Key Points

  • Our pooled analysis found an inverse association between several measures of UVR exposure and Hodgkin lymphoma.

  • Significant UVR-related inverse associations of EBV-positive HL with a dose-response relationship support etiologic heterogeneity in HL.

Abstract

Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure has been inversely associated with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) risk, but only inconsistently, only in a few studies, and without attention to HL heterogeneity. We conducted a pooled analysis of HL risk focusing on type and timing of UVR exposure and on disease subtypes by age, histology, and tumor-cell Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) status. Four case-control studies contributed 1320 HL cases and 6381 controls. We estimated lifetime, adulthood, and childhood UVR exposure and history of sunburn and sunlamp use. We used 2-stage estimation with mixed-effects models and weighted pooled effect estimates by inverse marginal variances. We observed statistically significant inverse associations with HL risk for UVR exposures during childhood and adulthood, sunburn history, and sunlamp use, but we found no significant dose-response relationships. Risks were significant only for EBV-positive HL (pooled odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.91 for the highest overall UVR exposure category), with a significant linear trend for overall exposure (P = .03). Pooled relative risk estimates were not heterogeneous across studies. Increased UVR exposure may protect against HL, particularly EBV-positive HL. Plausible mechanisms involving UVR induction of regulatory T cells or the cellular DNA damage response suggest opportunities for new prevention targets.

Introduction

Classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a B-cell lymphoma with unusual epidemiologic characteristics.1  Although rare in most populations, HL is a relatively common cancer of adolescents and young adults, and treatment-related sequelae remain a serious life-long problem.2-5  Thus, understanding HL etiology is a worthwhile research endeavor with the goal of primary prevention. Numerous epidemiologic studies have identified a variety of putative risk factors as well as substantial etiologic heterogeneity based on age group at diagnosis, tumor histologic subtype, and the presence or absence of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in the malignant Hodgkin/Reed-Sternberg cells.6-10  However, the causes of HL remain poorly understood, in part because its low incidence limits the study sample sizes needed for adequate statistical power, particularly for the stratified analyses necessary to accommodate HL heterogeneity. Further, while the presence of EBV in HL tumors in selected patient subsets has been an important etiologic observation, the etiologic role of this virus in EBV-negative HL, which comprises the majority of cases, remains unclear.7,9 

Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure has been associated with HL risk, albeit inconsistently and based on only a few studies.11-16  A large population-based case-control study in Sweden and Denmark detected an inverse association between risk of HL and sunbathing or sunburn history within the last 5 to 10 years.11  A recent French case-control study reported that having light-colored hair and skin or a high propensity to sunburn—indicators for sun sensitivity and potential avoidance17 —were significantly associated with increased risk of HL.13  Similarly, a European case-control study observed a positive association of HL risk with increasing skin sensitivity to sun exposure and a nonsignificant inverse association with more recreational days during childhood and adulthood.14 

No studies have been able to address the role of this common and modifiable behavior in light of the marked heterogeneity of HL. To address this question, we took advantage of an international collaboration under the auspices of the International Lymphoma Epidemiology Consortium (InterLymph) to achieve sufficient numbers of study subjects for meaningful subgroup analyses. We conducted a collaborative pooled analysis of the role of UVR exposure in HL risk focusing on timing and type of exposure and considering epidemiologically distinct disease subtypes defined by age group, histologic subtype, and EBV status of the tumor.

Patients and methods

Study population

Four studies collected data on at least 1 measure of personal UVR exposure and contributed data for this analysis (Table 1).11,13,14,18  All 4 studies were conducted during the early 2000s in Europe and included HL patients age 16 to 80 years at diagnosis, with no history of hematologic or other neoplasms, immunosuppression for organ transplantation, or HIV infection. The 4 studies were the Scandinavian Lymphoma Etiology (SCALE) study in Sweden and Denmark, l’Etude des Facteurs Environnementaux et Genétique des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (Engela) in France, the Epidemiology and Cancer Statistics Group Case-Control Study (ELCCS) in the United Kingdom, and the multi-European-center Epilymph study. Three studies (SCALE, ELCCS, and Epilymph [Italy and Germany]) included population-based controls only, whereas the Engela study and some Epilymph centers included hospital-based controls only (Table 1). Controls were frequency-matched to cases in SCALE and at some Epilymph centers and individually matched in the other studies. All tumors had been classified histologically according to either the 2001 World Health Organization Classification of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tumors19  or the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition (ICD-O-3).20  For this analysis, we considered classical HL overall, which includes all histologic subtypes except nodular lymphocyte-predominant HL and comprises the 2 most common subtypes: nodular sclerosis (ICD-O-3 9663/3 to 9667/3) and mixed cellularity (ICD-O-3 9652/3). Three studies characterized tumor EBV status by using standard immunohistochemistry to detect latent membrane protein 1 (LMP-1) and/or Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen or by in situ hybridization for EBV-encoded RNA (EBER) (Table 1). The sources of controls and matching characteristics are described in Table 1.

Table 1

Characteristics of participating studies

Study name (reference)LocationPeriod of interview/ diagnosisCases (n = 1320)Controls (n = 6381)
No.% PartAge range (y)Tumor histologyClassificationTumor EBV statusNo.% PartSourceMatching
Epilymph (14Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Finland, Czech Republic 1998-2004 331 88 17-80 195 NS, 71 MC, 1 other WHO 18 positive, 27 negative (Spain only) 2540 81 Population registers (Italy and Germany) or hospitals (Spain, France, Ireland, Czech Republic) Individual (Germany, Czech Republic) or frequency (France, Ireland, Italy, Spain) by sex, age (5-y groups), and area of residence 
ELCCS North, East, and West Yorkshire, Lancashire, South Lakeland, Cornwall, South Devon, Dorset, South Hampshire, England 1998-2004 262 79 16-67 203 NS, 47 MC, 12 other ICD-O-3 48 positive, 116 negative 237 69 Randomly selected from population registers Individual by sex, date of birth, and area of residence 
SCALE (11Denmark, Sweden 1999-2003 585 91 17-75 422 NS, 106 MC, 10 other WHO 142 positive, 383 negative 3187 71 Randomly selected from population registers Frequency by country, age (10-y groups), and sex 
Engela (13Bordeaux, Brest, Caen, Lille, Nantes, Toulouse, France 2000-2004 142 97 18-71 106 NS, 18 MC, 3 other ICD-O-3 No data 417 93 Hospitals, with no history of hematologic neoplasm Individual by center, sex, age, and area of residence 
Study name (reference)LocationPeriod of interview/ diagnosisCases (n = 1320)Controls (n = 6381)
No.% PartAge range (y)Tumor histologyClassificationTumor EBV statusNo.% PartSourceMatching
Epilymph (14Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Finland, Czech Republic 1998-2004 331 88 17-80 195 NS, 71 MC, 1 other WHO 18 positive, 27 negative (Spain only) 2540 81 Population registers (Italy and Germany) or hospitals (Spain, France, Ireland, Czech Republic) Individual (Germany, Czech Republic) or frequency (France, Ireland, Italy, Spain) by sex, age (5-y groups), and area of residence 
ELCCS North, East, and West Yorkshire, Lancashire, South Lakeland, Cornwall, South Devon, Dorset, South Hampshire, England 1998-2004 262 79 16-67 203 NS, 47 MC, 12 other ICD-O-3 48 positive, 116 negative 237 69 Randomly selected from population registers Individual by sex, date of birth, and area of residence 
SCALE (11Denmark, Sweden 1999-2003 585 91 17-75 422 NS, 106 MC, 10 other WHO 142 positive, 383 negative 3187 71 Randomly selected from population registers Frequency by country, age (10-y groups), and sex 
Engela (13Bordeaux, Brest, Caen, Lille, Nantes, Toulouse, France 2000-2004 142 97 18-71 106 NS, 18 MC, 3 other ICD-O-3 No data 417 93 Hospitals, with no history of hematologic neoplasm Individual by center, sex, age, and area of residence 

