Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 245

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 access
Bataille, V, Bishop, JA, Sasieni, P, Swerdlow, AJ, Pinney, E, Griffiths, K, Cuzick, J·1996·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/bjc.1996.302

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 245

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.