Position Paper on Asbestos of the Italian Society of Occupational Medicine

Asbestos exposure determined 357 days after death through autopsy: a report of a multidisciplinary approach

Asbestosis is an interstitial lung disease caused by the inhalation of asbestos fibers and poses a significant risk to individuals working in construction, shipping, mining, and related industries. In a forensic context, postmortem investigations are crucial for accurate diagnosis, for which the gold standard is the histopathological examination. This case report describes the autopsy and related investigations conducted on an 84-year-old man, nearly one year (357 days) after his death. After a post-mortem CT scan, an autoptic investigation was performed, followed by histopathological, immunohistochemical, and scanning electron microscopy examinations. The integration of the evidence from these examinations with previously available personal and clinical information conclusively confirmed the diagnosis of asbestosis. We demonstrated the efficacy and reliability of our diagnostic protocol in detecting asbestosis and asbestos fibers and excluding mesothelioma even in decomposed tissues. According to our findings autopsy remains the diagnostic gold standard in cases of suspected asbestosis within a forensic context, even 1 year after death, therefore it is always highly recommended, even in cases where the body has decomposed.

Clinical and radiological criteria for the differential diagnosis between asbestosis and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: Application in two cases

Introduction:

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and asbestosis are pulmonary interstitial diseases that may present overlapping clinical aspects in the full-blown phase of the disease. For both clinical entities the gold standard for diagnosis is histological examination, but its execution poses ethical problems, especially when performed for preventive or forensic purposes.

Objective:

To evaluate the application of internationally accepted clinical, anamnestic and radiological criteria for differential diagnosis between asbestosis and IPF, and to assess the ability to discriminate between the two diseases. Even if clinically similar, the two diseases present extremely different prognostic and therapeutic perspectives.

Methods:

Two clinical cases of IPF are reported, in which the differential diagnosis was made by studying occupational exposure to asbestos, the onset and progression of clinical symptoms, and the identification of specific radiological elements by means of chest High Resolution Computed Tomography (HRCT).

Results:

The diagnosis of IPF could be made on the basis of the absence of significant exposure to asbestos, the early onset and rapid progression of dyspnea and restrictive ventilatory defects, in association with a pulmonary radiological pattern characterized by peculiar elements such as honeycombing.

Discussion:

The diagnostic procedure adopted to make a differential diagnosis with asbestosis provides practical clinical elements facilitating the differentiation between the two forms of pulmonary fibrosis, a fundamental aspect of the activity of the occupational physician.