% part, participation rate; MC, mixed cellularity; NS, nodular sclerosis; WHO, World Health Organization.

All studies obtained informed consent from participants in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and ethics approval from their local human research ethics committees; the pooled resource project also obtained ethics approval.

Data collection and exposure definition

Each eligible study provided an electronic dataset containing core subject variables, self-reported measures of personal UVR exposure (sunbathing frequency, sunburn history, vacations/holidays to sunny locations, tanning bed/sunlamp exposure, working time outdoors/outdoor occupation, recreational time outdoors, and use of sun protection), and potential confounding or effect-modifying variables (eg, study site, current socioeconomic status, subject’s birth order, day care attendance, history of infectious mononucleosis, pigmentation variables, and cigarette smoking status).

To estimate relative UVR exposure (Table 2), we constructed 5 variables for pooling across studies: overall (ie, lifetime) UVR exposure, childhood UVR exposure, adult UVR exposure, history of sunburn, and history of sunlamp use. Overall UVR exposure was computed as the sum of childhood and adult UVR exposure, except when available data allowed us to include additional lifetime exposure data (eg, the number of times abroad on a sun or beach holiday, as evaluated in SCALE). Variables describing the history of sunburn and the use of a sunlamp/solarium were dichotomized as ever vs never. Childhood UVR exposure (at or before age 20 years) was computed in SCALE, Epilymph, and ELCCS data by summing the non-missing values and creating quartiles for each variable based on available data (eg, hours spent outdoors, hours spent in sun for leisure, or days spent at the water/beach). Because sunlamp users are more likely than nonusers to seek UVR (including sun) exposure,21  but because sunlamp use was assessed in the contributing studies only as a binary variable, we elevated a subject’s assigned quartile by 1 level if that subject also reported using a sunlamp, sunbed, or solarium at or before the age of 20 years (SCALE and ELCCS studies). Adult UVR exposure (after age 20 years) was measured from data provided by all 4 studies in a similar way, averaging measures that were assessed at multiple ages in adulthood.

Table 2

Measures of UVR exposure categories by study

StudyTime spent outdoors not in shadeRoutine outdoor leisure activities hours per day, week, monthSunbathing in summertime frequency per week or monthSunlamp useAge or time intervals in analyses
Working dayNon-working dayEver/neverFrequencyChildhood (age ≤20 y)Adulthood (age >20 y)
Epilymph Yes (all but Germany) Yes (all but Germany) Yes (only for Germany)  Yes  Ages 10 and 20 y Ages 30 and 40 y 
ELCCS Yes Yes   Yes Yes Calculated based on age at interview Calculated based on age at interview 
SCALE    Yes Yes Yes Age 20 y Calculated based on age at interview 
Engela   Yes  Yes   Exposure since leaving school 
StudyTime spent outdoors not in shadeRoutine outdoor leisure activities hours per day, week, monthSunbathing in summertime frequency per week or monthSunlamp useAge or time intervals in analyses
Working dayNon-working dayEver/neverFrequencyChildhood (age ≤20 y)Adulthood (age >20 y)
Epilymph Yes (all but Germany) Yes (all but Germany) Yes (only for Germany)  Yes  Ages 10 and 20 y Ages 30 and 40 y 
ELCCS Yes Yes   Yes Yes Calculated based on age at interview Calculated based on age at interview 
SCALE    Yes Yes Yes Age 20 y Calculated based on age at interview 
Engela   Yes  Yes   Exposure since leaving school 

Statistical analysis

We used a 2-stage estimation method with mixed-effects models, described by Stukel et al,22  to obtain study-specific odds ratios (ORs) and pooled ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Since 2 studies (SCALE and Epilymph) were large intercountry efforts that covered study areas of different latitudes, we attempted to better evaluate the impact of between-study variation by producing 2 types of models depending on the definition of study locations. “A” models treated Epilymph and SCALE as single overall studies and adjusted for study location, pooling across 4 study estimates. “B” models treated the 7 study locations of Epilymph and the 2 study locations of SCALE as separate locations, thus pooling across 11 study estimates.

The Stukel approach allows for analysis of each study as originally designed, with study-specific confounder coding. Confounder identification and adjustment procedures were undertaken for each study separately. We used the following criteria, set forth by Rothman et al,23  to assess a confounding variable: (1) it must be a risk factor for the disease, (2) it must be associated with the exposure, and (3) it must not be on the causal pathway. The first step was to identify variables significantly associated with both outcome and exposure by significance testing with P ≤ .10. The second step was to narrow these variables to confounders that influence the main effect estimates. We used a 10% change in the OR estimate as a criterion to identify confounders that had a large effect on the relationship between the exposure and outcome and that would result in the most parsimonious model. We used a stepwise selection approach, retaining all identified confounders regardless of P value and additional identified covariates that remained significantly associated with the outcome (but not necessarily the exposure) at P ≤ .20 in stepwise modeling. As confounders/effect modifiers, we considered pigmentation variables; education; current or childhood socioeconomic status; number of siblings and birth order; daycare or preschool attendance; body size variables; history of infectious mononucleosis, cancer, or autoimmune disease; and cigarette smoking status. Education for Epilymph and SCALE, a variable combining current socioeconomic status (based on last job held) and education for Engela, and skin pigmentation for Epilymph were included as confounders in final models. The Engela study and 2 centers of the Epilymph study (Germany and the Czech Republic) used individual matching of cases and controls but subsequently analyzed their data ignoring this matching. Because our preliminary analyses for matched and non-matched studies yielded similar results, we opted for non-matched analysis because it provided a larger number of subjects. Data from the ELCCS study allowed us to retain the original individual matching. Effect estimates for each study were obtained by using unconditional logistic models adjusted for age as a continuous variable, sex, and study center for the SCALE, Epilymph, and Engela studies, and conditional logistic models for the ELCCS study.

