A meta-analysis of the relation between cumulative exposure to asbestos and relative risk of lung cancer

The global burden of lung cancer: current status and future trends

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. However, lung cancer incidence and mortality rates differ substantially across the world, reflecting varying patterns of tobacco smoking, exposure to environmental risk factors and genetics. Tobacco smoking is the leading risk factor for lung cancer. Lung cancer incidence largely reflects trends in smoking patterns, which generally vary by sex and economic development. For this reason, tobacco control campaigns are a central part of global strategies designed to reduce lung cancer mortality. Environmental and occupational lung cancer risk factors, such as unprocessed biomass fuels, asbestos, arsenic and radon, can also contribute to lung cancer incidence in certain parts of the world. Over the past decade, large-cohort clinical studies have established that low-dose CT screening reduces lung cancer mortality, largely owing to increased diagnosis and treatment at earlier disease stages. These data have led to recommendations that individuals with a high risk of lung cancer undergo screening in several economically developed countries and increased implementation of screening worldwide. In this Review, we provide an overview of the global epidemiology of lung cancer. Lung cancer risk factors and global risk reduction efforts are also discussed. Finally, we summarize lung cancer screening policies and their implementation worldwide.

Fiber burden and asbestos-related diseases: an umbrella review

Objective:

What are the levels of asbestos exposure that cause each type of health effect? The objective of this study was to review the available scientific evidence on exposure levels for asbestos and their relationship to health effects.

Method:

An umbrella review of English-language reviews and meta-analyses, from 1980 to March 2021 was conducted. We included reviews involving quantified asbestos exposures and health outcomes. The review has been adapted to the indications of the PRISMA declaration. Methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed using the AMSTAR instrument.

Results:

We retrieved 196 references. After applying the search strategy and quality analysis, 10 reviews were selected for in-depth analysis. For lung cancer, the highest risk was observed with exposure to amphiboles. Longer, thinner fibers had the greatest capacity to cause lung cancer, especially those > 10 μm in length. For mesothelioma, longer and thinner fibers were also more pathogenic; amphiboles ≥ 5 μm are especially associated with increased mesothelioma risk. No studies observed an increased risk for lung cancer or mesothelioma at asbestos exposure levels < 0.1 f/ml. No reviews provided information on exposure concentrations for pulmonary fibrosis. Currently, there is limited evidence in humans to establish the causal relationship between gastrointestinal cancer and asbestos exposure.

Conclusions:

Banning all asbestos exposure remains the best measure to preventing its negative health effects. The highest quality reviews and meta-analyses support that there is little risk of lung cancer or mesothelioma at daily exposure levels below 0.1 f/ml.

Obtaining of oil blocks as a way to manage hazardous asbestos

In the second half of the 20th century, asbestos extraction was up to 4 Mt/year. Due to its high strength and insulation properties, this mineral was used as an additive in building materials. Over time these materials were destroyed by the process of weathering and leaching. Asbestos fibers in dust form penetrate the respiratory system causing diseases. This article proposes the binding of hazardous asbestos fibers in a polymer matrix formed from waste cooking oil. Compact materials were produced by heating catalyzed waste cooking oil and asbestos waste, and the process of obtaining these materials was optimized and their physicochemical and strength properties were determined. Oil-asbestos blocks contained sulfuric acid in a mass ratio of 0.05-0.30, being the mass of waste cooking oil, invariable mass of filling and 20% of waste cooking oil to the mass of the whole mixture. The materials were characterized by a compact structure and high hardness. The best mechanical strength above 140 N/mm was obtained for blocks with low acid to oil mass ratio ranging from 0.05 to 0.1125.

Asbestos, Smoking and Lung Cancer: An Update

This review updates the scientific literature concerning asbestos and lung cancer, emphasizing cumulative exposure and synergism between asbestos exposure and tobacco smoke, and proposes an evidence-based and equitable approach to compensation for asbestos-related lung cancer cases. This update is based on several earlier reviews written by the second and third authors on asbestos and lung cancer since 1995. We reevaluated the peer-reviewed epidemiologic studies. In addition, selected in vivo and in vitro animal studies and molecular and cellular studies in humans were included. We conclude that the mechanism of lung cancer causation induced by the interdependent coaction of asbestos fibers and tobacco smoke at a biological level is a multistage stochastic process with both agents acting conjointly at all times. The new knowledge gained through this review provides the evidence for synergism between asbestos exposure and tobacco smoke in lung cancer causation at a biological level. The evaluated statistical data conform best to a multiplicative model for the interaction effects of asbestos and smoking on the lung cancer risk, with no requirement for asbestosis. Any asbestos exposure, even in a heavy smoker, contributes to causation. Based on this information, we propose criteria for the attribution of lung cancer to asbestos in smokers and non-smokers.

