Distribution of mesothelioma cases in different occupational groups and industries in Australia, 1979-1995

Our plain-English summary of Distribution of mesothelioma cases in different occupational groups and industries in Australia, 1979-1995, by P. Yeung, A. Rogers, A. Johnson (Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 1999).

The study

• Authors: P. Yeung, A. Rogers, A. Johnson
• Journal: Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• Published: 1999;14(11):759-67
• Cited by: 20 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Australia was a producer and user of asbestos and has one of the highest national incidences of mesothelioma in the world. The incidence is still rising and expected to do so for another 10-20 years. A study was conducted in 1996 to examine the past and current incidence rates of mesothelioma in a number of industries and occupations as the basis for predicting future outcomes. Occupational histories of a total of 3758 mesothelioma cases collected by two sequential national schemes--the Australian Mesothelioma Surveillance Program (1979-1985) and Australian Mesothelioma Register (1986-1995)--were reviewed and coded by the authors. The building industry contributed the largest number of cases nationwide followed by shipbuilding and repair, asbestos cement production, crocidolite mining and milling, railway locomotive construction and repair, coal-fired power stations, and other engineering operations. The mean latency between initial occupational asbestos exposure and diagnosis of the disease was 37.4 years (range = 4-66 years) for cases notified between 1979 and 1985, and 41.4 years (range = 6-84 years) for those between 1986 and 1995. Trends for each industry group have been changing considerably in the past 16 years, with the traditional primary asbestos industry cases from crocidolite mining and milling now on the decline and cases from asbestos cement production having plateaued. In contrast, more recently, more cases were observed from the asbestos user industries such as the building industry, and from occupations such as plumbers, carpenters, machinists, and car mechanics. These increases might be a reflection of the longer latency effects of the intermittent and less severe exposures in these larger occupational groups.

In plain English

This study reviewed the job histories of mesothelioma cases reported to two Australian national schemes: the Australian Mesothelioma Surveillance Program (1979–1985) and the Australian Mesothelioma Register (1986–1995). The authors coded each case by industry and occupation. In total, 3758 cases were collected over 1979–1995. The building industry had the most cases (559, an overall increase of 348% over the 16-year period). It was followed by ship construction, repair and demolition (307), asbestos cement production (176), Wittenoom crocidolite mining and milling (164), and railway locomotive construction and maintenance (137). Crocidolite mining cases had been gradually decreasing over the last seven years, and asbestos cement cases may have plateaued. The mean time from first occupational asbestos exposure to diagnosis was 37.4 years in 456 earlier cases and 41.4 years in 505 later cases. The authors suggested that rising numbers in asbestos user industries might reflect the longer latency of intermittent, less severe exposures. They cautioned that Register data were less complete and less strictly checked, and about 30 percent of Register records lacked enough job information.

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: Descriptive review of occupational histories of mesothelioma cases from two sequential national case-collection schemes, coded by industry and occupation and compared across periods
• Who was studied: 3758 mesothelioma cases reported nationwide in Australia, 1979–1995, to the Australian Mesothelioma Surveillance Program (1979–1985) and the Australian Mesothelioma Register (1986–1995)
• Exposure: Occupational asbestos contact, assessed from employment histories and coded by industry and occupation. The industries described include crocidolite mining and milling at Wittenoom, asbestos cement production (chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite), building, shipbuilding and repair, railway locomotive work, power stations and stevedoring.
• Main results:
  • The building industry produced the largest number of cases: 559, an overall increase of 348% over the 16-year period
  • Shipbuilding, repair and demolition was the second largest group: 307 cases, an overall increase of 50%
  • Asbestos cement production had 176 cases, an overall increase of 28%, with some evidence that the rate may have plateaued
  • Wittenoom crocidolite mining and milling ranked fourth with 164 cases, with numbers gradually decreasing over the last seven years
  • Railway locomotive construction and maintenance had 137 cases, an overall increase of 40%
  • Stevedoring cases (83 in total) increased by approximately 3–4 percent per year
  • Among building trades, the largest numbers of cases came from carpenters, electricians, painters and laborers
  • Mean latency from first occupational exposure to diagnosis was 37.4 years (range 4–66) in 456 Surveillance Program cases (1979–1985)
  • Mean latency was 41.4 years (SD 12.0, range 6–84) in 505 Register cases (1986–1995) with available data
  • In Register cases, the authors described shorter mean latencies in several primary asbestos industries: crocidolite mining and milling 35.2 years, stevedoring 37.7 years, insulation manufacture and installation 36.4 years, asbestos cement production 41.5 years
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that increases in the asbestos user industries might reflect the longer latency effects of intermittent and less severe exposures in these larger occupational groups. They also concluded that controls introduced later in these industries would not show up as fewer mesothelioma cases until around 2010.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • Occupational history in the Register (1986–1995) came only from local notifiers, causing variable data quality and completeness
  • About 30 percent of Register case records lacked sufficient information on occupation and industry
  • A less rigorous process was used in the Register to establish asbestos contact and classify occupations
  • Environmental Wittenoom cases among non-mine employees were not included

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Mesothelioma, Incidence, Asbestos-Cement, Crocidolite, Latency, Asbestos Exposure.

Related studies

• Development of a Job-Exposure Matrix (AsbJEM) to Estimate Occupational Exposure to Asbestos in Australia — S.C. van Oyen, S. Peters, et al. (2015)
• Pleural mesotheliomas and asbestos exposure in the pulp and paper industries: a new risk group identified by linkage of official registers — B. Järvholm, H. Malker, et al. (1988)
• Occupational exposure to carcinogens in Australian road transport workers — S. Si, R. Carey, et al. (2016)
• Exposure to asbestos during brake maintenance of automotive vehicles by different methods — T. Kauppinen, K. Korhonen (1987)
• Changing risk groups for malignant mesothelioma — M. Huncharek (1992)
• Occupational and environmental risk factors for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Australia: case-control study — M.J. Abramson, T. Murambadoro, et al. (2020)

Browse return to medical research.