We used random effects models to quantify between-study variation in effect estimates. The pooled effect estimates were weighted by the inverse marginal variances (ie, the sum of the individual study-specific variances and the variance of the random study effect). Heterogeneity among studies was tested by using the Cochran Q test and the percentage of variation in ORs attributable to heterogeneity between studies (I2).

We used a weighted regression approach to assess trends in the log-odds estimates with continuous values to represent quartiles. We fit a trend to the final pooled estimates and alternatively fit a trend to each study and pooled the trend estimates for 1 analysis (overall lifetime exposure). Because the results were similar, we present the former. The weights were based on the proportionate sample size of the pooled results at each ordinal level.

We produced effect estimates for the 5 measures of UVR stratified by age group at diagnosis and/or interview (age <40 years, age 40 years and older), sex, tumor histology (nodular sclerosis, mixed cellularity), and tumor-cell EBV status (positive, negative). We also conducted analyses separately by control type (hospital- or population-based). We tested for effect modification of HL risk by UVR exposure variation by latitude by stratifying analyses by study location; as an indicator of the potential for skin damage, we used the average yearly erythemal UVR index, a simple measure of the UVR level at the earth’s surface.24 

Because the pooled ORs and 95% CIs from both A and B models were consistent for all analyses, we present results only from A models in accordance with the parsimony principle.

To further test hypotheses about etiologic heterogeneity, we performed case analyses to compare exposure-related HL risk across selected histologic subtypes and tumor-cell EBV status. In these comparisons, we adjusted for the same variables as in the case-control analysis. Statistical tests were 2-sided with an α level of .05. All analyses were performed with the open-access software R.

Results

The pooled dataset comprised study data, including UVR information, from 1320 cases and 6381 controls (Table 1). Among all subjects, 56% were males, 99.7% self-reported their race as white, and the median age at diagnosis was 39 years. As expected, given that the contributing studies were designed to match controls by age to both HL and non-HL (NHL) cases, HL cases tended to be younger and more highly educated than the controls (data not shown). Tumors had been subtyped as nodular sclerosis (53%), mixed cellularity (12%), lymphocyte depletion (4%), or unspecified HL (29%). As expected, mixed cellularity cases were more frequent among the elderly. In all, 208 tumors (28%) were classified as EBV-positive and 526 (71%) as EBV-negative; EBV-positive cases were more likely than EBV-negative cases to be male, to be in the youngest or oldest categories of age, and to have mixed cellularity histology.

UVR exposure and HL risk overall and by age and sex

The associations between measures of UVR exposure and HL risk for subjects overall and for subjects stratified by sex and age at diagnosis are presented in Table 3. For overall UVR exposure, we observed inverse but statistically nonsignificant associations with HL risk (OR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.67 to 1.04] for high vs low UVR exposure). A significant dose-response association (trend in ORs) was identified for overall UVR exposure with respect to overall HL risk, whereas no significant dose-response associations were observed for childhood or adult UVR exposure separately. For the other 4 measures of UVR of exposure, we observed statistically significant inverse associations with HL risk; results were of similar magnitude for childhood and adult UVR exposures. Adjusted pooled estimates were OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.95] for history of sunburn (yes/no) and OR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.96] for use of sunlamps (ever/never). Similar patterns of association were observed by age at diagnosis and by sex, although not at a statistically significant level in either men or women.