Exposure-specific lung cancer risks in Chinese chrysotile textile workers and mining workers

OBJECTIVE

Whether there is a difference in the exposure-response slope for lung cancer between mining workers and textile workers exposed to chrysotile has not been well documented. This study was carried out to evaluate exposure-specific lung cancer risks in Chinese chrysotile textile workers and mining workers.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A chrysotile mining worker cohort and a chrysotile textile worker cohort were observed concurrently for 26 years. Information on workers' vital status, occupational history and smoking habits were collected, and causes and dates of deaths were verified from death registries. Individual cumulative fiber exposures were estimated based on periodic dust/fiber measurements from different workshops, job title and duration, and categorized into four levels (Q1-Q4). Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for lung cancer were calculated and stratified by industry and job title with reference of the national rates. Cox proportional hazard models were fit to estimate the exposure-specific lung cancer risks upon adjustment for age and smoking, in which an external control cohort consisting of industrial workers without asbestos exposure was used as reference group for both textile and mining workers.

RESULTS

SMRs were almost consistent with exposure levels in terms of job titles and workshops. A clear exposure-response relationship between lung cancer mortality and exposure levels was observed in both cohorts. At low exposure levels (Q1 and Q2), textile workers displayed higher death risks of lung cancer than mining workers. However, similarly considerably high risks were observed at higher exposure levels, with hazard ratios of over 8 and 11 at Q3 and Q4, respectively, for both textile and mining workers, after both age and smoking were adjusted.

CONCLUSION

The chrysotile textile workers appeared to have a higher risk of lung cancer than the mining workers at a relatively low exposure level, but no difference was observed at a high exposure level, where both cohorts displayed a considerably high risk.

Occupational asbestos exposure and lung cancer--a systematic review of the literature

The objective of this study was to evaluate the scientific literature concerning asbestos and lung cancer, emphasizing low-level exposure. A literature search in PubMed and Embase resulted in 5,864 citations. Information from included studies was extracted using SIGN. Twenty-one statements were evidence graded. The results show that histology and location are not helpful in differentiating asbestos-related lung cancer. Pleural plaques, asbestos bodies, or asbestos fibers are useful as markers of asbestos exposure. The interaction between asbestos and smoking regarding lung cancer risk is between additive and multiplicative. The findings indicate that the association between asbestos exposure and lung cancer risk is basically linear, but may level off at very high exposures. The relative risk for lung cancer increases between 1% and 4% per fiber-year (f-y)/mL, corresponding to a doubling of risk at 25-100 f-y/mL. However, one high-quality case-control study showed a doubling at 4 f-y/mL.

Lung cancer risk at low cumulative asbestos exposure: meta-regression of the exposure-response relationship

PURPOSE

Existing estimated lung cancer risks per unit of asbestos exposure are mainly based on, and applicable to, high exposure levels. To assess the risk at low cumulative asbestos exposure, we provide new evidence by fitting flexible meta-regression models, a notably new and more robust method.

METHODS

Studies were selected if lung cancer risk per cumulative asbestos exposure in at least two exposure categories was reported. From these studies (n = 19), we extracted 104 risk estimates over a cumulative exposure range of 0.11-4,710 f-y/ml. We fitted linear and natural spline meta-regression models to these risk estimates. A natural spline allows risks to vary nonlinearly with exposure, such that estimates at low exposure are less affected by estimates in the upper exposure categories. Associated relative risks (RRs) were calculated for several low cumulative asbestos exposures.

RESULTS

A natural spline model fitted our data best. With this model, the relative lung cancer risk for cumulative exposure levels of 4 and 40 f-y/ml was estimated between 1.013 and 1.027, and 1.13 and 1.30, respectively. After stratification by fiber type, a non-significant three- to fourfold difference in RRs between chrysotile and amphibole fibers was found for exposures below 40 f-y/ml. Fiber-type-specific risk estimates were strongly influenced by a few studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The natural spline regression model indicates that at lower asbestos exposure levels, the increase in RR of lung cancer due to asbestos exposure may be larger than expected from previous meta-analyses. Observed potency differences between different fiber types are lower than the generally held consensus. Low-exposed industrial or population-based cohorts with quantitative estimates of asbestos exposure a required to substantiate the risk estimates at low exposure levels from our new, flexible meta-regression.

