Asbestos and lung cancer: the clinicians' questions

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos and lung cancer: the clinicians' questions, by M.R. Becklake (Chest, 1980).

The study

• Author: M.R. Becklake
• Journal: Chest
• Published: 1980;78(2 Suppl):372-3
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed
• In J-M's library: Johns-Manville's company medical library held a copy (J-M no. 000789).

In plain English

This article was not a research study. It was the author's introduction, as chairman, to a symposium on asbestos and lung cancer for chest physicians. The author wrote that a clinician's diagnosis is a scientific hypothesis, revised as new information comes in. Doctors are increasingly asked to interpret scientific evidence for patients, families, co-workers, unions, employers, the public and courts of law, sometimes facing legal questions such as in which year it was known that asbestos causes lung cancer. To show how evidence of a cause builds up over time, the author recounted the history of evidence on cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That history included a 1962 Royal College of Physicians report that reviewed 216 reports, and a 1964 Surgeon-General's report based on a review of 1,011 scientific papers. The author then introduced four presentations: whether the case linking asbestos and lung cancer had been proven, attributability in the face of uncertainty, the relationship between asbestosis and bronchial cancer, and the basis for clinical decision-making. The article presented no new data.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Symposium introduction or commentary by the symposium chairman; not a study and not a systematic review
• Exposure: Asbestos exposure in relation to lung cancer, discussed in general terms; no fiber types, jobs or doses are specified
• Main results:
  • The author described a clinician's diagnosis as a scientific hypothesis, revised in the light of new information
  • The author noted that clinicians may face legal questions about when it was known that asbestos causes lung cancer
  • As an analogy taken from other reports on smoking (not asbestos), the author noted that the 1962 Royal College of Physicians report reviewed 216 reports
  • As part of the same smoking analogy, the author noted that the 1964 Surgeon-General's report was based on a review of 1,011 scientific papers
  • In introducing the asbestosis and bronchial cancer presentation, the author noted that compensation boards differ: some accept attributability in the absence of fibrosis and some do not
• The authors' conclusion: The article reaches no conclusion about asbestos and lung cancer. It sets out four questions for the symposium's presentations to address.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Lung cancer.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Lung Cancer.

Related studies

• Surgical biology for the clinician: peritoneal mesothelioma: current understanding and management — T.C. Chua, T.D. Yan, et al. (2009)
• Immunostaining in lung cancer for the clinician. Commonly used markers for differentiating primary and metastatic pulmonary tumors — J.M. Carney, A.M. Kraynie, et al. (2015)
• Asbestos exposure: challenges for Australian clinicians — A.W. Musk, N.H. de Klerk, et al. (2016)
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Approaches on special subgroups and unresolved burning questions — J. Remon, N. Vilariño, et al. (2018)
• What is the significance of non-specific pleuritis? A trick question — J. Janssen, F. Maldonado, et al. (2018)
• To seed or not to seed: the open question of mesothelioma intervention tract metastases — L. Bertolaccini, A. Viti, et al. (2014)

Browse more research in Chest, or return to medical research.