Re: Terracini et al. Comments on the causation of malignant mesothelioma: Rebutting the false concept that recent exposures to asbestos do not contribute to causation of mesothelioma. Am J Ind Med 2016;59:506-507

Our plain-English summary of Re: Terracini et al. Comments on the causation of malignant mesothelioma: Rebutting the false concept that recent exposures to asbestos do not contribute to causation of mesothelioma. Am J Ind Med 2016;59:506-507, by P. Boffetta (American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2016).

The study

• Author: P. Boffetta
• Journal: American Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 2016;59(12):1177-1179
• Type of article: Comment
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This is a letter, not a research study, and it reports no new data. The author responded to a commentary by Terracini and colleagues, issued on behalf of the Collegium Ramazzini, about whether recent exposures to asbestos contribute to causing mesothelioma. The author stated that the commentary misquoted a 2012 review the author wrote with Dr. La Vecchia. According to the author, that review did not address how long exposure must last and focused on time since last exposure. The author described the review as finding consistent evidence that mesothelioma risk does not appreciably decrease for at least 20 years after exposure stops. The author cited a British case-control study by Harding and Darnton (2010), not this letter, which reported a relative risk of 0.99 for workers who quit exposure 20 or more years earlier, compared with workers still exposed or who quit within 20 years. The author argued that Italian consensus documents cited in the commentary failed to mention that time since first exposure is the main determinant of risk. The author disclosed having acted as an expert witness in asbestos-related 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 (response to a published commentary); no original study
• Exposure: Asbestos exposure, specifically the role of time since last exposure (as discussed in the author's 2012 review)
• Main results:
  • The author stated that the commentary misquoted the 2012 review by La Vecchia and Boffetta, which, according to the author, did not address duration of exposure.
  • The author described the 2012 review as finding that the studies it reviewed gave consistent evidence that mesothelioma risk does not appreciably decrease for at least 20 years after exposure stops.
  • The author cited a British case-control study (Harding and Darnton, 2010, not this letter). In that study, workers who quit asbestos exposure 20 or more years earlier had a relative risk of mesothelioma of 0.99, compared with workers who were currently exposed or quit up to 20 years before.
  • The author argued that the Italian consensus documents quoted in the commentary failed to mention that time since first exposure (latency) is the main determinant of risk.
  • The author noted that the same commentary had been published repeatedly with different author lists.
  • The author disclosed having acted as an expert witness in asbestos-related litigation.
• The authors' conclusion: The author stated that the conclusions of the 2012 review are based on scientific evidence, independent from any litigation.

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Causation, Malignant Mesothelioma, Mesothelioma.

Related studies

• Comments on the causation of malignant mesothelioma: Rebutting the false concept that recent exposures to asbestos do not contribute to causation of mesothelioma — B. Terracini, D. Mirabelli, et al. (2016)
• Comments on the causation of malignant mesothelioma: rebutting the false concept that recent exposures to asbestos do not contribute to causation of mesothelioma — (2016)
• Comments on the causation of malignant mesothelioma: rebutting the false concept that recent exposures to asbestos do not contribute to causation of mesothelioma — C. Ramazzini (2016)
• Comments on the Causation of Malignant Mesothelioma: Rebutting the False Concept That Recent Exposures to Asbestos Do Not Contribute to Causation of Mesothelioma — P.J. Landrigan, Collegium Ramazzini (2016)
• Re: Comments on the causation of malignant mesothelioma: Rebutting the false concept that recent exposures to asbestos do not contribute to causation of mesothelioma — B. Terracini, D. Mirabelli, et al. (2016)
• Occupational exposures contribute to educational inequalities in lung cancer incidence among men: Evidence from the EPIC prospective cohort study — G. Menvielle, H. Boshuizen, et al. (2010)

Browse more research in American Journal of Industrial Medicine, or return to medical research.