Overreliance on a single study: there is no real evidence that applying quality criteria to exposure in asbestos epidemiology affects the estimated risk

A critical need exists for reliable risk management policies and practices that can effectively mitigate asbestos-related health threats, and such policies and practices need to be based on sound science that adequately distinguishes hazardous situations from those that are not. Toward that end, the disparate means by which study quality has been addressed in recent meta-analyses used to establish potency factors (K ( L ) and K ( M ) values) for asbestos cancer risks were compared by conducting additional sensitivity analyses. Results suggest that, other than placing undue emphasis on the influence of the K ( L ) and K ( M ) values reported from a single study, there appears to be little to no evidence of a systematic effect of study quality on K ( L ) or K ( M ) values; none of the findings warrant excluding studies from current or future meta-analyses. Thus, we argue that it is better to include as much of the available data as possible in these analyses while formally addressing uncertainty as part of the analysis itself, rather than sequentially excluding studies based on one type of limitation or another. Throwing out data without clearly proving some type of bias is never a good idea because it will limit both the power to test various hypotheses and the confidence that can be placed in any findings that are derived from the resulting, truncated data set. We also believe that it is better to identify the factors that contribute to variation between studies included in a meta-analysis and, by adjusting for such factors as part of a model, showing that the disparate values from individual studies can be reconciled. If such factors are biologically reasonable (based on other evidence) and, if such a model can be shown to fit the data from all studies in the meta-analysis, the model is likely to be predictive of the parameters being evaluated and can then be applied to new (unstudied) environments.

A meta-analysis of asbestos and lung cancer: is better quality exposure assessment associated with steeper slopes of the exposure-response relationships?

BACKGROUND

Asbestos is a well-recognized cause of lung cancer, but there is considerable between-study heterogeneity in the slope of the exposure-response relationship.

OBJECTIVE

We considered the role of quality of the exposure assessment to potentially explain heterogeneity in exposure-response slope estimates.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed MEDLINE (1950-2009) for studies with quantitative estimates of cumulative asbestos exposure and lung cancer mortality and identified 19 original epidemiological studies. One was a population-based case-control study, and the others were industry-based cohort studies.

DATA EXTRACTION

Cumulative exposure categories and corresponding risks were abstracted. Exposure-response slopes [KL (lung cancer potency factor of asbestos)] were calculated using linear relative risk regression models.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We assessed the quality of five exposure assessment aspects of each study and conducted random effects univariate and multivariate meta-regressions. Heterogeneity in exposure-response relationships was greater than expected by chance (I2 = 64%). Stratification by exposure assessment characteristics revealed that studies with well-documented exposure assessment, larger contrast in exposure, greater coverage of the exposure history by exposure measurement data, and more complete job histories had higher meta-KL values than did studies without these characteristics. The latter two covariates were most strongly associated with the KL value. Meta-KL values increased when we incrementally restricted analyses to higher-quality studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicates that studies with higher-quality asbestos exposure assessment yield higher meta-estimates of the lung cancer risk per unit of exposure. Potency differences for predominantly chrysotile versus amphibole asbestos-exposed cohorts become difficult to ascertain when meta-analyses are restricted to studies with fewer exposure assessment limitations.

Occupational toxicology of asbestos-related malignancies

INTRODUCTION

Asbestos is banned in most Western countries but related malignancies are still of clinical concern because of their long latencies. This review identifies and addresses some controversial occupational and clinical aspects of asbestos-related malignancies.

METHODS

Papers published in English from 1980 to 2009 were retrieved from PubMed. A total of 307 original articles were identified and 159 were included.

ASSESSMENT OF EXPOSURE

The retrospective assessment of exposure is usually performed by using questionnaires and job exposure matrices and by careful collection of medical history. In this way crucial information about manufacturing processes and specific jobs can be obtained. In addition, fibers and asbestos bodies are counted in lung tissue, broncho-alveolar lavage, and sputum, but different techniques and interlaboratory variability hamper the interpretation of reported measurements. SCREENING FOR MALIGNANCIES: The effectiveness of low-dose chest CT screening in exposed workers is debatable. Several biomarkers have also been considered to screen individuals at risk for lung cancer and mesothelioma but reliable signatures are still missing. ATTRIBUTION OF LUNG CANCER: Exposures correlating with lung cancer are high and in the same range where asbestosis occurs. However, the unresolved question is whether the presence of fibrosis is a requirement for the attribution of lung cancer to asbestos. The etiology of lung cancer is difficult to define in cases of low-level asbestos exposure and concurrent smoking habits. MESOTHELIOMA: The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma may also be difficult, because of procedures in sampling, fixation, and processing, and uses of immunohistochemical probes.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of exposure is crucial and requires accurate medical and occupational histories. Quantitative analysis of asbestos body burden is better performed in digested lung tissues by counting asbestos bodies by light microscopy and/or uncoated fibers by transmission electron microscopy. The benefits of screenings for asbestos-related malignancies are equivocal. The attribution of lung cancer to asbestos exposure is difficult in a clinical setting because of the need to assess asbestos body burden and the fact that virtually all these patients are also tobacco smokers or former smokers. Given the premise that asbestosis is necessary to causally link lung cancer to asbestos, it follows that the assessment of both lung fibrosis and asbestos body burden is necessary.

Comparing milled fiber, Quebec ore, and textile factory dust: has another piece of the asbestos puzzle fallen into place?

