Commentary: Past and current asbestos exposure and future mesothelioma risks in Britain

Our plain-English summary of Commentary: Past and current asbestos exposure and future mesothelioma risks in Britain, by B. Terracini (International Journal of Epidemiology, 2018).

The study

• Author: B. Terracini
• Journal: International Journal of Epidemiology
• Published: 2018;47(6):1756-1757
• Type of article: Comment
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This commentary reports no new data. The author discussed a paper by Gilham and colleagues on the effect of UK asbestos regulations introduced in 1969. The author called that paper's reported falls in mesothelioma up to age 50, and in amphibole fibers in British lungs, impressive. The author noted that measuring fibers in lung tissue misses chrysotile, which has a relatively short half-life in the lung. The author also noted that Gilham and colleagues called chrysotile's mesothelioma risk only 'likely'. That wording differs from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which judged the evidence convincing. Per unit of exposure intensity and duration, the author stated, chrysotile's mesothelioma risk is lower than amphiboles' but still increased. The author worried the paper's caution might be read as demanding local studies before countries ban chrysotile. Where chrysotile is still used, the author noted, cancer registration is often limited. The author concluded that population lung-burden studies are not an essential prerequisite for estimating chrysotile's impact where amphibole use has been negligible. The author declared work as an expert witness in Italian criminal trials.

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 paper (Gilham et al., The Inhaled Particles Study); no original data
• Who was studied: No study population of its own; the commentary discusses Gilham et al.'s paper on the effect of asbestos regulations introduced in the UK in 1969
• Exposure: Chrysotile compared with amphiboles (crocidolite, amosite), and how lung-tissue fiber measurements miss chrysotile
• Main results:
  • The author described the falls in mesothelioma up to age 50 and in amphibole lung burden reported by Gilham et al. for the British population as impressive
  • The author noted that measuring asbestos in lung tissue means chrysotile is not included in estimates of past exposure
  • The author noted that Gilham et al. described chrysotile's mesothelioma risk only as 'likely', which the author said disagrees with the International Agency for Research on Cancer
  • The author stated that in terms of carcinogenic potency (risk per unit of exposure intensity and duration), mesothelioma risk is lower for chrysotile than for amphiboles but still increased
  • The author was concerned that Gilham et al.'s cautions might be read as a demand for locally produced findings before chrysotile bans
  • The author stated that in many countries still using chrysotile, statistics are unsatisfactory and cancer registration is limited
  • The author declared having acted as an expert witness for the Public Prosecution or the Judge in Italian asbestos criminal trials
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that population-based lung-burden estimates provide valuable data, but are not an essential prerequisite for estimating chrysotile's impact in countries where amphibole use has been negligible

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

• Past and current asbestos exposure and future mesothelioma risks in Britain: The Inhaled Particles Study (TIPS) — C. Gilham, C. Rake, et al. (2018)
• Are current or future mesothelioma epidemics in Hong Kong the tragic legacy of uncontrolled use of asbestos in the past? — L.A. Tse, I.T. Yu, et al. (2010)
• Mesothelioma risk and environmental exposure to asbestos: past and future trends in Japan — K. Azuma, I. Uchiyama, et al. (2009)
• Do patterns of past asbestos use and production reflect current geographic variations of cancer risk?: mesothelioma in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada — C.E. Slavik, P.A. Demers, et al. (2023)
• Current and future risks of asbestos exposure in the Australian community — C. Gray, R.N. Carey, et al. (2016)
• Asbestos cancer: past and future hazards — J.C. Gilson (1973)

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