Skin Cancer Risk: It's Not Just About Your Skin Type

Written By Joey .

Sun exposure gets most of the attention when people talk about skin cancer risk. It deserves it — UV radiation is the primary carcinogen driving the majority of melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma. But framing skin cancer risk as a sun exposure problem misses a significant portion of the clinical picture. A patient can have a lifetime of diligent sun protection and still carry a very high skin cancer risk profile. A patient can tan easily, never burn, and genuinely be at low risk. The difference lies in biology, genetics, immune status, naevi burden, and a cluster of non-UV risk factors that are rarely communicated clearly during skin checks.

As a dermoscopist conducting community skin cancer screenings across Greater Sydney, I examine skin lesions every clinical shift using dermoscopy — a technique that dramatically improves diagnostic accuracy over naked-eye examination alone. This post covers the complete picture of skin cancer risk beyond UV exposure, why Caucasian Australians carry a disproportionate burden, the dermoscopic features that distinguish malignant from benign lesions, and what a proper high-risk patient assessment actually involves.

◆ Clinical Summary

Who is at highest risk of skin cancer beyond sun exposure? The highest-risk profiles are: Fitzpatrick skin type I–II (fair skin, blonde/red hair, blue/green eyes, freckling, burns without tanning), personal or family history of melanoma or NMSC, atypical mole syndrome (>50 naevi, atypical naevus morphology), immunosuppression (organ transplant recipients have up to 100× increased SCC risk), CDKN2A/CDK4 or MC1R genetic variants, prior ionising radiation exposure, arsenic exposure history, and certain genodermatoses (xeroderma pigmentosum, Gorlin syndrome). Cumulative UV exposure amplifies every one of these underlying risks — but does not create them.1,2,3

Australia: The World's Highest Skin Cancer Burden

Any discussion of skin cancer in clinical practice must begin with the Australian context. Australia and New Zealand record the world's highest incidence of melanoma — not merely as a geographic curiosity, but as a direct consequence of a predominantly fair-skinned, European-descended population living under some of the highest ambient UV radiation levels on earth. The proximity to the equator, the thinning ozone layer historically more pronounced over the Southern Hemisphere, and the outdoor lifestyle culture have combined to create a unique epidemiological burden.4

2 in 3 Australians will be diagnosed with some form of skin cancer before the age of 70 — approximately 69% lifetime risk. In 2022–23, over 1.1 million Medicare-paid treatments for BCC and SCC were recorded — averaging more than 100 skin cancer treatments per hour.4,5

Australia records an age-standardised melanoma incidence rate of approximately 60 new cases per 100,000 people — two to three times higher than Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Melanoma is the third most common cancer diagnosed in Australia, and the most commonly diagnosed cancer among Australians aged 15–29 years. In 2023, there were 1,527 deaths from melanoma — 1,038 males and 489 females.5,6

These numbers are the backdrop against which every skin check in this country is conducted. They are also the reason that community dermoscopy screening programs — the context in which I work — have genuine, measurable public health impact.

Fitzpatrick Skin Type: What It Measures and What It Misses

The Fitzpatrick Phototype Classification — developed by Thomas Fitzpatrick at Harvard in 1975 — was designed to characterise the skin's response to UV radiation based on observable phenotypic features: hair colour, eye colour, skin colour, tendency to burn, and ability to tan. It remains the most widely used clinical tool for initial skin cancer risk stratification. But it has clinically important limitations that every practitioner using it should understand.