Results of a meta-analysis indicate that the variation in potency factors observed across published epidemiology studies can be substantially reconciled (especially for mesothelioma) by considering the effects of fiber size and mineral type, but that better characterization of historical exposures is needed before improved exposure metrics potentially capable of fully reconciling the disparate potency factors can be evaluated. Therefore, an approach for better characterizing historical exposures, the Modified Elutriator Method (MEM), was evaluated to determine the degree that dusts elutriated using this method adequately mimic dusts generated by processing in a factory. To evaluate this approach, elutriated dusts from Grade 3 milled fiber (the predominant feedstock used at a South Carolina [SC] textile factory) were compared to factory dust collected at the same facility. Elutriated dusts from chrysotile ore were also compared to dusts collected in Quebec mines and mills. Results indicate that despite the substantial variation within each sample set, elutriated dusts from Grade 3 fiber compare favorably to textile dusts and elutriated ore dusts compare to dusts from mines and mills. Given this performance, the MEM was also applied to address the disparity in lung cancer mortality per unit of exposure observed, respectively, among chrysotile miners/millers in Quebec and SC textile workers. Thus, dusts generated by elutriation of stockpiled chrysotile ore (representing mine exposures) and Grade 3 milled fiber (representing textile exposures) were compared. Results indicate that dusts from each sample differ from one another. Despite such variation, however, the dusts are distinct and fibers in Grade 3 dusts are significantly longer than fibers in ore dusts. Moreover, phase-contrast microscopy (PCM) structures in Grade 3 dusts are 100% asbestos and counts of PCM-sized structures are identical, whether viewed by PCM or transmission electron microscope (TEM). In contrast, a third of PCM structures in ore dusts are not asbestos and only a third that are counted by PCM are also counted by TEM. These distinctions also mirror the characteristics of the bulk materials themselves. Perhaps most important, when the differences in size distributions and PCM/TEM distinctions in these dusts are combined, the combined difference is sufficient to completely explain the difference in exposure/response observed between the textile worker and miner/miller cohorts. Importantly, however, evidence that such an explanation is valid can only be derived from a meta-analysis (risk assessment) covering a diverse range of epidemiology study environments, which is beyond the scope of the current study. The above findings suggest that elutriator-generated dusts mimic factory dusts with sufficient reliability to support comparisons between historical exposures experienced by the various cohorts studied by epidemiologists. A simulation was also conducted to evaluate the relative degree that the characteristics of dust are driven by the properties of the bulk material processed versus the nature of the mechanical forces applied. That results indicate it is the properties of bulk materials reinforces the theoretical basis justifying use of the elutriator to reconstruct historical exposures. Thus, the elutriator may be a valuable tool for reconstructing historical exposures suitable for supporting continued refinements of the risk models being developed to predict asbestos-related cancer risk.