Table 3

Exposure to UVR and risk of HL by sex and age group

UVR exposureOverallSexAge group at diagnosis (years)
MaleFemale<4040+
Cases
(n = 1320)
Controls
(n = 6381)
OR95% CICases
(n = 722)
Controls
(n = 3518)
OR95% CICases
(n = 598)
Controls
(n = 2863)
OR95% CICases
(n = 793)
Controls
(n = 1162)
OR95% CICases
(n = 527)
Controls
(n = 5219)
OR95% CI
Overall*                     
 Low 281 1323 1.00  155 682 1.00  126 641 1.00  154 188 1.00  127 1135 1.00  
 Low-mid 316 1432 0.94 0.76-1.16 167 737 0.95 0.71-1.26 149 695 0.91 0.66-1.25 201 251 1.03 0.75-1.41 115 1181 0.89 0.59-1.34 
 Mid-high 309 1397 0.87 0.70-1.08 159 795 0.81 0.61-1.09 150 602 0.94 0.68-1.30 189 275 0.81 0.59-1.11 120 1122 0.93 0.69-1.26 
 High 312 1683 0.84 0.67-1.04 192 982 0.90 0.68-1.20 120 701 0.77 0.55-1.07 182 292 0.77 0.56-1.05 130 1391 0.91 0.67-1.22 
Ptrend   .01    .33    .14    .09    .39  
P   .58    .28    .07    .74    .21  
Childhood                     
 Low 271 1373 1.00  133 610 1.00  138 763 1.00  166 217 1.00  105 1156 1.00  
 Low-mid 306 1543 0.73§ 0.59-0.91 157 861 0.61§ 0.45-0.83 149 682 0.87 0.64-1.18 228 294 0.84 0.61-1.17 78 1249 0.89 0.68-1.18 
 Mid-high 215 1090 0.72 0.48-1.07 109 614 0.62§ 0.41-0.95 106 476 0.93 0.66-1.29 161 229 0.96 0.68-1.36 54 861 0.75§ 0.55-1.00 
 High 265 1608 0.80§ 0.63-1.00 163 984 0.75 0.55-1.01 102 624 0.85 0.60-1.20 150 241 0.73 0.51-1.06 115 1367 1.04 0.79-1.37 
Ptrend   .41    .51    .22    .25    .90  
P   .17    .31    .07    .17    .16  
Adulthood                     
 Low 339 1453 1.00  191 813 1.00  148 942 1.00  180 210 1.00  159 1243 1.00  
 Low-mid 266 1492 0.80§ 0.64-1.00 142 777 0.82 0.60-1.12 124 715 0.77 0.56-1.06 137 236 0.66 0.43-1.01 129 1256 0.60§ 0.44-0.82 
 Mid-high 260 1425 0.76§ 0.61-0.95 147 798 0.73§ 0.55-0.97 113 627 0.82 0.58-1.15 147 230 0.76§ 0.61-0.95 113 1195 0.67 0.39-1.15 
 High 289 1633 0.87 0.70-1.08 176 942 0.94 0.71-1.24 113 691 0.81 0.58-1.14 134 239 0.65§ 0.46-0.93 155 1394 0.90 0.67-1.22 
Ptrend   .51    .72    .35    .26    .95  
P   .43    .34    .22    .31    .50  
History of sunburn                     
 No 356 1548 1.00  210 801 1.00  146 747 1.00  141 182 1.00  215 1366 1.00  
 Yes 714 3681 0.77§ 0.63-0.95 390 2077 0.77 0.57-1.03 324 1604 0.79 0.59-1.06 459 678 0.79 0.55-1.12 255 3003 0.75§ 0.58-0.97 
P   .36    .26    .95    .09    .26  
History of sunlamp use                     
 No 588 3428 1.00  391 2095 1.00  197 1333 1.00  302 434 1.00  286 2994 1.00  
 Yes 633 2501 0.81§ 0.69-0.96 285 1139 0.89 0.65-1.23 348 1362 0.81 0.63-1.04 428 586 0.79§ 0.62-1.00 205 1915 0.83 0.66-1.04 
P   .37    .37    .45    .82    .25  
UVR exposureOverallSexAge group at diagnosis (years)
MaleFemale<4040+
Cases
(n = 1320)
Controls
(n = 6381)
OR95% CICases
(n = 722)
Controls
(n = 3518)
OR95% CICases
(n = 598)
Controls
(n = 2863)
OR95% CICases
(n = 793)
Controls
(n = 1162)
OR95% CICases
(n = 527)
Controls
(n = 5219)
OR95% CI
Overall*                     
 Low 281 1323 1.00  155 682 1.00  126 641 1.00  154 188 1.00  127 1135 1.00  
 Low-mid 316 1432 0.94 0.76-1.16 167 737 0.95 0.71-1.26 149 695 0.91 0.66-1.25 201 251 1.03 0.75-1.41 115 1181 0.89 0.59-1.34 
 Mid-high 309 1397 0.87 0.70-1.08 159 795 0.81 0.61-1.09 150 602 0.94 0.68-1.30 189 275 0.81 0.59-1.11 120 1122 0.93 0.69-1.26 
 High 312 1683 0.84 0.67-1.04 192 982 0.90 0.68-1.20 120 701 0.77 0.55-1.07 182 292 0.77 0.56-1.05 130 1391 0.91 0.67-1.22 
Ptrend   .01    .33    .14    .09    .39  
P   .58    .28    .07    .74    .21  
Childhood                     
 Low 271 1373 1.00  133 610 1.00  138 763 1.00  166 217 1.00  105 1156 1.00  
 Low-mid 306 1543 0.73§ 0.59-0.91 157 861 0.61§ 0.45-0.83 149 682 0.87 0.64-1.18 228 294 0.84 0.61-1.17 78 1249 0.89 0.68-1.18 
 Mid-high 215 1090 0.72 0.48-1.07 109 614 0.62§ 0.41-0.95 106 476 0.93 0.66-1.29 161 229 0.96 0.68-1.36 54 861 0.75§ 0.55-1.00 
 High 265 1608 0.80§ 0.63-1.00 163 984 0.75 0.55-1.01 102 624 0.85 0.60-1.20 150 241 0.73 0.51-1.06 115 1367 1.04 0.79-1.37 
Ptrend   .41    .51    .22    .25    .90  
P   .17    .31    .07    .17    .16  
Adulthood                     
 Low 339 1453 1.00  191 813 1.00  148 942 1.00  180 210 1.00  159 1243 1.00  
 Low-mid 266 1492 0.80§ 0.64-1.00 142 777 0.82 0.60-1.12 124 715 0.77 0.56-1.06 137 236 0.66 0.43-1.01 129 1256 0.60§ 0.44-0.82 
 Mid-high 260 1425 0.76§ 0.61-0.95 147 798 0.73§ 0.55-0.97 113 627 0.82 0.58-1.15 147 230 0.76§ 0.61-0.95 113 1195 0.67 0.39-1.15 
 High 289 1633 0.87 0.70-1.08 176 942 0.94 0.71-1.24 113 691 0.81 0.58-1.14 134 239 0.65§ 0.46-0.93 155 1394 0.90 0.67-1.22 
Ptrend   .51    .72    .35    .26    .95  
P   .43    .34    .22    .31    .50  
History of sunburn                     
 No 356 1548 1.00  210 801 1.00  146 747 1.00  141 182 1.00  215 1366 1.00  
 Yes 714 3681 0.77§ 0.63-0.95 390 2077 0.77 0.57-1.03 324 1604 0.79 0.59-1.06 459 678 0.79 0.55-1.12 255 3003 0.75§ 0.58-0.97 
P   .36    .26    .95    .09    .26  
History of sunlamp use                     
 No 588 3428 1.00  391 2095 1.00  197 1333 1.00  302 434 1.00  286 2994 1.00  
 Yes 633 2501 0.81§ 0.69-0.96 285 1139 0.89 0.65-1.23 348 1362 0.81 0.63-1.04 428 586 0.79§ 0.62-1.00 205 1915 0.83 0.66-1.04 
P   .37    .37    .45    .82    .25  
*

Education for Epilymph and SCALE, current socioeconomic status for Engela, and skin pigmentation were included as confounders in the final models.

Ptrend in ORs.

P for heterogeneity among studies.

§

P < .05.

Histologic subtypes and tumor EBV status

Table 4 presents pooled OR estimates for HL risk according to UVR exposure by the 2 most common histologic subtypes and by tumor EBV status. We found little consistent difference in the associations of UVR exposure with risk of nodular sclerosis vs mixed cellularity HL; inverse associations with the latter were stronger for overall and adult UVR exposure but weaker for childhood UVR exposure and history of sunburn. However, risks differed between EBV-positive and EBV-negative HL. ORs in association with EBV-positive HL were lower and statistically significantly inverse for childhood, adulthood, and overall UVR exposure, with a significant linear trend for overall UVR exposure. Results from case-case comparisons by histologic subtype or tumor EBV status were consistent with those for case-control comparisons, showing an inverse association of childhood UVR exposure with EBV-positive vs EBV-negative HL for those in the highest vs lowest quartile (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.02; other data not shown).

