Latest news with #skin cancer
CBC
2 days ago
- Health
- CBC
This year, 70 people on P.E.I. will be diagnosed with melanoma. Some will die, says epidemiologist.
Prince Edward Island continues to have the highest incidence rate for a serious type of skin cancer among all the Canadian provinces. On average, P.E.I. sees about 70 new melanoma cases a year, and nine people die because of the disease. CBC's Louise Martin talks to Dr. Carol McClure, is P.E.I.'s cancer surveillance epidemiologist.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Health
- The Guardian
Can I trust my sunscreen? Choice test results have created uncertainty over SPF claims and lab testing process
Sunscreen has been in the spotlight this winter, after testing by the consumer advocacy organisation Choice found 16 of 20 brands failed to provide the level of skin protection advertised on their bottles. With Australia having one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, the Choice report left many worried and wondering: can I trust my sunscreen to protect me? Even four Cancer Council branded sunscreens were flagged in the report: its Ultra Sunscreen SPF 50+ was found by Choice to have a sun protection factor of 24. The worst result, though, belonged to Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+, which Choice's testing found had an SPF of just 4. While some brands have fiercely disputed the findings, the investigation has prompted debate over the reliability of sunscreen testing, as well as questions over the way these products are regulated. What's going on? Australians love spending time in the sun and sun safety is instilled in people from a young age. So the Choice investigation, with its results published in June, created a storm. Choice tested 20 popular SPF 50 or 50+ sunscreens from a range of retailers and prices in a specialised, accredited laboratory and found 16 of them did not meet their SPF claims. No surprise, the Choice results have been contentious. Choice has said it handed over its findings to the companies before they were released publicly. Some have produced test certificates showing that their product met the claimed SPF using the same testing method that Choice used. When contacted by Guardian Australia, the brands stood firmly by their SPF claims and said they test their products in accordance with the regulations. The Cancer Council said it stood by its previous results but, out of an abundance of caution, has submitted their four products that Choice reviewed for additional testing. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Ultra Violette, the sunscreen brand that had by far the worst-performing product according to Choice's testing, has fiercely disputed the findings. The Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50 plus Mattifying Zinc Skin Screen, a higher-end product that retails for upwards of $50, returned a result of just 4 in Choice's test. A second test returned a result of 5, Choice said. Ultra Violette has disputed Choice's findings very strongly and very publicly. It has taken the step of speaking directly to consumers via social media. One of the brand's co-founders, Ava Chandler-Matthews, posted a video on Instagram in which she strongly disputed Choice's methodology. In response, Choice has defended the rigour of its testing. The SPF or sun protection factor rating of a sunscreen measures how well it protects the skin from sunburn by indicating how much ultraviolet radiation can still penetrate the skin through the product when applied properly. For example, SPF 30 is estimated to filter 96.7% of UVB radiation, whereas SPF 50 is estimated to filter 98%. Dr DJ Kim, a senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales' school of chemistry, says the difference between SPF 30 and SPF 50 is actually 'very marginal'. Kim says SPF ratings are given by timing how long it takes skin to burn with and without the sunscreen. 'Let's say that you took 300 seconds for your skin to burn with sunscreen, and then if … it took 10 seconds to burn without the sunscreen, then 300 divided by 10, that becomes SPF 30,' he says. 'So, it's not the most scientific method to measure the SPF factor, honestly.' SPF claims in Australia are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Sunscreen brands must get approval from the TGA to sell their products to Australian consumers. To do this, they undertake SPF testing in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand standard in an approved laboratory. The accepted method is to test sunscreen on human skin. The methodology involves putting the sunscreen on 10 volunteers who are exposed to artificial solar UV radiation. This is the method Choice says it used, working with an accredited laboratory that specialises in sunscreen testing. Sunscreen brands submit their results to the TGA for approval to 'self-certify' that they have tested their SPF claims and that they stack up. The TGA does not usually do its own testing. Dr Michelle Wong, a cosmetic chemist, says she doubts the TGA would have the resources to do all of the testing itself. 