Update of potency factors for asbestos-related lung cancer and mesothelioma

The most recent update of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) health assessment document for asbestos (Nicholson, 1986, referred to as "the EPA 1986 update") is now 20 years old. That document contains estimates of "potency factors" for asbestos in causing lung cancer (K(L)'s) and mesothelioma (K(M)'s) derived by fitting mathematical models to data from studies of occupational cohorts. The present paper provides a parallel analysis that incorporates data from studies published since the EPA 1986 update. The EPA lung cancer model assumes that the relative risk varies linearly with cumulative exposure lagged 10 years. This implies that the relative risk remains constant after 10 years from last exposure. The EPA mesothelioma model predicts that the mortality rate from mesothelioma increases linearly with the intensity of exposure and, for a given intensity, increases indefinitely after exposure ceases, approximately as the square of time since first exposure lagged 10 years. These assumptions were evaluated using raw data from cohorts where exposures were principally to chrysotile (South Carolina textile workers, Hein et al., 2007; mesothelioma only data from Quebec miners and millers, Liddell et al., 1997) and crocidolite (Wittenoom Gorge, Australia miners and millers, Berry et al., 2004) and using published data from a cohort exposed to amosite (Paterson, NJ, insulation manufacturers, Seidman et al., 1986). Although the linear EPA model generally provided a good description of exposure response for lung cancer, in some cases it did so only by estimating a large background risk relative to the comparison population. Some of these relative risks seem too large to be due to differences in smoking rates and are probably due at least in part to errors in exposure estimates. There was some equivocal evidence that the relative risk decreased with increasing time since last exposure in the Wittenoom cohort, but none either in the South Carolina cohort up to 50 years from last exposure or in the New Jersey cohort up to 35 years from last exposure. The mesothelioma model provided good descriptions of the observed patterns of mortality after exposure ends, with no evidence that risk increases with long times since last exposure at rates that vary from that predicted by the model (i.e., with the square of time). In particular, the model adequately described the mortality rate in Quebec chrysotile miners and millers up through >50 years from last exposure. There was statistically significant evidence in both the Wittenoom and Quebec cohorts that the exposure intensity-response is supralinear(1) rather than linear. The best-fitting models predicted that the mortality rate varies as [intensity](0.47) for Wittenoom and as [intensity](0.19) for Quebec and, in both cases, the exponent was significantly less than 1 (p< .0001). Using the EPA models, K(L)'s and K(M)'s were estimated from the three sets of raw data and also from published data covering a broader range of environments than those originally addressed in the EPA 1986 update. Uncertainty in these estimates was quantified using "uncertainty bounds" that reflect both statistical and nonstatistical uncertainties. Lung cancer potency factors (K(L)'s) were developed from 20 studies from 18 locations, compared to 13 locations covered in the EPA 1986 update. Mesothelioma potency factors (K(M)'s) were developed for 12 locations compared to four locations in the EPA 1986 update. Although the 4 locations used to calculate K(M) in the EPA 1986 update include one location with exposures to amosite and three with exposures to mixed fiber types, the 14 K(M)'s derived in the present analysis also include 6 locations in which exposures were predominantly to chrysotile and 1 where exposures were only to crocidolite. The K(M)'s showed evidence of a trend, with lowest K(M)'s obtained from cohorts exposed predominantly to chrysotile and highest K(M)'s from cohorts exposed only to amphibole asbestos, with K(M)'s from cohorts exposed to mixed fiber types being intermediate between the K(M)'s obtained from chrysotile and amphibole environments. Despite the considerable uncertainty in the K(M) estimates, the K(M) from the Quebec mines and mills was clearly smaller than those from several cohorts exposed to amphibole asbestos or a mixture of amphibole asbestos and chrysotile. For lung cancer, although there is some evidence of larger K(L)'s from amphibole asbestos exposure, there is a good deal of dispersion in the data, and one of the largest K(L)'s is from the South Carolina textile mill where exposures were almost exclusively to chrysotile. This K(L) is clearly inconsistent with the K(L) obtained from the cohort of Quebec chrysotile miners and millers. The K(L)'s and K(M)'s derived herein are defined in terms of concentrations of airborne fibers measured by phase-contrast microscopy (PCM), which only counts all structures longer than 5 microm, thicker than about 0.25 microm, and with an aspect ratio > or =3:1. Moreover, PCM does not distinguish between asbestos and nonasbestos particles. One possible reason for the discrepancies between the K(L)'s and K(M)'s from different studies is that the category of structures included in PCM counts does not correspond closely to biological activity. In the accompanying article (Berman and Crump, 2008) the K(L)'s and K(M)'s and related uncertainty bounds obtained in this article are paired with fiber size distributions from the literature obtained using transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The resulting database is used to define K(L)'s and K(M)'s that depend on both the size (e.g., length and width) and mineralogical type (e.g., chrysotile or crocidolite) of an asbestos structure. An analysis is conducted to determine how well different K(L) and K(M) definitions are able to reconcile the discrepancies observed herein among values obtained from different environments.

A meta-analysis of asbestos-related cancer risk that addresses fiber size and mineral type