Table 4

Exposure to UVR and risk of HL by histologic subtype and by tumor EBV status

UVR exposureHistologyTumor EBV status
Nodular sclerosisMixed cellularityPositiveNegative
Cases
(n = 928)
Controls
(n = 6381)
OR95% CICases
(n = 242)
Controls
(n = 6381)
OR95% CICases
(n = 208)
Controls
(n = 5964)
OR95% CICases
(n = 526)
Controls
(n = 5964)
OR95% CI
Overall*                 
 Low 182 1323 1.00  55 1323 1.00  56 1323 1.00  121 1323 1.00  
 Low-mid 218 1432 1.00 0.78-1.28 49 1432 0.77 0.50-1.18 55 1432 0.80 0.51-1.26 132 1432 0.96 0.70-1.32 
 Mid-high 214 1397 0.97 0.75-1.26 53 1397 0.83 0.54-1.27 46 1397 0.60 0.36-0.98 135 1397 0.93 0.67-1.28 
 High 202 1683 0.88 0.68-1.14 65 1683 0.85 0.56-1.29 51 1683 0.56 0.35-0.91 138 1683 0.86 0.63-1.19 
Ptrend   0.14    0.52    0.03    0,02  
P§   0.40    0.28    0.09    0.36  
Childhood                 
 Low 186 1373 1.00  42 1373 1.00  50 1373 1.00  109 1373 1.00  
 Low-mid 212 1543 0.73 0.59-0.90 50 1543 0.91 0.63-1.31 52 1543 0.60 0.37-0.97 143 1543 0.75 0.54-1.03 
 Mid-high 149 1090 0.84 0.75-1.07 39 1090 1.03 0.60-1.77 30 1090 0.62 0.35-1.07 77 1090 0.70 0.48-1.02 
 High 166 1608 0.79 0.63-1.00 52 1608 0.90 0.61-1.31 49 1608 0.36 0.10-1.34 129 1608 0.85 0.60-1.21 
Ptrend   0.28    0.59    0.06    0.55  
P§   0.20    0.16    0.14    0.11  
Adult                 
 Low 231 1453 1.00  57 1453 1.00  58 1247 1.00  107 1247 1.00  
 Low-mid 172 1492 0.77 0.55-1.08 47 1492 0.77 0.49-1.20 30 1420 0.43 0.26-0.73 93 1420 0.69 0.48-0.98 
 Mid-high 191 1425 0.87 0.68-1.12 38 1425 0.63 0.40-1.01 33 1354 0.37 0.21-0.65 101 1354 0.90 0.63-1.27 
 High 168 1633 0.75 0.58-0.98 68 1633 1.03 0.68-1.56 45 1565 0.59 0.36-0.96 104 1565 0.92 0.65-1.29 
Ptrend   0.11    0.94    0.49    0.99  
P§   0.34    0.44    0.10    0.53  
History of sunburn                 
 No 242 1548 1.00  65 1548 1.00  61 1548 1.00  132 1548 1.00  
 Yes 488 3681 0.67 0.53-0.84 127 3681 0.92 0.59-1.43 132 3681 0.81 0.51-1.29 335 3681 0.65 0.48-0.89 
P§   0.56    0.98    0.27    0.44  
History of sunlamp use                 
 No 361 3428 1.00  120 3428 1.00  97 3428 1.00  187 3428 1.00  
 Yes 455 2501 0.85 0.70-1.03 103 2501 0.80 0.58-1.10 111 2501 0.69 0.47-1.02 338 2501 0.88 0.68-1.13 
P§   0.32    0.72    0.10    0.98  
UVR exposureHistologyTumor EBV status
Nodular sclerosisMixed cellularityPositiveNegative
Cases
(n = 928)
Controls
(n = 6381)
OR95% CICases
(n = 242)
Controls
(n = 6381)
OR95% CICases
(n = 208)
Controls
(n = 5964)
OR95% CICases
(n = 526)
Controls
(n = 5964)
OR95% CI
Overall*                 
 Low 182 1323 1.00  55 1323 1.00  56 1323 1.00  121 1323 1.00  
 Low-mid 218 1432 1.00 0.78-1.28 49 1432 0.77 0.50-1.18 55 1432 0.80 0.51-1.26 132 1432 0.96 0.70-1.32 
 Mid-high 214 1397 0.97 0.75-1.26 53 1397 0.83 0.54-1.27 46 1397 0.60 0.36-0.98 135 1397 0.93 0.67-1.28 
 High 202 1683 0.88 0.68-1.14 65 1683 0.85 0.56-1.29 51 1683 0.56 0.35-0.91 138 1683 0.86 0.63-1.19 
Ptrend   0.14    0.52    0.03    0,02  
P§   0.40    0.28    0.09    0.36  
Childhood                 
 Low 186 1373 1.00  42 1373 1.00  50 1373 1.00  109 1373 1.00  
 Low-mid 212 1543 0.73 0.59-0.90 50 1543 0.91 0.63-1.31 52 1543 0.60 0.37-0.97 143 1543 0.75 0.54-1.03 
 Mid-high 149 1090 0.84 0.75-1.07 39 1090 1.03 0.60-1.77 30 1090 0.62 0.35-1.07 77 1090 0.70 0.48-1.02 
 High 166 1608 0.79 0.63-1.00 52 1608 0.90 0.61-1.31 49 1608 0.36 0.10-1.34 129 1608 0.85 0.60-1.21 
Ptrend   0.28    0.59    0.06    0.55  
P§   0.20    0.16    0.14    0.11  
Adult                 
 Low 231 1453 1.00  57 1453 1.00  58 1247 1.00  107 1247 1.00  
 Low-mid 172 1492 0.77 0.55-1.08 47 1492 0.77 0.49-1.20 30 1420 0.43 0.26-0.73 93 1420 0.69 0.48-0.98 
 Mid-high 191 1425 0.87 0.68-1.12 38 1425 0.63 0.40-1.01 33 1354 0.37 0.21-0.65 101 1354 0.90 0.63-1.27 
 High 168 1633 0.75 0.58-0.98 68 1633 1.03 0.68-1.56 45 1565 0.59 0.36-0.96 104 1565 0.92 0.65-1.29 
Ptrend   0.11    0.94    0.49    0.99  
P§   0.34    0.44    0.10    0.53  
History of sunburn                 
 No 242 1548 1.00  65 1548 1.00  61 1548 1.00  132 1548 1.00  
 Yes 488 3681 0.67 0.53-0.84 127 3681 0.92 0.59-1.43 132 3681 0.81 0.51-1.29 335 3681 0.65 0.48-0.89 
P§   0.56    0.98    0.27    0.44  
History of sunlamp use                 
 No 361 3428 1.00  120 3428 1.00  97 3428 1.00  187 3428 1.00  
 Yes 455 2501 0.85 0.70-1.03 103 2501 0.80 0.58-1.10 111 2501 0.69 0.47-1.02 338 2501 0.88 0.68-1.13 
P§   0.32    0.72    0.10    0.98  
*

Education for Epilymph and SCALE, current socioeconomic status for Engela, and skin pigmentation were included as confounders in the final models.

P < 0.05.

P for trend in ORs.

§

P for heterogeneity among studies.

Secondary analyses

No significant interstudy heterogeneity was observed for any measure of UVR exposure (Tables 3 and 4). The percentage of variation in ORs attributable to heterogeneity was low (0% to 25%) in most of our analyses and medium (around 50%) when stratifying on EBV status, mainly due to small numbers and uncertainty in individual risk estimates in 1 study (ELCCS). To address the possibility that hospital controls had less sun exposure due to their disease status, we conducted analyses separately for studies with population-based controls and those with hospital controls. The inverse associations between overall or EBV-positive HL and UVR exposure were observed only in population-based studies (data not shown). We explored modification of the effect of UVR exposure by erythemal UVR index levels by analyzing the relationship of overall UVR exposure with HL risk in 3 regions with a homogeneous UVR index but observed no clear relationship (data not shown).