'And so, in terms of the regulations, most of the time, in this sort of situation where it's a public body, there is always going to be some level of an honour system,' she says. There are potential inconsistencies in sunscreen testing. SPF effectiveness is measured by essentially getting people to put sunscreens in patches on their skin and measuring how 'red' they get over time. A TGA spokesperson says it is a known issue that there is variability in SPF testing results across laboratories because testing on humans can be highly subjective and the response to a test can differ dramatically from one individual to another. 'While progress is being made internationally toward in-vitro sunscreen testing (for example, not on human subjects), which will improve consistency of results, these methods are not yet in place,' they said. Wong, who is known for her work on social media and her blog Lab Muffin, says in-vitro testing would be easier for the TGA to run in-house, which would limit the variability of the results and stop the potential for fraud at labs seeking to make a profit. She also suggests having a limited number of designated labs that are accepted by the TGA for sunscreen testing. Wong says although sunscreen is complicated and there are 'technicalities' in the testing and regulation process, the most common problem is 'user error' in that people aren't applying enough product often enough. 'Sunscreens, in general, they work very well, and they are very effective at protecting your skin against sun exposure,' she says, noting that a sunscreen with an SPF of, say, 24 still offers very good protection. Not long after Choice published its findings, sunscreen was back in the news for different reasons. Last week, the TGA said it would begin consultation on additional controls for some sunscreen ingredients, including the controversial oxybenzone. The medicines regulator says it has conducted a review of sunscreen ingredients used in Australia and is recommending additional safeguards for three chemical compounds. The review proposes that some sunscreen products containing homosalate, oxybenzone and benzophenone be reformulated to ensure sunscreens meet what the TGA considers 'the highest standards of safety for prolonged and frequent use'. Homosalate and oxybenzone are active ingredients in sunscreen, while benzophenone arises from another ingredient called octocrylene, either as an impurity during the manufacturing process or from degradation as the product ages. The TGA has begun a consultation process to help determine the level in sunscreens at which these ingredients remain suitable for use. A week before that, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission launched legal action against the maker of two popular sunscreens over allegations it had misled consumers by falsely claiming its products are 'reef-friendly'. The consumerregulator alleges Edgewell Personal Care engaged in greenwashing. While these sunscreens do not contain oxybenzone or octinoxate, another chemical linked to coral damage, the ACCC alleges that they contain other ingredients that risk causing harm to coral and marine life. Edgewell is contesting the proceedings.
Fox News
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Fox News
Richard Simmons, fitness icon, dead at 76
Richard Simmons, a fitness icon, has died. He was 76. Simmons, who was known for his "Sweatin' to the Oldies" workout videos, just celebrated his 76th birthday on Friday. Simmons' longtime rep Tom Estey confirmed his death to Fox News Digital on Saturday. An LAFD spokesperson told Fox News Digital that first responders were dispatched for a cardiac arrest of a 76-year-old man at Simmons' Los Angeles home, without identifying Simmons as the patient. The patient was pronounced dead at the scene of natural causes, LAFD said. SHELLEY DUVALL, 'THE SHINING' STAR, DIES AT 75 "I never got so many messages about my birthday in my life!" Simmons wrote on his social media on Friday. The former fitness coach, who stepped away from the spotlight 10 years ago, told People magazine in an interview this week that he was "grateful" to be "alive for another day" following his skin cancer diagnosis. 'ALF' CHILD STAR BENJI GREGORY, FOUND DEAD IN HIS CAR He said he planned to blow out a candle to mark the occasion, but "But the candle will probably be on a zucchini. You know, I'm a vegetarian." HOLLYWOOD STARS WHO DIED IN 2024: PHOTOS "I am grateful that I'm here, that I am alive for another day," he continued. "I'll spend my birthday doing what I do every day, which is to help people." In March, Simmons revealed to his followers he had been diagnosed with skin cancer. He took to Facebook to detail the moment he found out about the diagnosis and the procedure he underwent in an attempt to remove the cancer cells. Simmons announced his diagnosis a day after worrying fans with a social post in which he said he was "dying." "I have some news to tell you. Please don't be sad. I am ….dying," he wrote at the time. CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER He continued, "The truth is we