Quantitative estimates of the risk of lung cancer or mesothelioma in humans from asbestos exposure made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) make use of estimates of potency factors based on phase-contrast microscopy (PCM) and obtained from cohorts exposed to asbestos in different occupational environments. These potency factors exhibit substantial variability. The most likely reasons for this variability appear to be differences among environments in fiber size and mineralogy not accounted for by PCM. In this article, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) models for asbestos-related lung cancer and mesothelioma are expanded to allow the potency of fibers to depend upon their mineralogical types and sizes. This is accomplished by positing exposure metrics composed of nonoverlapping fiber categories and assigning each category its own unique potency. These category-specific potencies are estimated in a meta-analysis that fits the expanded models to potencies for lung cancer (KL's) or mesothelioma (KM's) based on PCM that were calculated for multiple epidemiological studies in our previous paper (Berman and Crump, 2008). Epidemiological study-specific estimates of exposures to fibers in the different fiber size categories of an exposure metric are estimated using distributions for fiber size based on transmission electron microscopy (TEM) obtained from the literature and matched to the individual epidemiological studies. The fraction of total asbestos exposure in a given environment respectively represented by chrysotile and amphibole asbestos is also estimated from information in the literature for that environment. Adequate information was found to allow KL's from 15 epidemiological studies and KM's from 11 studies to be included in the meta-analysis. Since the range of exposure metrics that could be considered was severely restricted by limitations in the published TEM fiber size distributions, it was decided to focus attention on four exposure metrics distinguished by fiber width: "all widths," widths > 0.2 micro m, widths < 0.4 microm, and widths < 0.2 microm, each of which has historical relevance. Each such metric defined by width was composed of four categories of fibers: chrysotile or amphibole asbestos with lengths between 5 microm and 10 microm or longer than 10 microm. Using these metrics three parameters were estimated for lung cancer and, separately, for mesothelioma: KLA, the potency of longer (length > 10 microm) amphibole fibers; rpc, the potency of pure chrysotile (uncontaminated by amphibole) relative to amphibole asbestos; and rps, the potency of shorter fibers (5 microm < length < 10 microm) relative to longer fibers. For mesothelioma, the hypothesis that chrysotile and amphibole asbestos are equally potent (rpc = 1) was strongly rejected by every metric and the hypothesis that (pure) chrysotile is nonpotent for mesothelioma was not rejected by any metric. Best estimates for the relative potency of chrysotile ranged from zero to about 1/200th that of amphibole asbestos (depending on metric). For lung cancer, the hypothesis that chrysotile and amphibole asbestos are equally potent (rpc = 1) was rejected (p < or = .05) by the two metrics based on thin fibers (length < 0.4 microm and < 0.2 microm) but not by the metrics based on thicker fibers. The "all widths" and widths < 0.4 microm metrics provide the best fits to both the lung cancer and mesothelioma data over the other metrics evaluated, although the improvements are only marginal for lung cancer. That these two metrics provide equivalent (for mesothelioma) and nearly equivalent (for lung cancer) fits to the data suggests that the available data sets may not be sufficiently rich (in variation of exposure characteristics) to fully evaluate the effects of fiber width on potency. Compared to the metric with widths > 0.2 microm with both rps and rpc fixed at 1 (which is nominally equivalent to the traditional PCM metric), the "all widths" and widths < 0.4 microm metrics provide substantially better fits for both lung cancer and, especially, mesothelioma. Although the best estimates of the potency of shorter fibers (5 < length < 10 microm) is zero for the "all widths" and widths < 0.4 microm metrics (or a small fraction of that of longer fibers for the widths > 0.2 microm metric for mesothelioma), the hypothesis that these shorter fibers were nonpotent could not be rejected for any of these metrics. Expansion of these metrics to include a category for fibers with lengths < 5 microm did not find any consistent evidence for any potency of these shortest fibers for either lung cancer or mesothelioma. Despite the substantial improvements in fit over that provided by the traditional use of PCM, neither the "all widths" nor the widths < 0.4 microm metrics (or any of the other metrics evaluated) completely resolve the differences in potency factors estimated in different occupational studies. Unresolved in particular is the discrepancy in potency factors for lung cancer from Quebec chrysotile miners and workers at the Charleston, SC, textile mill, which mainly processed chrysotile from Quebec. A leading hypothesis for this discrepancy is limitations in the fiber size distributions available for this analysis. Dement et al. (2007) recently analyzed by TEM archived air samples from the South Carolina plant to determine a detailed distribution of fiber lengths up to lengths of 40 microm and greater. If similar data become available for Quebec, perhaps these two size distributions can be used to eliminate the discrepancy between these two studies.

An overview of the risk of lung cancer in relation to exposure to asbestos and of taconite miners

Exposure-response relationships between the relative risk of lung cancer and quantitative measures of exposure to asbestos are available from a number of epidemiological studies. Meta-analyses of these relationships have been published by Lash et al. (1997) [Lash, T.L., Crouch, E.A.C., Green, L.C., 1997. A meta-analysis of the relation between cumulative exposure to asbestos and relative risk of lung cancer. Occup. Environ. Med. 54, 254-263] and Hodgson and Darnton (2000) [Hodgson, J.T., Darnton, A., 2000. The quantitative risks of mesothelioma and lung cancer in relation to asbestos exposure. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 44, 565-601]. In this paper, the risks derived in these meta-analyses have been compared. Lash et al., concentrated on process and found that the risk of lung cancer increased as the asbestos is refined by processing. Hodgson and Darnton concentrated on fibre type and found that the risk was highest for exposure to amphibole asbestos (crocidolite and amosite), lowest for chrysotile and intermediate for mixed exposure. Some of the differences between the conclusions from the two meta-analyses are a consequence of the choice of studies included. The range of asbestos types included in the studies in the analysis of Hodgson and Darnton was wider than that in Lash et al., enabling differences between fibre types to be analyzed more readily. There are situations where occupational exposure to chrysotile asbestos has shown no detectable increase in risk of lung cancer. Taconite miners have shown no increased risk of mortality due to lung cancer.

An Experiment to Develop Conversion Factors to Standardise Measurements of Airborne Asbestos

Various researchers and agencies recommend different conversion factors for different asbestos exposures. The aim of this study was to develop conversion factors from particles per cm3 (p cm-3) to fibres per cm3 (f cm-3) and from mg m-3 to f cm-3.