Discussion

Our pooled analysis of 7701 participants from 4 independent case-control studies of HL found more than a 20% to 30% reduction of risk of HL associated with several measures of UVR exposure over the lifespan (ie, inverse associations of childhood and adulthood UVR exposure, use of sunlamps, and history of sunburns with HL risk). In addition, this analysis provided evidence for a significant inverse exposure-response trend in the association between UVR exposure and EBV-positive HL risk in particular.

Prior research in this area has been scant, and the 3 largest previously published studies were included in this pooled analysis.11,13,14  Among other studies, neither a case-control study in Singapore involving 74 cases and 829 controls16  nor a prospective cohort study in California female teachers that included 38 HL cases15  observed a significant association between UVR exposure and HL. A Greek study of 71 childhood HL cases (mostly patients age 10 to 14 years) and 164 controls also found no association of UVR exposure with HL risk.12  However, all 3 studies had limited statistical power to demonstrate an effect, and all reported some relative risk estimates below 1, consistent with our findings. The Singapore study, which used a questionnaire adapted from the Epilymph study, reported that having an outdoor occupation (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.47) or having daily or weekly sun exposure in childhood (OR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.45 to 1.54] for >30 minutes per day on school days and OR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.40 to 1.22] for >30 minutes per day on non-school days; OR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.44 to 1.46] for >1 hour per week), but not adulthood, were less frequent among cases than controls.16  The Californian study reported a nonsignificant inverse association of HL risk with minimum average annual UVR near one’s residence (relative risk, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.62), but not with median or maximum average annual UVR.15  In the Greek study, a nonsignificant inverse association (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.19) was detected with 15 days or more spent annually at seaside resorts.12  These 3 studies were not included in the present pooled analysis because they were not part of InterLymph at the inception of this project.

Our study is the first to report an inverse association between UVR exposure and EBV-positive HL. The validity of our findings is supported by a significant dose-response relationship and an absence of statistical heterogeneity among studies. Results from case-case comparisons by histologic subtype or tumor EBV status were consistent with those from case-control comparisons. Although information on tumor EBV status was lacking for a proportion of cases, those with EBV information were demographically similar to those without. Because cases classified as EBV-positive were more likely to be male and diagnosed with mixed cellularity HL, our finding of a significant inverse association for EBV-positive HL may explain our observation of a significant inverse association of childhood UVR exposure with HL restricted to males. Due to the limited number of EBV-positive tumors, we were not able to examine associations of UVR exposure with EBV-positive HL stratified simultaneously by age, sex, and histology to better understand these relationships.

This study has several major advantages. As an analysis of pooled data, it includes sufficient numbers of subjects to examine etiologic heterogeneity in risks across subtypes of HL, a relatively rare disease. Our detailed database allowed for adjustment for potential confounding factors across studies, evaluation of interactions, and a robust and complete assessment of selected HL subtypes, which were defined with established laboratory methods.25,26  Participation bias may have contributed to our observations if individuals with healthy lifestyles were overrepresented among the controls. However, greater participation of healthier controls might be expected to underestimate UVR exposure in the source population because UVR exposure is known to cause skin cancer, and such a bias would attenuate inverse associations with HL.

Study limitations include the loss of granularity resulting from the data harmonization required of pooled analyses. There was substantial variation across studies in the wording of questions about UVR exposure (except for dichotomized variables). Nevertheless, the information on individual UVR exposure was mostly collected as number of hours daily at a specific age, such that quantifying exposures into the broad categories of quartiles should accurately capture the gradient in UVR exposure. Furthermore, any exposure misclassification should not have been differential between cases and controls. We could neither distinguish occupational from recreational exposure nor evaluate cumulative lifetime UVR exposure or the use of UVR-protective clothing or lotion. However, the lack of clear differences in pooled risk estimates for UVR exposure before and after age 20 years suggests a potential biological effect of UVR on HL development independent of age at exposure, although our data do not rule out a cumulative effect of UVR. Given the large difference in age distributions between cases and controls, we cannot rule out residual confounding by age, although our models were adjusted for age as a continuous variable. However, age-stratified results, which are less likely to be confounded by age within strata, were similar to overall results, suggesting minimal, if any, residual confounding by age.

Given the known health risks for UVR exposure, recall bias might have led to underreporting of UVR exposure among cases. However, this possibility was potentially reduced by the studies’ including many questions on other exposures and not emphasizing UVR exposure in the questionnaires, as well as by the lack of a previously known association between UVR exposure and HL risk.

Reverse causality, with an HL diagnosis leading to more time spent indoors, may also have contributed to spurious inverse associations with adulthood UVR exposure. However, the inverse associations with both childhood and adulthood UVR exposure, heterogeneity between risks of EBV-negative and EBV-positive HL (and consistent results from the case-case analysis), which would be expected to have an equivalent impact on reverse causality, and an observed dose-response relationship for EBV-positive HL make this possibility unlikely.

Given the inverse associations of UVR exposure with both HL and NHL development, several biological hypotheses can be considered for our study findings. Until recently, the strongest evidence came from the observation that the induction of vitamin D3 synthesis in the skin by UVR27  could have a protective effect against lymphoma development. This hypothetical mechanism is supported by the observation that vitamin D3 promotes differentiation and inhibits proliferation of lymphoma cells in vitro,28  and by the strong expression of the vitamin D receptor on HL tumor cells.29  However, a pooled analysis of 10 cohort studies found no association between prediagnostic serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and risk of NHL or its major histologic subtypes.30 

Two other plausible pathways could explain a protective effect of UVR on HL. First, the immune system could be modulated by UVR induction of regulatory T cells,31  which are critical to inhibiting inflammation.32,33  In HL, the tumor microenvironment, which represents 99% of the tumor, comprises reactive cells that help maintain an inflammatory milieu,34  and individual traits affect the tumor microenvironment in HL.35  UVR appears to induce regulatory T cells through antigen presentation by UVR-damaged Langerhans cells in the lymph nodes36  leading to an immunosuppressed state that may be protective, as suggested by the inverse association observed between the use of aspirin and HL risk.37-39  Second, the cellular DNA damage response activated by viral oncogenes such as those associated with EBV40  could cause tumor suppression by effector T cells when enhanced by UVR exposure,41  which is known to induce multiple defense mechanisms to counterbalance its potential mutagenic and cytotoxic effects.42  The DNA damage response acts as an innate barrier to tumorigenesis,43  whereas a disordered response may lead to lymphomas, including EBV-associated lymphoma.44  Further research is clearly needed to explore these speculative mechanisms.