all are dying. Every day we live we are getting closer to our death. Why am I telling you this? Because I want you to enjoy your life to the fullest every single day. Get up in the morning and look at the sky… count your blessings and enjoy. " His rep confirmed to Fox News Digital at the time that he was not dying and the post was meant to be inspirational. After news of his death broke, social media was flooded with tributes to Simmons. "My heart is broken with the loss of this super special human," Ricki Lake wrote on X. "May he RIP. #richardsimmons I loved him so so much." LIKE WHAT YOU'RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS Simmons first became famous in the late 1970s with "The Richard Simmons Show," appearances on game shows and late-night TV and his "Sweatin' to the Oldies" workout videos, which were first released in 1988. "The Richard Simmons Show" earned two Daytime Emmys for for best direction and best talk show. Simmons was beloved for his upbeat and goofy personality and for connecting with regular people who wanted to get fit using his unintimidating workout videos. "My food plan and diet are just two words — common sense. With a dash of good humor," he told The Associated Press in 1982. "I want to help people and make the world a healthier, happy place." He was born on July 12, 1948, in New Orleans and later moved to Los Angeles, where he lost more than 100 pounds before opening up The Anatomy Asylum gym in Beverly Hills in 1974. After decades in the limelight, Simmons suddenly stopped teaching at his workout studio in 2014 and retreated from public life altogether. His disappearance sparked a podcast titled "Missing Richard Simmons," as well as numerous conspiracy theories alleging he was being held hostage in his Hollywood Hills home by his housekeeper. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Pauly Shore was also in talks to make a biopic about Simmons' life, but the 76-year-old said in January that it didn't have his backing. "I just got word like everyone else that the beautiful Richard Simmons has passed," Shore wrote on X on Saturday. "I hope you're at peace and twinkling up in the heavens. Please give my mother Mitzi and my father Sammy a big hug and a kiss for me. You're one of a kind, Richard. An amazing life. An amazing story. They broke the dolphin shorts when they made you. Rest in peace, my friend. Rest in peace."
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Health
- The Guardian
Can I trust my sunscreen? Choice test results have created uncertainty over SPF claims and lab testing process
Sunscreen has been in the spotlight this winter, after testing by the consumer advocacy organisation Choice found 16 of 20 brands failed to provide the level of skin protection advertised on their bottles. With Australia having one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, the Choice report left many worried and wondering: can I trust my sunscreen to protect me? Even four Cancer Council branded sunscreens were flagged in the report: its Ultra Sunscreen SPF 50+ was found by Choice to have a sun protection factor of 24. The worst result, though, belonged to Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+, which Choice's testing found had an SPF of just 4. While some brands have fiercely disputed the findings, the investigation has prompted debate over the reliability of sunscreen testing, as well as questions over the way these products are regulated. What's going on? Australians love spending time in the sun and sun safety is instilled in people from a young age. So the Choice investigation, with its results published in June, created a storm. Choice tested 20 popular SPF 50 or 50+ sunscreens from a range of retailers and prices in a specialised, accredited laboratory and found 16 of them did not meet their SPF claims. No surprise, the Choice results have been contentious. Choice has said it handed over its findings to the companies before they were released publicly. Some have produced test certificates showing that their product met the claimed SPF using the same testing method that Choice used. When contacted by Guardian Australia, the brands stood firmly by their SPF claims and said they test their products in accordance with the regulations. The Cancer Council said it stood by its previous results but, out of an abundance of caution, has submitted their four products that Choice reviewed for additional testing. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Ultra Violette, the sunscreen brand that had by far the worst-performing product according to Choice's testing, has fiercely disputed the findings. The Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50 plus Mattifying Zinc Skin Screen, a higher-end product that retails for upwards of $50, returned a result of just 4 in Choice's test. A second test returned a result of 5, Choice said. Ultra Violette has disputed Choice's findings very strongly and very publicly. It has taken the step of speaking directly to consumers via social media. One of the brand's co-founders, Ava Chandler-Matthews, posted a video on Instagram in which she strongly disputed Choice's methodology. In response, Choice has defended the rigour of its testing. The SPF or sun protection factor rating of a sunscreen measures how well it protects the skin from sunburn by indicating how much ultraviolet radiation can still penetrate the skin through the product when applied properly. For example, SPF 30 is estimated to filter 96.7% of UVB radiation, whereas SPF 50 is estimated to filter 98%. Dr DJ Kim, a senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales' school of chemistry, says the difference between SPF 30 and SPF 50 is actually 'very marginal'. Kim says SPF ratings are given by timing how long it takes skin to burn with and without the sunscreen. 'Let's say that you took 300 seconds for your skin to burn with sunscreen, and then if … it took 10 seconds to burn without the sunscreen, then 300 divided by 10, that becomes SPF 30,' he says. 'So, it's not the most scientific method to measure the SPF factor, honestly.' SPF claims in Australia are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Sunscreen brands must get approval from the TGA to sell their products to Australian consumers. To do this, they undertake SPF testing in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand standard in an approved laboratory. The accepted method is to test sunscreen on human skin. The methodology involves putting the sunscreen on 10 volunteers who are exposed to artificial solar UV radiation. This is the method Choice says it used, working with an accredited laboratory that specialises in sunscreen testing. Sunscreen brands submit their results to the TGA for approval to 'self-certify' that they have tested their SPF claims and that they stack up. The TGA does not usually do its own testing. Dr Michelle Wong, a cosmetic chemist, says she doubts the TGA would have the resources to do all of the testing itself. 'And so, in terms of the regulations, most of the time, in this sort of situation where it's a public body, there is always going to be some level of an honour system,' she says. There are potential inconsistencies in sunscreen testing. SPF effectiveness is measured by essentially getting people to put sunscreens in patches on their skin and measuring how 'red' they get over time. A TGA spokesperson says it is a known issue that there is variability in SPF testing results across laboratories because testing on humans can be highly subjective and the response to a test can differ dramatically from one individual to another. 'While progress is being made internationally toward in-vitro sunscreen testing (for example, not on human subjects), which will improve consistency of results, these methods are not yet in place,' they said. Wong, who is known for her work on social media and her blog Lab Muffin, says in-vitro testing would be easier for the TGA to run in-house, which would limit the variability of the results and stop the potential for fraud at labs seeking to make a profit. She also suggests having a limited number of designated labs that are accepted by the TGA for sunscreen testing. Wong says although sunscreen is complicated and there are 'technicalities' in the testing and regulation process, the most common problem is 'user error' in that people aren't applying enough product often enough. 'Sunscreens, in general, they work very well, and they are very effective at protecting your skin against sun exposure,' she says, noting that a sunscreen with an SPF of, say, 24 still offers very good protection. Not long after Choice published its findings, sunscreen was back in the news for different reasons. Last week, the TGA said it would begin consultation on additional controls for some sunscreen ingredients, including the controversial oxybenzone. The medicines regulator says it has conducted a review of sunscreen ingredients used in Australia and is recommending additional safeguards for three chemical compounds. The review proposes that some sunscreen products containing homosalate, oxybenzone and benzophenone be reformulated to ensure sunscreens meet what the TGA considers 'the highest standards of safety for prolonged and frequent use'. Homosalate and oxybenzone are active ingredients in sunscreen, while benzophenone arises from another ingredient called octocrylene, either as an impurity during the manufacturing process or from degradation as the product ages. The TGA has begun a consultation process to help determine the level in sunscreens at which these ingredients remain suitable for use. A week before that, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission launched legal action against the maker of two popular sunscreens over allegations it had misled consumers by falsely claiming its products are 'reef-friendly'. The consumerregulator alleges Edgewell Personal Care engaged in greenwashing. While these sunscreens do not contain oxybenzone or octinoxate, another chemical linked to coral damage, the ACCC alleges that they contain other ingredients that risk causing harm to coral and marine life. Edgewell is contesting the proceedings.