More than 1000 exposure measurements were available in the Slovenian asbestos-cement factory Salonit Anhovo. Three types of measurement of asbestos concentrations in the air were used: a konimeter measuring p cm-3, a gravimetric method measuring mg m-3 and a membrane filter method measuring f cm-3. Operation-specific conversion factors among these methods were developed. One conversion factor was obtained for asbestos-pipe-dry jobs (4.7) and one for asbestos-sheet-dry jobs (1.6). Only one conversion factor (0.8) was used for asbestos-cement-pipe-wet and asbestos-cement-pipe-dry jobs. For asbestos cement sheets, two conversion factors were obtained (0.3 and 1.2).

The development of five different conversion factors made it possible to calculate cumulative exposure to asbestos from historical data and to decrease exposure misclassification.

After Helsinki: a multidisciplinary review of the relationship between asbestos exposure and lung cancer, with emphasis on studies published during 1997-2004

Despite an extensive literature, the relationship between asbestos exposure and lung cancer remains the subject of controversy, related to the fact that most asbestos-associated lung cancers occur in those who are also cigarette smokers: because smoking represents the strongest identifiable lung cancer risk factor among many others, and lung cancer is not uncommon across industrialised societies, analysis of the combined (synergistic) effects of smoking and asbestos on lung cancer risk is a more complex exercise than the relationship between asbestos inhalation and mesothelioma. As a follow-on from previous reviews of prevailing evidence, this review critically evaluates more recent studies on this relationship--concentrating on those published between 1997 and 2004--including lung cancer to mesothelioma ratios, the interactive effects of cigarette smoke and asbestos in combination, and the cumulative exposure model for lung cancer induction as set forth in The Helsinki Criteria and The AWARD Criteria (as opposed to the asbestosis-->cancer model), together with discussion of differential genetic susceptibility/resistance factors for lung carcinogenesis by both cigarette smoke and asbestos. The authors conclude that: (i) the prevailing evidence strongly supports the cumulative exposure model; (ii) the criteria for probabilistic attribution of lung cancer to mixed asbestos exposures as a consequence of the production and end-use of asbestos-containing products such as insulation and asbestos-cement building materials--as embodied in The Helsinki and AWARD Criteria--conform to, and are further consolidated by, the new evidence discussed in this review; (iii) different attribution criteria (e.g., greater cumulative exposures) are appropriate for chrysotile mining/milling and perhaps for other chrysotile-only exposures, such as friction products manufacture, than for amphibole-only exposures or mixed asbestos exposures; and (iv) emerging evidence on genetic susceptibility/resistance factors for lung cancer risk as a consequence of cigarette smoking, and potentially also asbestos exposure, suggests that genotypic variation may represent an additional confounding factor potentially affecting the strength of association and hence the probability of causal contribution in the individual subject, but at present there is insufficient evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions concerning variation in asbestos-mediated lung cancer risk relative to such resistance/susceptibility factors.

Cancer and interstitial lung disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review assesses the contribution of various conditions that cause interstitial lung disease to the development of cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Interstitial lung diseases for which the available evidence suggests an increased risk of lung cancer include idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, systemic sclerosis, and certain forms of pneumoconioses. The pathogenesis of lung cancer remains unclear, and the available data on inflammation-induced pulmonary fibrosis as a risk factor for lung cancer are summarized. There is inadequate evidence for any conclusions about the risk of solid tumors and hematologic malignancies in patients with sarcoidosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematosus. An increased incidence of lymphoma is detected in Sjögren's syndrome. For patients with dermatomyositis and polymyositis, there is a well-documented association with a wide range of cancers.

SUMMARY

Further studies are needed to clarify the cause(s) and the mechanisms that link various interstitial lung diseases and cancer.

Fibre-years, pulmonary asbestos burden and asbestosis

The relations between cumulative asbestos fibre doses at the work-places and asbestos burden of the lung evaluated by lung dust analyses have been tested on 3 different groups of patients of the German Mesothelioma Register: 1. total collective (n = 366), 2. collective without elevated asbestos burden of the lungs (n = 193), 3. collective with asbestoses/minimal asbestoses (n = 64). The relations between the above mentioned parameters are in general only weak. The limit value of > 25 fibre-years is found in 19.6% of persons without increased pulmonary asbestos burden. In spite of reaching or exceeding the cumulative doses of 25 fibre-years, 24% of the whole collective also show no elevated asbestos-concentrations in their lung tissues. By contrast, 42% of patients with asbestos-associated lung fibroses do not attain 25 fibre-years at their work-places. Considering our data it is doubtful that the postulated limit value of 25 fibre-years can be an adequate parameter for the evaluation of asbestos-associated lung fibroses.

