Results from the retrospective study were consistent with a role for vitamin D in melanoma outcome. The cohort study tests this hypothesis, providing evidence that higher 25-hydroxyvitamin D(3) levels, at diagnosis, are associated with both thinner tumors and better survival from melanoma, independent of Breslow thickness. Patients with melanoma, and those at high risk of melanoma, should seek to ensure vitamin D sufficiency. Additional studies are needed to establish optimal serum levels for patients with melanoma.

We have carried out melanoma case-control comparisons for six vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels in order to investigate the role of vitamin D in melanoma susceptibility. There was no significant evidence of an association between any VDR SNP and risk in 1028 population-ascertained cases and 402 controls from Leeds, UK. In a second Leeds case-control study (299 cases and 560 controls) the FokI T allele was associated with increased melanoma risk (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.06-1.91, p=0.02). In a meta-analysis in conjunction with published data from other smaller data sets (total 3769 cases and 3636 controls), the FokI T allele was associated with increased melanoma risk (odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.35), and the BsmI A allele was associated with a reduced risk (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.92), in each instance under a parsimonious dominant model. In the first Leeds case-control comparison cases were more likely to have a higher body mass index (BMI) than controls (p=0.007 for linear trend). There was no evidence of a case-control difference in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels. In 1043 incident cases from the first Leeds case-control study, a single estimation of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 level taken at recruitment was inversely correlated with Breslow thickness (p=0.03 for linear trend). These data provide evidence to support the view that vitamin D and VDR may have a small but potentially important role in melanoma susceptibility, and putatively a greater role in disease progression.

Objectives: To develop a patient-completed disease-specific measure of quality of life in multiple sclerosis and to validate the measure in a community-based population of people with multiple sclerosis. Methods: The items in the scale were selected in focus group sessions of people with multiple sclerosis. The initial scale included 25 items and was tested in subgroups of 150 people from a population register of people with multiple sclerosis in Leeds. Following further developmental phases, a restructured 16-item scale was tested on a random sample of 200 people with multiple sclerosis from the population register, stratified according to disease course. This led to a final eight-item unidimensional scale, the Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life (LMSQoL) scale. Results: After initial development a 16-item scale was found to be both reliable and valid. Cronbach' s alpha for the 16-item scale was 0.86. The test–retest correlation was 0.74, using a two-week retest interval. However, convergent validity with the General Well Being Index was 0.67 and with the SF-36 Physical Function Scale was 0.68. This suggested that the scale straddled these two concepts and was confirmed by fit of the data to the Rasch measurement model. This revealed the potential for a reduced eight-item version of the scale. The eight-item scale had a closer association to well-being (0.83) than to physical function (0.39), had good internal consistency (0.79) and test–retest reliability (0.85). There were virtually no floor or ceiling effects for the scale. Conclusions: The study presents a disease-specific measure of quality of life in multiple sclerosis, the Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life (LMSQoL) scale. The instrument is brief, easy to use and practical to administer in clinic or as a postal questionnaire. It measures a construct related to well-being, and provides an important adjunct to the measurement of outcome in multiple sclerosis.