The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Risk of cutaneous melanoma in relation to the numbers, types and sites of naevi: a case-control study
Open accessAbstract
The atypical mole syndrome (AMS) phenotype, characterised by a large number of common naevi as well as atypical naevi, has been described in families with a genetic susceptibility to melanoma. However, the importance of this phenotype for melanoma in the general population has not been conclusively determined. This study was designed to examine the types and distribution of naevi as well as the prevalence of the AMS phenotype in melanoma patients in England compared with controls. A total of 426 cutaneous melanoma cases (61% of all incident cases) aged 16-75 years were recruited between 1989 and 1993 from the north-east Thames region of the UK and 416 controls from the same age group were recruited over the same period and from the same region. Each subject answered a questionnaire covering demographic details, sun exposure history and other risk factors and underwent a skin examination with total body naevus count performed by a dermatologist. The AMS phenotype was defined using a scoring system. Atypical naevi gave the highest relative risk for cutaneous melanoma, with an odds ratio (OR) of 28.7 (P < 0.0001) for four or more atypical naevi compared with none. Many common naevi were also an important risk factor: the OR for 100 or more naevi 2 mm or above in diameter compared with 0-4 naevi was 7.7 (P < 0.0001). Melanoma was also associated with naevi on sun-exposed sites but also with naevi on non-sun-exposed sites such as the dorsum of the feet, buttocks and anterior scalp. Sixteen per cent of the cases had the AMS phenotype compared with 2% of the controls (OR 10.4, P < 0.0001). The AMS phenotype was more common in males than females (P = 0.008). The odds ratio for the presence of the AMS phenotype was dependent on age, with an odds ratio of 16.1 (95% CI 4.6-57.5) for the presence of the AMS phenotype if aged less than 40 compared with an odds ratio of 6.9 (95% CI 2.9-16.6) if aged 40 or more. The AMS phenotype was strongly predictive of an increased risk of melanoma outside the familial context.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Ultraviolet radiation and the skin: Photobiology and sunscreen photoprotection
Young, A. R., Claveau, J., & Rossi, A. B. (2017) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2016.09.038 · Cited by 339
Olsen, C. M., Carroll, H. J., & Whiteman, D. C. (2010) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.25243 · Cited by 89
Disturbed melanin synthesis and chronic oxidative stress in dysplastic naevi
Pavel, S., van Nieuwpoort, F., van der Meulen, H., Out, C., Pizinger, K., Cetkovská, P., Smit, N. P. M., & Koerten, H. K. (2004) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2003.11.035 · Cited by 84
Familial malignant melanoma ‐ overview
Dębniak, T. (2004) · Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1186/1897-4287-2-3-123 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Bataille, V, Bishop, J., Sasieni, P., Swerdlow, A., Pinney, E., Griffiths, K., & Cuzick, J.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 1996-06
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1605-1611
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W2047901982
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk of cutaneous melanoma in relation to the numbers, types and sites of naevi: a case-control study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.1996.302
- The paper
- Bataille, V, Bishop, J., Sasieni, P., Swerdlow, A., Pinney, E., Griffiths, K., & Cuzick, J. (1996). Risk of cutaneous melanoma in relation to the numbers, types and sites of naevi: a case-control study. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1996.302
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.