Occupational exposure and lung cancer risk: a population-based case-referent study in Sweden

This case-referent study investigated the lung cancer risk from occupational exposure to diesel exhaust, mixed motor exhaust, other combustion products, asbestos, metals, oil mist, and welding fumes. All cases of lung cancer in males aged 40-75 years among stable residents of Stockholm County, Sweden, were identified from 1985 to 1990. Referents were selected as a stratified (age, inclusion year) random sample. Information on lifetime occupational history, residency, and tobacco smoking was obtained from the study subjects or from next of kin. Response rates of 87% and 85% resulted in 1,042 cases and 2,364 referents, respectively. Occupational exposures were assessed by an occupational hygienist who coded the intensity and probability of each exposure. Risk estimates were adjusted for tobacco smoking, other occupational exposures, residential radon, and environmental exposure to traffic-related air pollution. For the highest quartile of cumulative exposure versus no exposure, the relative risk was 1.63 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14, 2.33) for diesel exhaust, 1.60 (95% CI: 1.09, 2.34) for combustion products, and 1.68 (95% CI: 1.15, 2.46) for asbestos. Dose-response analyses indicated an increase in lung cancer risk of 14% per fiber-year/ml for asbestos exposure. No increased risk was found for the other exposure factors. An overall attributable proportion of 9.5% (95% CI: 5.5, 13.9) was estimated for lung cancer related to diesel exhaust, other combustion products, and asbestos.

Asbestos and cancer: An overview of current trends in Europe

This review assesses the contribution of occupational asbestos exposure to the occurrence of mesothelioma and lung cancer in Europe. Available information on national asbestos consumption, proportions of the population exposed, and exposure levels is summarized. Population-based studies from various European regions on occupational asbestos exposure, mesothelioma, and lung cancer are reviewed. Asbestos consumption in 1994 ranged, per capita, between 0. 004 kg in northern Europe and 2.4 kg in the former Soviet Union. Population surveys from northern Europe indicate that 15 to 30% of the male (and a few percent of the female) population has ever had occupational exposure to asbestos, mainly in construction (75% in Finland) or in shipyards. Studies on mesothelioma combining occupational history with biologic exposure indices indicate occupational asbestos exposure in 62 to 85% of the cases. Population attributable risks for lung cancer among males range between 2 and 50% for definite asbestos exposure. After exclusion of the most extreme values because of methodologic aspects, most of the remaining estimates are within the range of 10 to 20%. Estimates of women are lower. Extrapolation of the results to national figures would decrease the estimates. Norwegian estimates indicate that one-third of expected asbestos-related lung cancers might be avoided if former asbestos workers quit smoking. The combination of a current high asbestos consumption per capita, high exposure levels, and high underlying lung cancer rates in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union suggests that the lung cancers will arise from the smoking-asbestos interaction should be a major concern.

Asbestosis: a marker for the increased risk of lung cancer among workers exposed to asbestos

This review examines the hypothesis that excess lung cancer risk in worker cohorts exposed to asbestos occurs only among those with asbestosis. The adequately designed studies in the literature support this hypothesis. The summary relative risk for lung cancer was 1.00 in seven cohorts with no deaths from asbestosis. In addition, there is a high correlation between asbestosis rates and lung cancer rates in 38 cohorts in contrast to a poor correlation between cumulative exposure data and lung cancer relative risks in eight cohorts with adequate data. The evidence indicates that asbestosis is a much better predictor of excess lung cancer risk than measures of exposure and serves as a marker for attributable cases.

Nonoccupational exposure to chrysotile asbestos and the risk of lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Heavy industrial exposure to asbestos causes lung cancer and mesothelioma, but it remains unknown whether much lower environmental exposure to asbestos also causes these cancers. Nevertheless, regulatory agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have assessed the risk of lung cancer by extrapolating known risks from past industrial exposure to asbestos to today's much lower environmental asbestos levels (roughly 100,000 times lower). We also tested the EPA's model for predicting the risk of asbestos-induced lung cancer in a population of women with relatively high levels of nonoccupational exposure to asbestos.

METHODS

Mortality among women in 2 chrysotile-asbestos-mining areas of the province of Quebec was compared with mortality among women in 60 control areas, and age-standardized mortality ratios were derived. With the help of an expert panel, we estimated past exposure to asbestos among women in the mining areas and used these data with the EPA's model to predict the relative risk of lung cancer. We then compared this prediction with the observed mortality ratios.

RESULTS

On the basis of the estimated exposure in the asbestos-mining areas, a relative risk of death due to lung cancer of 2.1 was predicted by the EPA's model, amounting to about 75 excess deaths from lung cancer in this population. By contrast, we calculated a standardized mortality ratio of 1.0 and a standardized proportionate mortality ratio of 1.1 (P> 0.05), suggesting that there were between 0 and 6.5 excess deaths from lung cancer among the women with nonoccupational exposure to asbestos. Seven deaths from pleural cancer were observed (relative risk=7.63; P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no measurable excess risk of death due to lung cancer among women in two chrysotile-asbestos-mining regions. The EPA's model overestimated the risk of asbestos-induced lung cancer by at least a factor of 10.