Type I

Always burns, never tans

Very fair skin. Red or blonde hair. Blue/green/grey eyes. Heavy freckling. Extreme UV sensitivity. Highest NMSC and melanoma risk profile.1,2

Type II

Usually burns, tans minimally

Fair skin. Blonde to light brown hair. Blue or brown eyes. Burns easily. Very high NMSC and melanoma risk — the most common phenotype in the highest-incidence Australian demographic.1,2

Type III

Sometimes burns, tans uniformly

Medium skin. Dark blonde to brown hair. Hazel or brown eyes. Moderate risk — often underestimates individual risk from non-UV factors including naevi burden and family history.2

Type IV

Rarely burns, tans well

Olive to light brown skin. Brown or dark hair. Dark eyes. Lower NMSC risk. Melanoma risk lower but not absent — and lesions in this phototype are frequently diagnosed later due to lower clinical suspicion.2

Type V

Rarely burns, tans profusely

Brown skin. Dark hair and eyes. Lower UV-driven NMSC risk. SCC is the predominant NMSC when it occurs — often in non-sun-exposed sites, driven by non-UV factors.2

Type VI

Never burns

Very dark/black skin. Lowest UV-driven NMSC risk. Melanoma when it occurs is often acral (subungual, plantar) — frequently diagnosed late with worse prognosis.2

The Fitzpatrick limitation: The classification was developed in predominantly European populations and has documented accuracy limitations in ethnically diverse groups. Self-reported phototype is an incomplete predictor of objective skin cancer risk — particularly in skin types III–IV, where individual variation in naevi burden, MC1R variants, and family history can dramatically alter risk independent of sun response. A type III patient with 80 naevi, an atypical mole, and a first-degree relative with melanoma is at very high risk despite a moderate sun response score.

Why Caucasian Patients Are at Disproportionate Risk: The Biology

The dramatically elevated skin cancer risk in fair-skinned Caucasian individuals — particularly those of Northern and Western European descent — is not simply about burning more easily. It reflects a specific and well-characterised biological difference in melanin composition and UV defence capacity.

Eumelanin vs Pheomelanin

Human skin contains two primary forms of melanin: eumelanin (brown-black) and pheomelanin (red-yellow). Eumelanin is a highly effective UV absorber — it dissipates the energy of UV photons as heat and neutralises UV-generated free radicals, acting as a genuine photoprotective shield. Pheomelanin, which predominates in fair-skinned, red-haired individuals, does the opposite: it amplifies UV-induced oxidative damage by generating reactive oxygen species (ROS) upon UV exposure, rather than neutralising them.3

Mouse model data suggest that pheomelanin may act as a UV-independent carcinogen — generating oxidative DNA damage even in the absence of UV exposure.3 This is clinically significant: it means that individuals with the red hair/fair skin phenotype (driven by MC1R gene variants) carry elevated melanoma risk that cannot be fully mitigated by UV avoidance alone. Their melanin chemistry is inherently pro-oxidant.

MC1R Gene Variants

The MC1R (melanocortin-1 receptor) gene controls the ratio of eumelanin to pheomelanin produced by melanocytes. Functional MC1R variants — present in the majority of red-haired individuals and a significant proportion of fair-skinned blondes — shift melanin production toward pheomelanin. These variants are associated with a 2–4× increased melanoma risk independent of sun exposure. Individuals with two MC1R variant alleles (homozygous) carry the highest phenotypic risk — red hair, very fair skin, intense freckling, inability to tan, and extreme sensitivity to even modest UV exposure.3

DNA Repair Capacity

UV radiation damages DNA primarily through cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs) and 6-4 photoproducts. The nucleotide excision repair (NER) pathway removes this damage. Genetic variants in NER genes — including those associated with xeroderma pigmentosum in its most severe form, and with subclinical NER impairment in the general population — reduce the efficiency of UV damage repair. Patients with certain NER polymorphisms accumulate UV-induced DNA damage faster than they can repair it, increasing the likelihood of oncogenic mutations in p53, CDKN2A, and other tumour suppressor loci.1,8

Risk Factors Beyond UV Exposure

UV radiation amplifies and accelerates every risk factor below. But these factors drive skin cancer risk independently — and in some patients, dominate the clinical picture regardless of sun exposure history.

