avoid the sun. It scares me to death.

Check out Skin Actives (Google it) for possible psoriasis help.

 

[abbyful]

I don''t know anything about psoriasis, but here''s my 2 cents on sun...

While I understand bebe''s fear due to their experience, I wouldn''t advise avoiding the sun altogether and wearing sunscreen 100% of the time. Sunlight has far more benefits versus risks; just don''t let yourself burn. Ideally one should get sunscreen-free sun for about 1/2 the time a day that it would take you to get ''pink'', and then apply sunscreen for time beyond that.

Studies have shown that avoiding the sun can give you even more risk for skin cancer (people that "always" wear sun screen have higher rates of cancer than those that "sometimes" or "never" wear sunscreen; and a study done on navy(?) members found that those working below-deck had more skin-cancer than those working above-deck).

Natural sun is better than a tanning bed, the ratio of UVA to UVB is different. Can you just go outside during the day for half an hour, or is the tanning therapy different somehow?

 

[stepcutnut]

I would ditto the thoughts on avoiding tanning beds altogether.

Have you ever tried a diet avoiding Gluten? For some people it works great! Good luck!!!

 

[radiantquest]

I have tried everything. The problem with using the sun is that the areas that have the psoriasis are well covered when wearing normal clothing. I cannot tan nude in my yard, but I can in the tanning bed. KWIM.

 

[monarch64]

Tan-thru swimsuit? That would solve the nudity in the yard issue.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

What a nasty situation.
I don''t have a lot of great recommendations, but I know a little about it as a friend was in a pilot study on psoriasis. Your two best bets from what I know is to either go to a doctor who has a special light for it or retenoids. The specialized lights have a very small, specific UV range that best targets psoriasis without putting the rest of your skin at risk.
The retinoids, which is escentially high vitamin A, helped my friend the most. One thing to be aware of; they make you more photo sensitive so if you do go that route, you have to protect your skin.

I have to respectfully disagree with abbyful. There are studies that show people that wear sunscreen are at higher risk for skin cancer, but that is because the people that wear sunscreen are often at a MUCH higher risk. I always wear sunscreen and my DH never does, but I am more like to get cancer because I am pale and my grandma died young from melenoma. However, if you compared people in the same risk group who do and do not wear sunscreen, those who wear it always come out a lot better.
1 in 5 people in the US will get skin cancer at sometime according to the CDC, you do not want to be one of them. Just make sure to wear full spectrum sunscreen.

 

[abbyful]

brazen_irish_hussy, vitamin D (which comes most efficiently/effectively from sunlight) actually helps to prevent cancer. Increased cancer risk comes from burning, not from moderate sun exposure (which is beneficial). Nearly all Americans are deficient in vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency also contributes to a range of other things as well: ranging from obesity to fibromyalgia to multiple sclerosis to diabetes to depression and more. And note that vitamin D from food/supplements is not the same as from sun; food/supplement vitamin D is D2, sun vitamin D is D3; while D2 is better than no vitamin D, D3 is ideal.

"The UV Advantage" by Dr. Michael Holick (Ph.D., M.D., and Professor of Medicine, Dermatology, Physiological, and Biophysics at Boston University Medical Center) is a good book on the benefits of sunlight.

 

[radiantquest]

Date: 5/21/2010 3:57:33 PM
Author: monarch64
Tan-thru swimsuit? That would solve the nudity in the yard issue.

Ah-ha! Never thought of that. What a wonderful idea. --I just looked and it seems that they are equivalent to spf 6. Isnt that the same as those oils you put on to get a tan.

BIH-I know that the specialists have lights for it. That is part of the issue because it is expensive and far away and she is recommending 3 times a week. Also I have tried everything else. They were even considering the shots.

Will suncreen not block the UVB rays?

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

There are 2 kinds of UV rays from the sun, UVA and UVB. UVA are longer wave lengths, so they get through glass and things UVB can''t. This makes them more damaging to the skin, but they don''t add a lot of color. UVB are shorter and don''t get as deep into the skin, so they usually cause less damage, but are what give people color from being in the sun.

SPF in sunscreen only tells you how much UVB rays are blocked, not UVA. Hence why some studies showing higher cancer risk among people who use sunscreen since they spend more time in the sun then they otherwise would are getting high UVA exposure. Legally, if they say "full spectrum" on them, then there is some UVA protection.

http://www.ewg.org/cosmetics/report/sunscreen09/findyoursunscreen?sunscreens=1&haz=g&eff=g
That site gives ratings on hundreds of sunscreens, with how much UVA, UVB and questionable ingredients each contains.

