Correspondence regarding the article "The asbestos fibre burden in human lungs: new insights into the chrysotile debate"

Our plain-English summary of Correspondence regarding the article "The asbestos fibre burden in human lungs: new insights into the chrysotile debate", by P. Sartorelli (The European Respiratory Journal, 2017).

The study

• Author: P. Sartorelli
• Journal: The European Respiratory Journal
• Published: 2017;50(6)
• Type of article: Letter, Comment
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This is a letter to the editor, not new research. The author commented on an article by Feder and colleagues, described in the letter as finding a stable lung fibre burden, in particular for chrysotile, in 12 patients from the German Mesothelioma Register examined twice at least 4 years apart. The author described their own 2007 study. In that study, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (fluid washed out of the lungs) was analysed for minerals in 22 patients who had diagnostic fibreoptic bronchoscopy twice. The average time between lavages was 4.0 years (plus or minus 2.3; range 1 to 10 years). In 16 patients (72.7%), both chrysotile and amphibole concentrations fell; the differences were not statistically significant. Asbestos body concentration fell significantly. The author wrote that the non-significant fall in chrysotile and amphibole fibres did not appear due to lung clearance, being unrelated to the time between lavages, and might partly reflect the first lavage's effect when the second was done in the same lung region. The author concluded that Feder and colleagues' tissue findings confirmed earlier lavage fluid observations.

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 (correspondence) commenting on Feder et al.'s study of 12 patients from the German Mesothelioma Register, which the letter describes as finding a stable lung fibre burden, in particular for chrysotile. The letter presents no new data; it describes the author's own earlier study (published 2007) of repeated bronchoalveolar lavage.
• Who was studied: In the author's earlier study: 22 patients who underwent diagnostic fibreoptic bronchoscopy twice. The first was to assess past asbestos exposure, the second for other clinical reasons. The letter does not say where or when the patients were studied.
• Exposure: Past asbestos exposure, measured as concentrations of chrysotile and amphibole fibres and of asbestos bodies in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Jobs and doses are not given.
• Main results:
  • In the 22 patients, the mean time between the first and second lavage was 4.0 plus or minus 2.3 years (median 4, range 1 to 10 years).
  • In 16 of the 22 patients (72.7%), concentrations of both chrysotile and amphiboles in lavage fluid were lower at the second lavage, but the differences were not statistically significant.
  • Asbestos body concentration decreased significantly between the first and second lavage.
  • The author wrote that the non-significant reduction in chrysotile and amphibole fibres did not appear to be due to clearance from the lung, because it was not related to the time between the two lavages.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that Feder and colleagues' article confirms in lung tissue what had previously been seen in lavage fluid. The author agreed with Feder and colleagues that the sustained presence of both chrysotile and amphibole fibres causes lung diseases even many years after exposure ends.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author suggested the reduction in chrysotile and amphibole fibres at the second lavage might be partly explained by the effect of the first lavage, when the second was performed in the same lung region.

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Chrysotile.

Related studies

• 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)
• The asbestos fibre burden in human lungs: new insights into the chrysotile debate — I.S. Feder, I. Tischoff, et al. (2017)
• Misleading "New Insights into the Chrysotile Debate" — H.J. Woitowitz, X. Baur (2018)
• Effects of Chrysotile Exposure in Human Bronchial Epithelial Cells: Insights into the Pathogenic Mechanisms of Asbestos-Related Diseases — G.R. Gulino, M. Polimeni, et al. (2016)
• Commentary regarding the article by Fischer et al.: Fibre years, pulmonary asbestos burden and asbestosis. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 205, 245-248 (2002) — D.W. Henderson (2003)

Browse more research in The European Respiratory Journal, or return to medical research.