Very high risk

Personal History of Skin Cancer

The single strongest predictor of future skin cancer. A patient who has had one melanoma has an approximately 10× increased risk of a second primary melanoma. Prior NMSC (BCC or SCC) independently elevates risk of subsequent NMSC and melanoma. In clinical dermoscopy practice, the personal history question is the most important screening question asked.1,7

Very high risk

Family History of Melanoma

A first-degree relative with melanoma doubles to triples the patient's own melanoma risk. Familial melanoma clusters — particularly those involving CDKN2A mutations — carry up to 70% lifetime melanoma risk in gene carriers. First-degree relatives of patients with melanoma should be regarded as high-risk and offered regular dermoscopy surveillance.1,7

Very high risk

Immunosuppression (Transplant Recipients)

Organ transplant recipients on long-term immunosuppressive therapy carry a 100× increased risk of SCC and a 5–27× increased risk of melanoma compared to the general population. Immunosuppression impairs the immune surveillance that normally detects and eliminates pre-malignant keratinocytes. SCC in transplant recipients behaves more aggressively — with higher rates of local recurrence and metastasis — than SCC in immunocompetent patients. This population requires 3–6 monthly dermoscopy surveillance as a minimum.6,8

Very high risk

Atypical Mole Syndrome (AMS)

Defined by the presence of >50 naevi with ≥1 atypical (dysplastic) naevus. A meta-analysis of 46 studies found that 101–120 naevi confer a pooled relative risk of 6.89 for melanoma compared to those with 0–15 naevi. AMS with a family history of melanoma (FAMMM syndrome) carries lifetime melanoma risk approaching 70% in some cohorts. Regular whole-body dermoscopy with sequential digital monitoring is the standard of care.7

High risk

Ionising Radiation Exposure

Prior therapeutic ionising radiation to skin — including historical radiotherapy for tinea capitis, acne, or early-stage cancers — significantly elevates risk of BCC and SCC at the irradiated field. Radiation-associated BCCs are clinically and dermoscopically identical to UV-induced BCCs but may occur on non-sun-exposed sites and in patients with lower UV burden.1,2

High risk

Arsenic Exposure

Chronic arsenic exposure — historically from contaminated drinking water, pesticides (particularly in agricultural workers), and certain medications — is an established independent risk factor for SCC, BCC, and Bowen's disease (SCC in situ). Arsenical keratoses on the palms and soles are a characteristic clinical marker. A thorough occupational and residential history is warranted in any patient with unusual SCC distribution or early-onset disease.1,2

High risk

Chronic Scarring and Inflammation

Chronic wounds, burn scars, areas of chronic radiodermatitis, and sites of persistent inflammatory skin disease (lichen sclerosus, discoid lupus erythematosus) can develop SCC — termed Marjolin's ulcer — through chronic inflammatory mutagenesis. These SCCs tend to arise in non-sun-exposed anatomical sites and often behave more aggressively than UV-driven SCC.2

High risk

Genodermatoses

Xeroderma pigmentosum (XP) — impaired NER — confers a 10,000× increased risk of UV-induced skin cancers and dramatically earlier onset. Gorlin (Basal Cell Naevus) syndrome — PTCH1 mutation — drives multiple BCCs from childhood, often on non-sun-exposed sites. Albinism eliminates UV protection, creating very high NMSC risk at any UV exposure level.1,2

Emerging evidence

HPV Infection

Certain beta-HPV strains have been implicated in SCC pathogenesis — particularly in immunosuppressed patients, where they impair apoptosis of UV-damaged keratinocytes. HPV-associated SCC is overrepresented in transplant-associated skin cancer and in patients with epidermodysplasia verruciformis, a rare genodermatosis.2,8

Emerging evidence

Metabolic Factors

Overweight individuals (BMI >30) carry a 20% higher SCC risk. Smokers have a 1.8× higher SCC incidence than non-smokers. Immunometabolic dysregulation — including the chronic low-grade inflammation of insulin resistance — may impair cutaneous immune surveillance. These associations are independent of UV exposure and are under-recognised in standard risk assessment.5

Dermoscopy: The Evidence for Improved Diagnostic Accuracy

Dermoscopy — the examination of skin lesions using a hand-held epiluminescence microscope at 10× magnification — is the most evidence-supported tool available for improving diagnostic accuracy in pigmented and non-pigmented skin lesions at the point of care. The evidence base is unambiguous.