I am sorry for sounding preachy, of course you have tried everything. The sun through suit with sunscreen on areas that are not effected sounds like your best bet.

Good luck.

 

[abbyful]

Date: 5/22/2010 11:17:00 PM
Author: brazen_irish_hussy
There are 2 kinds of UV rays from the sun, UVA and UVB. UVA are longer wave lengths, so they get through glass and things UVB can''t. This makes them more damaging to the skin, but they don''t add a lot of color. UVB are shorter and don''t get as deep into the skin, so they usually cause less damage, but are what give people color from being in the sun.

SPF in sunscreen only tells you how much UVB rays are blocked, not UVA. Hence why some studies showing higher cancer risk among people who use sunscreen since they spend more time in the sun then they otherwise would are getting high UVA exposure.

I''m not saying "burn yourself to a crisp" or even "tan for hours on end as long as you don''t burn". I''m saying that getting some sun exposure each day is much much healthier than the sun-phobia approach; avoiding the sun and never going outside without sunscreen does more harm than good.

Skin cancer rates have *risen* as our sun exposure has decreased. And the less sun you get, the more likely you are to get and die from other cancers.

According to a study published in "Cancer" estimated that in 2002, insufficient sun exposure caused 85,000 cases of cancer and 30,000 cancer deaths more than there would have been if people would have gotten more sun exposure.

I suggest picking up that book by Dr. Holick.

 

[lizzyann]

Are you in a climate that gets sun year round? I am not, that is why I ask. This may sound silly, but could you wear sunscreen on non-psoriasis parts of your body in the tanning bed? This way you are only exposing your affected areas to the lights of the tanning bed. This way you still get the lights, without having to drive so far and pay so much.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

I didn''t want to threadjack, but I did want to respond.
I have read his book and at best it is misleading, at worst dangerous.
Do you know who the number one funder of his major studies is? The Indoor Tanning Association.
He is not an oncologist, and every medical medical organization that has oncologists says he is wrong, including those at Boston university medical, which is where he works and nearly had to leave because of his questionable work.
He uses longitudinal studies and self reporting surveys, which are notoriously inaccurate , to show a slight increase in cancer. Different altitudes, very diferent risk levels, not full spectrum sunscreen, not wearing enough sunscreen and realiying on people to be honest and accurate are just a few of the problems with these studies. Or his study where people in sunnier climates have lower occasions of some cancers, without regard to the dozens of other, more likely causes like diet, melanin regulation, etc. Also, there is not a single study of vitamin D''s effectiveness, just ones that might show that. The major, well designed study on that will not be out until 2014.
Yet he ignores the double blind placebo tests, the gold standard of science, which show massive reduction in cancer rates among people who wear sunscreen. These have people at the same altitute, same risk groups, not self reporting and they have proper sunscreen (full spectrum).
There is also the fact that only UVB makes vitamin D3, but over 98% of the UV rays that reach earth are UVA, so you are frying yourself for very little benefit. Now lets look at the requirements. It is easy to get enough from food. And despite what is claimed, the vast majority of vit D in milk in the US is actually D3 since the 2 companies that provides most of it only do D3. Given that a cup of milk has 100iu, 2 glasses a day are enough to fill the requirement. In fact, the decline in milk drinking is the most accepted cause of the rise in vitamin deficency, not sun avoidance. So I get 100iu from my cereal in the morning. If I eat a can of tuna, I get 235iu. I get 20iu from the egg I eat in my lunch every day. I get 400iu of D3from my daily multivitamin, So I am well within the 200-400iu reccomended for me.
Another issue is the recommended amount in blood. He claims you will not get toxicity from the sun because the body knows when it has the right amount, but in a study of Hawaiian surfers who did not protect their skin, their blood level was 78 OH(D) when he considers anything below 100 OH(D) deficient. So how do they get more sun than he recommends, equalize like he says they will, and are still deficient?

My skin has not seen the sun in 7 years. I mean I wear hats, long sleeves, avoid the middle of the day and wear full spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of at least 50, usually 90, even when I will just be in the car. My vitamin D was tested a month ago and it was in the high end of healthy. Believe me, even if vitamin D is the miracle he claims, there is still no reason to be out without protection.

 

[abbyful]

There have been many studies showing the benefits on sunlight. And yes, many oncologists are on board with the idea of getting a little bit of sun exposure too.

You cannot simply look at one tiny peice of the puzzle and decide that "sun is evil".

There are pros and cons with anything, from sunlight to driving a car to eating a meal.

