Letter concerning the paper by Finley and colleagues: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2012.05.015

Our plain-English summary of Letter concerning the paper by Finley and colleagues: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2012.05.015, by M.M. Finkelstein (Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 2013).

The study

• Author: M.M. Finkelstein
• Journal: Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
• Published: 2013;65(1):178-9
• Type of article: Letter, Comment
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This letter to the editor, not an original study, commented on Finley and colleagues' paper. That paper compared 106 literature-reported cases among U.S. auto mechanics from 1975 to 2007, categorized as mesothelioma or malignant neoplasm of the pleura, with the number expected from background rates. The author argued that the analysis was fatally flawed because these cases and the expected number did not come from the same sampling frame; published cases are an unknown fraction of all cases. None of 29 mesothelioma cases the author reviewed had been published: one auto mechanic, reviewed in 2008 at a plaintiff's attorney's request, and 28 friction workers reviewed since. Using Finley and colleagues' 106 cases and 500 expected, the author's sensitivity analysis gave a mortality rate ratio (SMR) of 0.2 with full reporting, 2 at 10% reporting and 4 at 5%. Reporting would have to be somewhat over 25% for the SMR to equal 1. The author guessed that fewer than 1 in 20 cases among brake mechanics are reported, corresponding to an SMR of 4 or higher. The author disclosed consulting for plaintiff's lawyers in asbestos litigation.

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 commenting on another paper, including a sensitivity analysis of that paper's figures
• Who was studied: No new study population. The letter discusses Finley and colleagues' analysis of 106 cases reported in the U.S. literature among auto mechanics from 1975 to 2007, categorized as mesothelioma or malignant neoplasm of the pleura. That paper compared these cases with an expected number based on estimated numbers of current and former U.S. auto mechanics.
• Exposure: Work as U.S. auto (brake) mechanics. The author links an increased risk of malignant pleural mesothelioma to deposition and retention of Canadian asbestos fibers in these workers' lungs, citing the author's own 2008 paper.
• Main results:
  • The author argued that in Finley and colleagues' paper the 'cases' (from published reports) and the expected number (from all U.S. auto mechanics) were not derived from the same sampling frame, and so were not comparable.
  • The author reported reviewing 29 mesothelioma cases, none of which had been reported in the medical literature. The first, in an auto mechanic, was reviewed in August 2008 at a plaintiff's attorney's request. The other 28, in friction workers, were reviewed since then; the letter does not say who requested those.
  • Sensitivity analysis using Finley and colleagues' 106 reported cases and 500 expected cases: the SMR would be 200 at a 0.1% reporting rate, 20 at 1%, 4 at 5%, 2 at 10%, 1 at 25%, 0.4 at 50% and 0.2 at 100% reporting.
  • The text states that the reporting rate would have to be somewhat over 25% for the SMR for mesothelioma to equal 1. It also states that the SMR reaches 0.2 at the level of reporting used by Finley and colleagues.
  • The author's own guess was that fewer than 1 in 20 malignant pleural mesothelioma cases among brake mechanics are reported in the literature. The author wrote that this would correspond to an SMR for pleural mesothelioma of 4 or higher.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that Finley and colleagues' analysis was fatally flawed and that its results and conclusion were not credible.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author stated that the fraction of mechanics' mesothelioma cases reported in the literature is unknown. The sensitivity analysis therefore leaves the reporting rate, and so the SMR, to readers' estimates. The author describes the author's own figure as a guess.
  • The author disclosed having worked as a consultant to plaintiff's lawyers in asbestos litigation.

Topics

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

Related studies

• Response to a letter to the editor by Dr. Murray M. Finkelstein regarding the article by Finley et al. (2012) — B.L. Finley, J.S. Pierce, et al. (2013)
• Increased lung cancer mortality among chrysotile asbestos textile workers is more strongly associated with exposure to long thin fibres — D. Loomis, J.M. Dement, et al. (2012)
• Malignant pleural mesothelioma in US automotive mechanics: reported vs expected number of cases from 1975 to 2007 — B.L. Finley, J.S. Pierce, et al. (2012)
• Reply to letter by Nolan and colleagues--re: the carcinogenicity of New York state talc dusts in humans — M. Finkelstein (2013)
• Letter Concerning: Glynn ME, Keeton KA, Gaffney SH, Sahmel J. Ambient Asbestos Fiber Concentrations and Long-Term Trends in Pleural Mesothelioma Incidence Between Urban and Rural Areas in the United States (1973-2012). Risk Analysis 2018;38(3):454-471 — M.M. Finkelstein (2018)
• Letter concerning: Occupational exposures to cosmetic talc and risk of mesothelioma: an updated pooled cohort and statistical power analysis with consideration of latency period by Gary M. Marsh et al. (Inhal Toxicol. 2019 Aug 5:1-11. doi:10.1080/08958378.2019.1645768) — M.M. Finkelstein (2019)

Browse more research in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, or return to medical research.