Authors' Response to "Evidence Does Not Support Exposure to Cosmetic Talc as a Cause of Malignant Mesothelioma"

Our plain-English summary of Authors' Response to "Evidence Does Not Support Exposure to Cosmetic Talc as a Cause of Malignant Mesothelioma", by J. Moline, K. Bevilacqua, R.E. Gordon (Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2020).

The study

• Authors: J. Moline, K. Bevilacqua, R.E. Gordon
• Journal: Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
• Published: 2020;62(2):e85-e86
• Type of article: Letter, Comment
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This is not a research study. It is a letter in which the authors replied to Dr. Geyer's criticism of their earlier case series on mesothelioma and cosmetic talc, and it reported no new data. The authors described that earlier work as a descriptive study of 33 cases, six presented in depth with tissue digestion studies. They defended their laboratory methods, saying asbestos was identified by transmission electron microscopy using fiber shape, elemental analysis and crystal structure, and that only fibers longer than 5 micrometers were counted in the patients' tissue. They said it is almost impossible to show where any asbestos fiber in tissue came from, and that the fiber types found matched those consistently found in cosmetic talcum powder. They acknowledged that the case series had no control population and calculated no mesothelioma incidence rates. The authors concluded that exposure to asbestos-contaminated cosmetic talc should be considered as a cause of mesothelioma and called for further studies of cosmetic talc users. Two authors disclosed serving as expert witnesses for plaintiffs in asbestos and talc litigation.

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: letter to the editor (authors' reply to a letter criticizing their earlier case series); no new data
• Who was studied: No population was studied in this letter. It discusses the authors' earlier case series of 33 people with malignant mesothelioma, six of them presented in depth with tissue digestion studies.
• Exposure: Cosmetic talc, described as asbestos-contaminated, in people with no other known asbestos exposure (as described for the earlier case series)
• Main results:
  • The authors stated that asbestos in the earlier study was identified by transmission electron microscopy using the fiber's shape, its elemental analysis and its crystal structure.
  • The authors stated that only fibers longer than 5 micrometers were counted in the mesothelioma patients' tissue.
  • The authors stated that the historical controls were laboratory controls prepared years before the study, and that all fibers found in them were described, including shorter fibers.
  • The authors argued that the source of an asbestos fiber in tissue cannot be confirmed. They said the fiber types found matched those consistently found in cosmetic talcum powder.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that their case series provides evidence that exposure to asbestos-contaminated cosmetic talc should be considered as a cause of mesothelioma, and that future studies of cosmetic talc users should be done.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The case series had no control population, so no incidence rates for mesothelioma were calculated.
  • The authors acknowledged that their case series should be considered within the context of its limitations.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Lung cancer, Mesothelioma, Talc and vermiculite.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Cosmetic Talc, Malignant Mesothelioma.

Related studies

• Evidence Does Not Support Exposure to Cosmetic Talc as Cause of Malignant Mesothelioma — S.J. Geyer (2020)
• Authors' response to "malignant mesothelioma following exposure to cosmetic talc: Association, not causation" — T.S. Emory, J.C. Maddox, et al. (2020)
• A quantitative weight of evidence assessment of Hill's guidelines for causal inference for cosmetic talc as a cause of mesothelioma — A.M. Ierardi, A. Urban, et al. (2021)
• Response to letters regarding "Cosmetic talc as a risk factor for pleural mesothelioma: a weight of evidence evaluation of the epidemiology" — B.L. Finley, S.M. Benson, et al. (2018)
• Response to RE: Gordon R, Fitzgerald S, and Millette J. Asbestos in commercial cosmetic talcum powder as a cause of mesothelioma in women. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2014;20(4):318-332 — R.E. Gordon (2015)
• Cosmetic talc as a risk factor for pleural mesothelioma: a weight of evidence evaluation of the epidemiology — B.L. Finley, S.M. Benson, et al. (2017)

Browse more research in Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, or return to medical research.