ABC News
6 days ago
- Health
- ABC News
Cairns skin clinic imports machine using lasers and AI to spare patients from needles, scars
A skin cancer clinic is trialling emerging technology that helps identify skin cancers without the need for patients to go under the knife. Vin Rajeswaran decided to import the new machine, knowing the apprehension many of his patients felt at the thought of walking into his clinic. "People don't understand how much of a scary situation it is unless you're a needle-phobe like me," Dr Rajeswaran said. Conventional skin pathology usually involves cutting a lesion for a biopsy that can lead to scarring, even when a suspicious mark proves not to be cancerous. Developments in medical imaging instead use low-powered lasers to scan skin lesions, allowing doctors a 3D view of potential tumours before they decide whether they need to be cut. Dr Rajeswaran said the technology would significantly reduce the need for needles, bleeding and scarring, and "change the way we practice skin cancer medicine in a big way". "You can see the cells in real time," he said. "We're not waiting for seven days or 10 days for [a biopsy sample] to be sent to a pathology lab [and] for the results to come back. "If you're a young woman or man and the biopsy is supposed to be done on the tip of your nose, we can stop the scarring from happening because it could be a benign lesion." Australia has one of the world's highest rates of skin cancer, with Cancer Council figures showing 99 per cent of cases are either basal cell or squamous cell carcinomas. In addition to allowing doctors to view a 3D image of a potential cancer, the diagnostic machine, called Deep Live, can also identify basal cell carcinomas using artificial intelligence. Dr Rajeswaran said the machine could "accurately map where the carcinoma stops", so when it was removed, doctors were "not cutting too much or too little". However, Medicare does not subsidise its use, meaning patients who prefer a scan to a biopsy will not be eligible for a government rebate. The Melanoma Institute of Australia is contributing to international research into non-invasive diagnostic tools, including AI. It is also developing a national screening road map, which will be critical in building a case for the federal government to subsidise these options under Medicare and recommending when non-invasive options should be used. Professor Pascale Guitera, a world-leading dermatologist and Melanoma Institute director, said that process, which included randomised trials and cost-benefit analyses, would likely take about five years. "One of the things we want is not only to find the nasty [cancers] quicker, but we also want to reduce the amount of unnecessary biopsies," she said. Professor Guitera said AI was being trained to distinguish melanomas from moles, with the technology "getting there in terms of accuracy" although not quite ready to be used at an expert level. "At the moment, we think AI will be very useful in particular for primary practice, the nurses, who are triaging patients," she said. "[AI] can be quite lost when [melanoma] are very early stage and very small, or completely pink." Professor Guitera said the technology would also help ease pressure on a stretched workforce by equipping more medical staff "to be able to triage lesions, find lesions of concern and refer appropriately". "The whole planet is looking at what we're doing, in particular with this road map, because depending on the decision taken there, I think we'll have a lot of governments looking and maybe copying what we put in place," she said. As Dr Rajeswaran's Cairns clinic gets used to the new technology, the few other machines available in Australia are all for research, not walk-in patients. Adam Jacobson, a medical imaging technologist who works for Deep Live's manufacturer Damae Medical, said the technology had become commercially available in the past three years, after almost a decade in development. "There's one going into Perth to look at the skin of premature babies and there's one going into the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane," Mr Jacobson said. Dr Rajeswaran said he was investigating ways of taking the machine to his patients in isolated towns, such as Weipa, more than 800 kilometres north of Cairns. "Normally these machines come to Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane first and then it gets spread out to the rest of the place, and my passion is to bring it to regional towns," he said. With no rebate available, he is looking at charging patients between $50 and $100 for scans, depending on lesion size. However, Dr Rajeswaran said it was "unlikely" many clinics would adopt the technology "purely for commercial purposes" without Medicare subsidies. "There has to be more focus on patient benefit and outcome, rather than how much we can make out of this machine," he said.