📄 Cancer Council Australia / Kittler et al. — Dermoscopy Diagnostic Accuracy

Naked-eye clinical examination of cutaneous melanoma has an accuracy rate of approximately 60%. Dermoscopy increases diagnostic accuracy to 89% — with a sensitivity of 82.6% for detecting melanocytic lesions. Specifically for melanoma diagnosis, dermoscopy improves sensitivity from the naked-eye baseline of 66.9% to 85.0% (p = 0.0001) and specificity from 97.2% to 98.2% (p = 0.006). This 18–20 percentage point improvement in sensitivity translates directly into earlier stage diagnosis and improved patient outcomes — and it is the reason dermoscopy is now considered standard of care rather than an optional add-on in any skin cancer screening context.9

📄 Systematic Review — Dermoscopic Structures and Melanoma Detection (40 Studies, 22,796 Lesions, 5,736 Melanomas)

This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the diagnostic accuracy of individual dermoscopic structures for melanoma detection across 40 studies. The structures with the highest odds ratios for melanoma were: shiny white structures (OR 6.7), pseudopods (OR 6.7), irregular pigmentation (OR 6.4), blue-white veil (OR 6.3), and peppering/regression (OR 6.3). Atypical network, atypical dots/globules, and polymorphous vascular patterns were also significantly associated with melanoma. The study confirmed that the overall pattern organisation — not just individual structures — is diagnostically critical, suggesting a hierarchy in the weight given to different dermoscopic findings.10

Dermoscopic Features by Cancer Type

Melanoma

Melanoma is the most lethal skin cancer and the most dermoscopically complex. No single dermoscopic criterion is diagnostic — the overall gestalt of pattern organisation, colour variation, and structural irregularity drives the assessment. The most clinically important high-risk dermoscopic features are:

  • Blue-white veil: Irregular, confluent blue-white pigmentation — corresponds to heavily pigmented tumour cells deep in the dermis overlaid by orthokeratosis. OR 6.3 for melanoma.10
  • Shiny white structures: White, shiny streaks (chrysalis structures) visible only with polarised light dermoscopy — correspond to altered collagen in the dermis. Highly specific for melanoma and BCC. OR 6.7.10
  • Pseudopods and streaks: Radial, finger-like extensions at the periphery — correspond to confluent junctional nests at the tumour border. OR 6.7.10
  • Peppering/regression: Granular grey-brown or blue-grey dots representing melanophages in regressing tumour — OR 6.3. Regression in a lesion without previous treatment is significant.10
  • Atypical network: Irregular, asymmetric, thickened network lines with variable width and colour.10
  • Irregular pigmentation: Multiple shades of brown, black, red, white, and blue — particularly when distributed asymmetrically. OR 6.4.10
  • Polymorphous vessels: Multiple vascular morphologies in a single lesion — particularly in amelanotic melanoma where vascular patterns are the primary diagnostic clue.10
  • Blue-black colour: A key predictor of nodular melanoma — corresponds to pigment in mid-deep dermis combined with surface pigment. Nodular melanoma frequently lacks classic melanoma criteria and must be suspected on the basis of rapid growth history and vascular features.10

Basal Cell Carcinoma (BCC)

BCC is the most common skin cancer in Australia and dermoscopically one of the most reliably identifiable. The Menzies model — diagnosis requiring absence of pigment network plus presence of at least one specific structure — achieves 97% sensitivity and 92–93% specificity for pigmented BCC. Key features:

Dermoscopic Feature Description Corresponds to Histology BCC Subtype
Arborising telangiectasias Bright red, branching vessels in focus, large diameter Superficial dilated vessels in papillary dermis Nodular BCC (most specific)
Blue-grey ovoid nests Large, confluent blue-grey pigmented structures Pigmented tumour islands in dermis Nodular, pigmented BCC
Maple leaf-like areas Brown to grey leaf-shaped discrete pigmented areas Pigmented epithelial strands Superficial pigmented BCC
Spoke-wheel pattern Radial pigmented projections from a central hub Pigmented tumour strands radiating from a central point Superficial BCC (highly specific)
Short fine telangiectasias Fine short vessels, <1mm, few branches Superficial telangectatic vessels Superficial BCC
Ulceration Erosion or ulcer not explained by recent trauma Central tumour necrosis All subtypes
Shiny white structures Visible only under polarised light Altered dermal collagen All subtypes (polarised dermoscopy)

Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC)

SCC dermoscopy is characterised by features reflecting keratinocyte differentiation and vascular changes. Key dermoscopic criteria include: keratin masses (opaque yellow-brown structures corresponding to hyperkeratosis), white circles (bright white circles surrounding dilated follicular infundibula — sensitivity 79%, specificity 87% for SCC), blood spots (red-black dots within keratin masses), hairpin vessels with white halos, and white structureless areas. The combination of keratin and white circles is the most specific dermoscopic pattern for SCC diagnosis.11

The ABCDE Rule: The Naked-Eye Starting Point

Before dermoscopy is applied, the ABCDE criteria provide the initial clinical framework for lesion assessment. They are a teaching and triage tool — not a substitute for dermoscopic examination in any patient with a concerning lesion or elevated risk profile.

A Asymmetry

One half does not mirror the other in shape or colour

B Border

Irregular, notched, scalloped, or poorly defined edges

C Colour

Multiple shades — brown, black, red, white, blue within one lesion

D Diameter

>6mm — but note: melanomas can be smaller; use as context not cutoff

E Evolution

Any change in size, shape, colour, surface, or symptoms over time

The "E" is clinically the most important. A lesion that is changing — in any way, at any speed — warrants dermoscopic evaluation regardless of whether it satisfies A, B, C, or D criteria. Evolution is particularly important in detecting nodular melanoma, which often lacks the classic ABCDE features due to its rapid, vertically invasive growth pattern.

High-Risk Patient Profiles: What Warrants Surveillance Dermoscopy

Community skin screening is not one-size-fits-all. The clinical value of dermoscopy is maximised when patients are stratified by risk and surveillance frequency is matched to their individual profile. In my screening practice, I consider the following patients to warrant structured surveillance rather than one-off examination:

  • Personal history of melanoma — minimum 6-monthly whole-body dermoscopy with digital sequential monitoring of naevi
  • Fitzpatrick I/II with >50 naevi — annual whole-body dermoscopy; 6-monthly if any naevus is atypical
  • Atypical Mole Syndrome / FAMMM syndrome — 3–6 monthly dermoscopy, photography baseline, patient self-examination education
  • First-degree relative with melanoma — annual whole-body dermoscopy from age 18
  • Organ transplant recipients — 3–6 monthly whole-body dermoscopy due to 100× SCC risk; any suspicious lesion should be referred urgently given the accelerated biology in this group6,8
  • Occupational sun exposure — outdoor workers (farmers, construction, fishers) have 4× NMSC risk — annual whole-body dermoscopy from age 305
  • Prior skin cancer of any type — minimum annual surveillance, 6-monthly if prior melanoma
A clinical note on the "I look Italian, I don't need to worry" fallacy. Fitzpatrick III–IV patients frequently underestimate their skin cancer risk on the basis of their ability to tan. Tanning capacity reduces UV-driven NMSC risk — but does not eliminate it, and does not modify the risks conferred by family history, naevi burden, immunosuppression, or occupational exposure. In my screening practice, some of the highest-risk naevi presentations I see are in patients with olive skin who have never considered themselves a skin cancer risk and have therefore never had a skin check.