And what about common sense? We humans evolved here on hearth with the sun shining on us. A little bit of sun exposure a few times a week isn't going to kill you.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0604d.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/7875140/
http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/SkinCancer/7888
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1127175/Top-cancer-doctor-says-SHOULD-sunbed-session.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL0720393220080107



And in case you haven't noticed, the scientific community often changes their mind. They'll get a little bit of information, say something is "bad", and then a few years later get more information about realize they were wrong. That egg you mentioned you eat every day, 15-20 years ago it would have been "unhealthy", today it's not. The egg hasn't changed, the scientists did. Same with butter/margarine, we were told that margarine was healthier than butter, now we know that's not true and it turns out butter was the healtheir optiono all along. At one point, scientists even said drinking coffee increased cancer risk, it was actually smoking and most smokers were coffee drinkers in their study.
New studies show the benefits of getting some "raw" sunlight outweight the risks. (And like I said, not burning and not tanning for hours; just getting a short time of "raw" sun a few times a week unproptected; and put sunscreen on after that if you're going to be in the sun for hours).

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

I am just going to have to agree to disagree with you. I am a grad student in osteology, so I have read the real studies, not the new clips, I do have some idea what I am talking about and I am telling you those studies show correlation, not causality, hence why MOST oncologists do not reccomend the exposure.

And yes, we have always been exposed to sun, but not with a giant hole in the ozone. And my skin is evolved for the overcast, sea level sun exposure of the British Isles, not the high altitude, 300+ days of sun of Colorado where I live.

Radient quest, if you are still reading, I thought I might also reccomend the clarisonic with the body brush. SDL had some skin issues she said it REALLY helped with.

 

[abbyful]

Yes, I agree we should just agree to disagree. (And yes, I have read the "real studies" too. I work at a hospital and have access to to several medical publication databases.)

 

[RaiKai]

Don't do tanning beds. Just please, please don't. I have known several young people who have had cancerous moles removed (and they were lucky to have caught them) from tanning beds, or just outdoor tanning. Some have visible scarring, and must always be cautious and aware of any skin changes. The chances of it recurring is quite high. If you have a lot of moles already....well...the risk is greater. Skin cancer runs deep...literally. What appears to be a small melanoma on the surface of the skin can be extremely deep and already have traveled to other parts of your body. I remember watching a story of a very young woman who died in her early 20's of skin cancer - she liked to tan and just did not believe the risks. She died after they tried several treatments...including amputation of a leg.

The light therapy IS more money and more travel...but a lot safer. I can empathize with your struggle with the psoriasis and I also know that tanning does seem to help it. I have a couple dear friends with severe cases of it, but skin cancer is not a better option. brazen has also provided some other suggestions.

While the sun does have some benefits for mood and health (as we can see by those who live in climates with a lack of sun - I have some friends and family on the West Coast of British Columbia who sound depressed most of the year and most have lights prescribed to them for home use) and I do love the sun - I really do believe that you need to be careful about your voluntary exposure, with unprotected skin, to the sun.

I am a very fair skinned woman. Think red hair and transparent skin. My family comes from the rainy and overcast parts of the British Isles and other areas....not from the sunny climate I live in...I can burn in less than 5 minutes where I do live! I AM at a much higher risk for skin cancer than say my DH who until he met me was not quite as vigilant about applying sunscreen (I never hassled him about it...but he tells me he is a lot better about it now!). So even with my applications I may be more likely to get it than he will....however at near 31 I have not had any scares myself yet.....whereas I know plenty of people with less sensitive skin who have.

I wear sunblock year round and I reapply often, whatever the SPF is (I wear between SPF30 and SPF60 depending on the time of year and what I am doing and so on). I also wear full-spectrum varieties now that they have them (I always check the mixtures to see what is in them as some stuff is better against UVA then others). However, I also live in one of the sunniest parts of the country so I get plenty of exposure even without trying, even during the long winter - as evidenced by my freckling (which also get darker during the summer despite my frequent sunblock applications!) and my matching sunny disposition (ha ha!). I am not sun-phobic...I tend to be pretty outdoorsy and physically active...but I AM sun-cautious. I wear hats, clothing that covers more than reveals, run in the early morning to avoid the peak sun-hours or days where the UV rating is high, and always wear sunblock and reapply it regularly. It does not block the rays 100% though so there will always be some exposure!

My mother often has told me of the days before they had sunblock...and she sure appreciated it when it came out when I was an infant!

 

[partgypsy]

Just curious radiantquest, what did your doctor suggest you do?