Abstract 3491: COX-2 inhibitor use and risk of skin cancer: three prospective cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Skin cancer is the most commonly diagnosed type of cancer, with continually rising incidence rates. Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor use has been associated with lower risk of several cancers, though epidemiological studies on skin cancer risk have been limited and inconclusive. To evaluate whether COX-2 inhibitor use is associated with decreased risk of basal cell carcinoma (BCC), cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), and melanoma, we analyzed COX-2 inhibitor use and risk of skin cancer based on three prospective cohorts–the Nurses' Health Study (NHS, 2000-2012), NHS II (2001-2011), and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS, 2002-2012). COX-2 inhibitor use and duration were assessed by biennial questionnaires, with cSCC and melanoma cases verified by pathological records. Over 1.54 million person-years of follow-up, 16,098 BCC, 1,973 cSCC, and 625 invasive melanoma cases were documented. Multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of COX-2 inhibitor use with risk of BCC, cSCC, and melanoma were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. We pooled the results between the three cohorts using a fixed effects model. For ever vs. never users, COX-2 inhibitor use was associated with a modestly increased risk of BCC (multivariable HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06–1.15) and cSCC (multivariable HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00–1.27). The effect estimate was similar for melanoma, but was non-significant (multivariable HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.89–1.38). In conclusion, COX-2 inhibitor use was not associated with decreased skin cancer risk and instead was associated with modestly increased risk of BCC and cSCC. Further investigation is necessary to replicate these results. Citation Format: Hsuan Yen, Hsi Yen, Aaron Drucker, Jiali Han, Wen-Qing Li, Tricia Li, Abrar Qureshi, Eunyoung Cho. COX-2 inhibitor use and risk of skin cancer: three prospective cohort studies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 3491.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".