What a Full Dermoscopy Screen Actually Involves

A dermoscopy consultation is not simply looking at moles. A proper high-risk skin assessment involves: a structured risk factor history (UV history, previous skin cancers, family history, medications including immunosuppressants, occupational exposures, naevus history), a systematic whole-body skin examination, dermoscopic evaluation of every clinically atypical lesion, documentation of baseline morphology for sequential monitoring, and a clear management recommendation — whether that is reassurance, a defined review interval, or urgent referral for excision and histopathology.

Dermoscopy without training in pattern recognition is not dermoscopy — it is the illusion of thoroughness. The evidence that dermoscopy improves diagnostic accuracy assumes a practitioner who has completed accredited dermoscopy training and applies systematic pattern analysis rather than gestalt impression alone.

◎ Dermoscopy Skin Cancer Screening

Structured whole-body dermoscopy screening with full risk factor assessment, systematic lesion evaluation, and documented management recommendations. Performed by an accredited Dermoscopist and IDS member. Available for individual consultations and community screening programs.

Is a skin check the same as dermoscopy?

No — and this is a clinically important distinction that most patients do not understand. A skin check refers to any clinical examination of the skin — including a general practitioner visually inspecting lesions with the naked eye. Naked-eye examination of melanoma has an accuracy rate of approximately 60%. Dermoscopy — epiluminescence microscopy using a hand-held device with polarised or non-polarised light — increases diagnostic accuracy to 89%, improving melanoma sensitivity by approximately 20 percentage points over naked eye alone.9 The term "skin check" covers a broad spectrum of clinical quality; dermoscopy specifically refers to the evidence-supported tool that meaningfully improves that quality. Not every skin check includes dermoscopy, and not every practitioner performing skin checks has dermoscopy training.

How often should I get a skin check if I have fair skin?

Fair-skinned Australians (Fitzpatrick I–II) with no additional risk factors should have a whole-body dermoscopy examination annually. Those with additional risk factors — prior skin cancer, family history of melanoma, atypical moles, immunosuppression, or significant occupational UV exposure — should be reviewed more frequently, typically every 3–6 months depending on the specific risk profile. Younger fair-skinned patients (<40 years) are not exempt: melanoma is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australians aged 15–29, and the lesions that matter in this age group are more likely to be recent-onset, changing naevi rather than chronic sun-damaged skin. Any changing lesion warrants prompt evaluation regardless of age.4,5

Frequently Asked Questions

Can you get skin cancer without ever burning?

Yes. While UV-induced burning is a significant risk factor, skin cancer risk operates through multiple independent pathways. Patients with atypical mole syndrome, FAMMM syndrome, CDKN2A mutations, or who are immunosuppressed (particularly organ transplant recipients) carry very high skin cancer risk regardless of sun exposure history or history of burning. Melanoma in darker-skinned individuals also frequently occurs on acral sites (soles, nail beds, palms) where UV exposure is minimal — driven by non-UV mutagenic mechanisms.1,2,6

What makes red-haired people more at risk of melanoma?

Red hair and fair skin are driven by MC1R gene variants that shift melanin production from photoprotective eumelanin to pheomelanin — a red-yellow pigment that generates reactive oxygen species upon UV exposure rather than neutralising them. This means the melanin chemistry in red-haired individuals is actively pro-oxidant and may cause DNA damage even without direct UV exposure. MC1R variants are associated with a 2–4× increased melanoma risk independent of sun exposure history — one of the clearest examples of a UV-independent genetic risk factor for skin cancer.3

How risky is skin cancer for organ transplant recipients?

Extraordinarily high. Solid organ transplant recipients on long-term immunosuppression have a 100× increased risk of SCC and a 5–27× increased risk of melanoma compared to the general immunocompetent population. The pooled relative risk for melanoma in liver and heart transplant patients is 5.27. Crucially, SCC in transplant recipients behaves differently — with higher rates of local recurrence, perineural invasion, and metastasis. This population should be regarded as the highest-risk group in any skin cancer screening practice and reviewed every 3 months with whole-body dermoscopy at minimum.6,8

What does a dermoscopist look for that a regular skin check misses?

