Commentary: Asbestos exposure and mesothelioma risk

Our plain-English summary of Commentary: Asbestos exposure and mesothelioma risk, by A. Krupoves (International Journal of Epidemiology, 2018).

The study

• Author: A. Krupoves
• Journal: International Journal of Epidemiology
• Published: 2018;47(6):1758-1759
• Type of article: Comment
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This is a short commentary, not an original research study, and it reports no new data. The author discussed a separate 2018 paper by Gilham and colleagues on past and current asbestos exposure and future mesothelioma risk in Britain. According to the commentary, that study used the statistical relationship between the average lung burden of asbestos particles and mesothelioma death rates in the general population to predict rates in younger people who began work after asbestos was no longer in use. The author called this an innovative way to estimate rates when reliable exposure data are lacking. The author questioned how far the results apply elsewhere. The study was done in Britain, where amphibole asbestos fibres predominated, so the author considered the results relevant to settings with similar fibre types and similar extent and timing of asbestos use. Because occupational exposure norms and the timing of asbestos introduction and bans differ between countries, the author suggested similar studies elsewhere, including where mostly chrysotile was used. The author concluded that the results and methods could serve as a useful tool to inform public health policy.

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: Commentary on another published study (Gilham et al., 2018, The Inhaled Particles Study); not original research
• Who was studied: No population of its own. The study it discusses (Gilham et al.) was conducted in Britain
• Exposure: As described for the Gilham et al. study: lung burden of asbestos particles, in a country (Britain) where amphibole asbestos fibres predominated
• Main results:
  • The commentary reports no results of its own. It describes the Gilham et al. method as using the statistical relationship between average lung burden and mesothelioma death rates in the general population to predict rates in younger people who began work after asbestos was no longer in use
  • According to the commentary, the Gilham et al. authors applied the assumptions of the polygenic cancer susceptibility model to mesothelioma, based on a log normal distribution of asbestos particle burden
  • The commentary's author considered the Gilham et al. results relevant to settings with similar fibre types, extent and timing of asbestos use, given that amphibole fibres predominated in Britain
  • The commentary's author suggested that studies in settings where mainly chrysotile was used would be of interest
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the Gilham et al. study offers an innovative methodological response to assessing risk from low levels of asbestos exposure, and that its results and methods could serve as a useful tool to inform public health policy
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The commentary raises the external validity (generalizability) of the Gilham et al. study, which was conducted in Britain where amphibole fibres predominated
  • The commentary notes that contextual factors such as occupational exposure norms and the timing of asbestos introduction and bans vary between countries

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Asbestos Exposure, Mesothelioma.

Related studies

• Commentary: Past and current asbestos exposure and future mesothelioma risks in Britain — B. Terracini (2018)
• Commentary on "Assessment of Health Risk From Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder" — D. Egilman, J. Steffen (2018)
• Commentary: environmental disease--a preventable epidemic — P.J. Landrigan (1992)
• Invited commentary: Is it possible to investigate the quantitative relation between asbestos and mesothelioma in a community-based study? — J. Siemiatycki, P. Boffetta (1998)
• Commentary on pathologic diagnosis of asbestosis and critique of the 2010 Asbestosis Committee of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and Pulmonary Pathology Society's (PPS) update on the diagnostic criteria for pathologic asbestosis — S.P. Hammar, J.L. Abraham (2015)
• Biological effects of ingested asbestos: report and commentary — D.H. Lee (1974)

Browse more research in International Journal of Epidemiology, or return to medical research.