In conclusion, this analysis of HL risk across contemporaneous European case-control studies found UVR exposure to be inversely associated with HL risk overall. The stronger associations for EBV-positive HL, with a clear dose-response relationship, further support etiologic heterogeneity in HL. A clearer understanding of biological pathways related to UVR exposure could illuminate the pathogenesis of HL and facilitate the development of new targets to enhance the DNA damage response or regulatory T-cell activity for the purpose of reducing the occurrence of HL and other malignancies.

The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 USC section 1734.

There is an Inside Blood commentary on this article in this issue.

Acknowledgments

We thank Rita Leung and Sarah Shema from the Cancer Prevention Institute of California for their role in the data management and analysis of this study. We also thank Klaus Rostgaard from Statens Serum Institut for his assistance with the data analysis.

This work was supported in part by Grant No. R03 CA137828-01 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (E.T.C. and S.L.G.) and by a travel grant from the Fondation de France (A.M.). The Scandinavian Lymphoma Etiology study (Sweden) was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society (2009/659), the Stockholm County Council (20110209), and the Strategic Research Program in Epidemiology at Karolinska Institute (K.E.S.). The Epidemiology and Cancer Statistics Group Case-Control Study (United Kingdom) was supported by Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research (E.K.). The Epilymph study was partially supported by public grants (FIS PI11-01810, AGAUR, RTIC RD06/0020/0095, and CIBERESP) from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (S.d.S.). The Epilymph study (Czech Republic study site) was supported by grants (RECAMO, CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0101) from The European Regional Development Fund and the State Budget of the Czech Republic (L.F.). The Engela study was supported by grants from the Association pour la Recherche contre le Cancer, the Fondation de France, and AFSSET, and by a donation from Faberge employees (J.C.).

Authorship

Contribution: E.T.C. designed the research; A.M. drafted the manuscript; C.W.S. performed the statistical analysis; A.M., K.E.S., S.d.S., E.K., M. Melbye, L.F., M. Maynadié, A.S., N.B., A.N., P. Boffetta, P.C., I.G., J.C., and H.H. contributed data; A.M., E.T.C., and S.L.G. interpreted the results; E.T.C. and S.L.G. obtained funding for the research; and all the authors critically reviewed and revised the manuscript.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Correspondence: Alain Monnereau, Haematological Malignancies Registry of Gironde, Bergonie Institute, 229 Cours de l’Argonne, 33076 Bordeaux cedex, France; e-mail: a.monnereau@bordeaux.unicancer.fr.

Reference

Reference
1
Mueller
 
NE
Grufferman
 
S
Chang
 
ET
Mauch
 
PM
Armitage
 
JO
Diehl
 
V
Weiss
 
LM
The epidemiology of Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.
Hodgkin's Lymphoma
2008
Philadelphia, PA
Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
(pg. 
7
-
23
)
2
Sklar
 
CA
Mertens
 
AC
Mitby
 
P
, et al. 
Premature menopause in survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the childhood cancer survivor study.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2006
, vol. 
98
 
13
(pg. 
890
-
896
)
3
Metayer
 
C
Lynch
 
CF
Clarke
 
EA
, et al. 
Second cancers among long-term survivors of Hodgkin’s disease diagnosed in childhood and adolescence.
J Clin Oncol
2000
, vol. 
18
 
12
(pg. 
2435
-
2443
)
4
Swerdlow
 
AJ
Higgins
 
CD
Smith
 
P
, et al. 
Myocardial infarction mortality risk after treatment for Hodgkin disease: a collaborative British cohort study.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2007
, vol. 
99
 
3
(pg. 
206
-
214
)
5
Hodgson
 
DC
Late effects in the era of modern therapy for Hodgkin lymphoma.
Hematology (Am Soc Hematol Educ Program)
2011
, vol. 
2011
 (pg. 
323
-
329
)
6
MacMahon
 
B
Epidemiology of Hodgkin’s disease.
Cancer Res
1966
, vol. 
26
 
6
(pg. 
1189
-
1201
)
7
Glaser
 
SL
Lin
 
RJ
Stewart
 
SL
, et al. 
Epstein-Barr virus-associated Hodgkin’s disease: epidemiologic characteristics in international data.
Int J Cancer
1997
, vol. 
70
 
4
(pg. 
375
-
382
)
8
Cozen
 
W
Katz
 
J
Mack
 
TM
Risk patterns of Hodgkin’s disease in Los Angeles vary by cell type.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
1992
, vol. 
1
 
4
(pg. 
261
-
268
)
9
Hjalgrim
 
H
Smedby
 
KE
Rostgaard
 
K
, et al. 
Infectious mononucleosis, childhood social environment, and risk of Hodgkin lymphoma.
Cancer Res
2007
, vol. 
67
 
5
(pg. 
2382
-
2388
)
10
Chang
 
ET
Zheng
 
T
Lennette
 
ET
, et al. 
Heterogeneity of risk factors and antibody profiles in epstein-barr virus genome-positive and -negative hodgkin lymphoma.
J Infect Dis
2004
, vol. 
189
 
12
(pg. 
2271
-
2281
)
11
Smedby
 
KE
Hjalgrim
 
H
Melbye
 
M
, et al. 
Ultraviolet radiation exposure and risk of malignant lymphomas.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2005
, vol. 
97
 
3
(pg. 
199
-
209
)
12
Petridou
 
ET
Dikalioti
 
SK
Skalkidou
 
A
Andrie
 
E
Dessypris
 
N
Trichopoulos
 
D
Childhood Hematology-Oncology Group
Sun exposure, birth weight, and childhood lymphomas: a case control study in Greece.
Cancer Causes Control
2007
, vol. 
18
 
9
(pg. 
1031
-
1037
)
13
Grandin
 
L
Orsi
 
L
Troussard
 
X
, et al. 
UV radiation exposure, skin type and lymphoid malignancies: results of a French case-control study.
Cancer Causes Control
2008
, vol. 
19
 
3
(pg. 
305
-
315
)
14
Boffetta
 
P
van der Hel
 
O
Kricker
 
A
, et al. 
Exposure to ultraviolet radiation and risk of malignant lymphoma and multiple myeloma—a multicentre European case-control study.
Int J Epidemiol
2008
, vol. 
37
 
5
(pg. 
1080
-
1094
)
15
Chang
 
ET
Canchola
 
AJ
Cockburn
 
M
, et al. 
Adulthood residential ultraviolet radiation, sun sensitivity, dietary vitamin D, and risk of lymphoid malignancies in the California Teachers Study.
Blood
2011
, vol. 
118
 
6
(pg. 
1591
-
1599
)
16
Wong
 
KY
Tai
 
BC
Chia
 
SE
, et al. 
Sun exposure and risk of lymphoid neoplasms in Singapore.
Cancer Causes Control
2012
, vol. 
23
 
7
(pg. 
1055
-
1064
)
17
Falk
 
M
Differences in sun exposure habits between self-reported skin type and ultraviolet sensitivity measured by phototest.
Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed
2011
, vol. 
27
 
