History of mesothelioma

Our plain-English summary of History of mesothelioma, by M. Greenberg (The European Respiratory Journal, 1997).

The study

• Author: M. Greenberg
• Journal: The European Respiratory Journal
• Published: 1997;10(11):2690-1
• Type of article: Comment, Historical article, Letter
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This was a letter to the editor, not a research study. The author argued that a historical review by McDonald and McDonald described the early recognition of the asbestos and mesothelioma link in ways that did not match the papers it cited. According to the author, Gloyne's 1935 paper described two cases of squamous carcinoma of the lung in asbestosis and did not mention mesothelioma. Cartier aimed to discount asbestos as a cause of bronchogenic carcinoma, not to argue that mesothelioma was occupational. Wedler reported unpublished mesothelioma cases in asbestos workers from as early as 1938. By 1943, German physicians were convinced asbestos dust caused respiratory malignancies, and compensation was awarded to victims. Wagner and colleagues were less certain about the asbestos link than the review suggested. The author also said the review should have described industry measures to counter and silence scientists, and cited the World Health Organization's assessment of chrysotile. In a reply, J.C. McDonald agreed that Gloyne's paper concerned lung cancer. The reply said Cartier's opinion was hard to know and may have been the chairman's, and did not agree entirely with the author's other comments.

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 a published historical review, followed by a reply from one of the review's authors
• Who was studied: No study population. The letter discusses earlier publications from 1935 to 1960 on asbestos, mesothelioma and other cancers.
• Exposure: Asbestos exposure in general. Chrysotile asbestos is named in connection with the World Health Organization's consensus assessment.
• Main results:
  • The author stated that Gloyne's 1935 paper recorded two cases of squamous carcinoma of the lung occurring in asbestosis and did not refer to mesothelioma.
  • The author stated that Cartier's aim was to discount asbestos as a cause of bronchogenic carcinoma, not to argue that mesothelioma was occupational in origin.
  • Cartier listed two workers who died of pleural mesothelioma. One had worked 28 years in the industry with no asbestos exposure and no asbestosis. The other had worked 26 years, including 10 years of asbestos exposure, and had minimal asbestosis.
  • The author stated that Wedler, in 1943, also gave accounts of unpublished mesothelioma cases in asbestos workers that others had communicated to him, dating back to 1938.
  • The author stated that by 1943 German physicians were convinced that asbestos dust exposure caused respiratory malignancies, and that compensation was awarded to victims.
  • The author described Weiss's 1953 paper as the first report of a death in which both bronchial carcinoma and pleural mesothelioma were found in one asbestos worker.
  • The author pointed out that Wagner and colleagues themselves called their pathological evidence not conclusive: asbestos had been demonstrated in only eight of their 33 cases.
  • The author noted that Bonser and colleagues analysed 72 postmortems of asbestos workers with asbestosis. They reported four peritoneal tumours and one and possibly two primary pleural tumours, without using the term mesothelioma.
  • The author argued that an even-handed history should tell readers about measures industry used to counter and silence scientists.
  • In the published reply, J.C. McDonald agreed that Gloyne's 1935 paper concerned lung cancer and not mesothelioma.
  • The reply said it was difficult to know Cartier's real opinion, and that the disputed opinion may have been the chairman's (W.E. Smith) rather than Cartier's.
  • The reply said the author would not expect the review's authors to agree entirely with the author's further comments.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the review's references to the growth of knowledge about the mesothelioma and asbestos association were at variance with the publications it cited, and that its history required amendment.

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.

Related studies

• Malignant pleural mesothelioma: history, controversy and future of a manmade epidemic — O.D. Røe, G.M. Stella (2015)
• A short history of the toxicology of inhaled particles — K. Donaldson, A. Seaton (2012)
• History of asbestos related disease — P.W. Bartrip (2004)
• A review of scientific literature examining the mining history, geology, mineralogy, and amphibole asbestos health effects of the Rainy Creek igneous complex, Libby, Montana, USA — B.R. Bandli, M.E. Gunter (2006)
• A history of awareness of asbestos disease and the control of occupational asbestos exposures in The Netherlands — L. Burdorf, P.H. Swuste, et al. (1991)
• The Medical Research Council Pneumoconiosis Research Unit, 1945-1985: a short history and tribute — J.E. Cotes (2000)

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