Dermoscopy reveals subsurface structures invisible to the naked eye — the vascular patterns, pigment network architecture, regression zones, and structural features that characterise specific lesion types. The dermoscopic criteria for melanoma (blue-white veil, shiny white structures, pseudopods, regression, atypical network), BCC (arborising vessels, ovoid nests, maple leaf areas), and SCC (white circles, keratin masses, hairpin vessels) are only visible under dermoscopic magnification with appropriate illumination. A lesion that appears benign to the naked eye can carry unambiguous malignant dermoscopic features — and vice versa, benign lesions with alarming clinical appearance can be confidently reassured under dermoscopy, avoiding unnecessary excisions.9,10,11

Does diet or gut health affect skin cancer risk?

The evidence here is emerging rather than established. Chronic systemic inflammation — including from gut dysbiosis, insulin resistance, and intestinal permeability — may impair cutaneous immune surveillance. Immunometabolic dysregulation has documented associations with increased SCC risk (BMI >30 independently raises SCC risk by 20%). Vitamin D deficiency is independently associated with impaired anti-tumour immune responses in skin. These are not reasons to deprioritise UV protection and dermoscopy screening — but they reflect the broader systemic context within which skin cancer risk sits, and are consistent with a whole-person approach to skin health.5

Are you in a high-risk group that has never had a proper dermoscopy screen?

If you have fair skin, a family history of melanoma, multiple naevi, or are immunosuppressed — structured dermoscopy surveillance is not optional. Early detection is the intervention with the highest impact on skin cancer outcomes.

Book a dermoscopy consultation →

Further Reading & Trusted Sources

References

  1. Computer-assisted diagnosis techniques for diagnosing skin cancer. Cochrane / PMC. PMC6517147. Includes: Fitzpatrick I/II risk, immunosuppression, arsenic, Gorlin syndrome.
  2. Skin cancers in skin types IV–VI: does the Fitzpatrick scale give a false sense of security? Skin Health and Disease. 2021;1(3):ski2.40. doi:10.1093/skinhd/ski2.40.
  3. Cancer Council Australia. Risk factors and epidemiology — genetic risk factors, MC1R, pheomelanin. cancer.org.au 2024.
  4. Australian Skin Cancer Foundation. Skin cancer statistics 2024. 2 in 3 Australians diagnosed by age 70; 100 treatments per hour.
  5. Skin cancer statistics — ZipDo / GItNux compilation 2026. Incidence data, transplant risk, occupational risk, BMI/smoking data.
  6. Cancer Australia. Melanoma of the skin statistics — 2023. 1,527 deaths; 1 in 13 lifetime risk for men. canceraustralia.gov.au.
  7. Cancer Council Australia. Detection and screening — dermoscopy accuracy 89%, sensitivity 82.6%. cancer.org.au.
  8. Identification of genetic risk factors for keratinocyte cancer in immunosuppressed solid organ transplant recipients. PMC. PMC10340609. 2023.
  9. Kittler H, Pehamberger H, Wolff K, Binder M. Diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy. Lancet Oncol. 2002;3(3):159–165; confirmed by Cancer Council Australia detection review 2020.
  10. Systematic review and meta-analysis: diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopic structures in melanoma — 40 studies, 22,796 lesions, 5,736 melanomas. PMC. PMC8339993. 2021.
  11. Dermoscopy of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers — SCC criteria (white circles, keratin, hairpin vessels). Front Med. 2019. PMC6712997.
  12. Epidemiology and risk factors of melanoma: a review. PMC. PMC8366310. 2021. Transplant recipient pRR 5.27.
Joey .
Next

Vitiligo: What's Actually Happening in Your Skin