Commentary regarding the article by Fischer et al.: Fibre years, pulmonary asbestos burden and asbestosis. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 205, 245-248 (2002)

Our plain-English summary of Commentary regarding the article by Fischer et al.: Fibre years, pulmonary asbestos burden and asbestosis. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 205, 245-248 (2002), by D.W. Henderson (International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 2003).

The study

• Author: D.W. Henderson
• Journal: International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health
• Published: 2003;206(3):249-50; author reply 251-2
• Type of article: Comment, Letter
• Cited by: 2 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This was a letter to the editor by Douglas W. Henderson, of Flinders Medical Centre in Australia, commenting on a 2002 paper by Fischer et al. about fibre-years, asbestos levels in lung tissue, and asbestosis. It reported no new data. The author argued that cumulative exposure in fibre-years measures exposure, while asbestosis is a disease. The author also argued that the Helsinki Criteria's 25 fibre-year figure applies to attributing lung cancer to asbestos and does not set a number for diagnosing asbestosis. The author noted that lung tissue is usually not available, so asbestosis is usually diagnosed during life from clinical and radiological findings and exposure level. The author's main criticism was that Fischer et al. overlooked the faster clearance of chrysotile from lung tissue compared with amphibole fibres. The author cited an earlier study that found only 2% of 134 asbestos bodies had chrysotile cores. The author concluded that the gaps between fibre-year estimates and lung fibre counts can be explained not only by imprecise exposure estimates but also by the low biopersistence of chrysotile in human lung tissue.

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 (commentary on a published paper); no original data
• Who was studied: No study population. The letter comments on the paper by Fischer et al. (Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2002) on fibre-years, pulmonary asbestos burden and asbestosis.
• Exposure: Cumulative asbestos exposure expressed in fibre-years, and lung tissue fibre burden, with a distinction drawn between chrysotile and amphibole fibres
• Main results:
  • The author argued that cumulative exposure (a measure of exposure) and asbestosis (a disease) are separate concepts.
  • The author noted that lung tissue from biopsy or autopsy is usually unavailable, so asbestosis is usually diagnosed during life from clinical and radiological criteria and exposure level.
  • The author stated that the Helsinki Criteria require 25 fibre-years or more for attributing lung cancer to asbestos, but do not set a numerical exposure value for diagnosing asbestosis.
  • The author suggested that asbestosis after low exposures raises the question of other, unrecognised asbestos exposures in such patients.
  • The author's main criticism was that Fischer et al.'s explanation for the mismatch between fibre-years and lung fibre burden overlooked the faster clearance of chrysotile from lung tissue compared with amphiboles.
  • The author argued that failing to separate counts of amphibole fibres only from counts of all asbestos fibres (amphibole and chrysotile) may be the main explanation for the mismatch.
  • The author cited an earlier study (Woitowitz et al. 1986) that found 2% of 134 asbestos bodies had chrysotile cores, although about 94% of past asbestos consumption in Germany was chrysotile.
  • The author stated that fibre burden analysis is considered unsuitable for estimating cumulative exposure when exposure was only or mainly to chrysotile (Consensus Report 1997).
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the discrepancies discussed by Fischer et al. can be explained not only by imprecise fibre estimates by occupational hygienists but also by the low biopersistence of chrysotile in human lung tissue.

Topics

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

Related studies

• Commentary regarding the article by Fischer et al.: Fibre years, pulmonary asbestos burden and asbestosis. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 205, 245-248 (2002) — K. Rödelsperger, H.J. Woitowitz (2003)
• Fibre-years, pulmonary asbestos burden and asbestosis — M. Fischer, S. Günther, et al. (2002)
• Correspondence regarding the article "The asbestos fibre burden in human lungs: new insights into the chrysotile debate" — I.S. Feder, I. Tischoff, et al. (2017)
• Correspondence regarding the article "The asbestos fibre burden in human lungs: new insights into the chrysotile debate" — L.C. Oliver, F. Belpoggi, et al. (2017)
• Correspondence regarding the article "The asbestos fibre burden in human lungs: new insights into the chrysotile debate" — P. Sartorelli (2017)
• Is Mesothelioma Unrelated to the Lung Asbestos Burden? Comment on Visonà et al. Inorganic Fiber Lung Burden in Subjects with Occupational and/or Anthropogenic Environmental Asbestos Exposure in Broni (Pavia, Northern Italy): An SEM-EDS Study on Autoptic Samples. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2053 — D. Mirabelli, A. Angelini, et al. (2021)

Browse more research in International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, or return to medical research.