4
(pg. 
190
-
195
)
18
Willett
 
EV
O’Connor
 
S
Smith
 
AG
Roman
 
E
Does smoking or alcohol modify the risk of Epstein-Barr virus-positive or -negative Hodgkin lymphoma?
Epidemiology
2007
, vol. 
18
 
1
(pg. 
130
-
136
)
19
Jaffe
 
ES
Harris
 
NL
Stein
 
H
Vardiman
 
JW
Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues
2001
Lyon, France
IARC Press
20
Fritz
 
A
Percy
 
C
Jack
 
A
, et al. 
International Classification of Diseases for Oncology
2000
3rd ed
Geneva, Switzerland
World Health Organization
21
Coups
 
EJ
Phillips
 
LA
A more systematic review of correlates of indoor tanning.
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol
2011
, vol. 
25
 
5
(pg. 
610
-
616
)
22
Stukel
 
TA
Demidenko
 
E
Dykes
 
J
Karagas
 
MR
Two-stage methods for the analysis of pooled data.
Stat Med
2001
, vol. 
20
 
14
(pg. 
2115
-
2130
)
23
Rothman
 
K
Greenland
 
S
Lash
 
T
Modern Epidemiology
2008
Philadelphia, PA
Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
24
World Health Organization
 
The Global Solar UV Index-a practical guide. WHO/SDE/OEH/02.2. http://www.who.int/uv/publications/en/UVIGuide.pdf. World Health Organization. 2012. Accessed August 22, 2013
25
Clarke
 
CA
Glaser
 
SL
Dorfman
 
RF
Bracci
 
PM
Eberle
 
E
Holly
 
EA
Expert review of non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas in a population-based cancer registry: reliability of diagnosis and subtype classifications.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2004
, vol. 
13
 
1
(pg. 
138
-
143
)
26
Glaser
 
SL
Gulley
 
ML
Borowitz
 
MJ
, et al. 
Inter- and intra-observer reliability of Epstein-Barr virus detection in Hodgkin lymphoma using histochemical procedures.
Leuk Lymphoma
2004
, vol. 
45
 
3
(pg. 
489
-
497
)
27
Guyton
 
KZ
Kensler
 
TW
Posner
 
GH
Vitamin D and vitamin D analogs as cancer chemopreventive agents.
Nutr Rev
2003
, vol. 
61
 
7
(pg. 
227
-
238
)
28
Hickish
 
T
Cunningham
 
D
Colston
 
K
, et al. 
The effect of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 on lymphoma cell lines and expression of vitamin D receptor in lymphoma.
Br J Cancer
1993
, vol. 
68
 
4
(pg. 
668
-
672
)
29
Renné
 
C
Benz
 
AH
Hansmann
 
ML
Vitamin D3 receptor is highly expressed in Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
BMC Cancer
2012
, vol. 
12
 pg. 
215
 
30
Purdue
 
MP
Freedman
 
DM
Gapstur
 
SM
, et al. 
Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of non-hodgkin lymphoma: Cohort Consortium Vitamin D Pooling Project of Rarer Cancers.
Am J Epidemiol
2010
, vol. 
172
 
1
(pg. 
58
-
69
)
31
Norval
 
M
McLoone
 
P
Lesiak
 
A
Narbutt
 
J
The effect of chronic ultraviolet radiation on the human immune system.
Photochem Photobiol
2008
, vol. 
84
 
1
(pg. 
19
-
28
)
32
Erdman
 
SE
Poutahidis
 
T
Cancer inflammation and regulatory T cells.
Int J Cancer
2010
, vol. 
127
 
4
(pg. 
768
-
779
)
33
Norval
 
M
Halliday
 
GM
The consequences of UV-induced immunosuppression for human health.
Photochem Photobiol
2011
, vol. 
87
 
5
(pg. 
965
-
977
)
34
Steidl
 
C
Connors
 
JM
Gascoyne
 
RD
Molecular pathogenesis of Hodgkin’s lymphoma: increasing evidence of the importance of the microenvironment.
J Clin Oncol
2011
, vol. 
29
 
14
(pg. 
1812
-
1826
)
35
Glimelius
 
I
Rubin
 
J
Rostgaard
 
K
, et al. 
Predictors of histology, tissue eosinophilia and mast cell infiltration in Hodgkin’s lymphoma—a population-based study.
Eur J Haematol
2011
, vol. 
87
 
3
(pg. 
208
-
216
)
36
Schwarz
 
T
25 years of UV-induced immunosuppression mediated by T cells-from disregarded T suppressor cells to highly respected regulatory T cells.
Photochem Photobiol
2008
, vol. 
84
 
1
(pg. 
10
-
18
)
37
Chang
 
ET
Zheng
 
T
Weir
 
EG
Borowitz
 
M
Mann
 
RB
Spiegelman
 
D
Mueller
 
NE
Aspirin and the risk of Hodgkin’s lymphoma in a population-based case-control study.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2004
, vol. 
96
 
4
(pg. 
305
-
315
)
38
Chang
 
ET
Cronin-Fenton
 
DP
Friis
 
S
Hjalgrim
 
H
Sørensen
 
HT
Pedersen
 
L
Aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in relation to Hodgkin lymphoma risk in northern Denmark.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2010
, vol. 
19
 
1
(pg. 
59
-
64
)
39
Chang
 
ET
Frøslev
 
T
Sørensen
 
HT
Pedersen
 
L
A nationwide study of aspirin, other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and Hodgkin lymphoma risk in Denmark.
Br J Cancer
2011
, vol. 
105
 
11
(pg. 
1776
-
1782
)
40
Nikitin
 
PA
Yan
 
CM
Forte
 
E
, et al. 
An ATM/Chk2-mediated DNA damage-responsive signaling pathway suppresses Epstein-Barr virus transformation of primary human B cells.
Cell Host Microbe
2010
, vol. 
8
 
6
(pg. 
510
-
522
)
41
Nikitin
 
PA
Luftig
 
MA
The DNA damage response in viral-induced cellular transformation.
Br J Cancer
2012
, vol. 
106
 
3
(pg. 
429
-
435
)
42
Bergink
 
S
Jaspers
 
NG
Vermeulen
 
W
Regulation of UV-induced DNA damage response by ubiquitylation.
DNA Repair (Amst)
2007
, vol. 
6
 
9
(pg. 
1231
-
1242
)
43
Nikitin
 
PA
Luftig
 
MA
At a crossroads: human DNA tumor viruses and the host DNA damage response.
Future Virol
2011
, vol. 
6
 
7
(pg. 
813
-
830
)
44
Ciccia
 
A
Elledge
 
SJ
The DNA damage response: making it safe to play with knives.
Mol Cell
2010
, vol. 
40
 
2
(pg. 
179
-
204
)