Pleural mesothelioma and occupational and non-occupational asbestos exposure: a case-control study with quantitative risk assessment

Non-occupational exposure to asbestos and risk of pleural mesothelioma: review and meta-analysis

“…Thus, the higher exposure levels estimated by Hansen et al 14 yielded PMM risks 3.0-fold to 6.5-fold lower than those reported by Ferrante et al 24. This inconsistency was exacerbated by the fact that subjects in Ferrante et al 24 were exposed to mixed chrysotile/amphibole fibres, whereas the residents of Wittenoom were exposed to pure crocidolite fibres. This finding conflicts with the established view that PMM risks are higher for exposure to amphibole fibres than other fibre types 1–3…”

“…In contrast, Ferrante et al 24 found an OR of 23.3 (95% CI 2.9 to 186.9) for their highest non-occupational cumulative exposure category of 10.0 f/mL-years to 24.2 f/mL-years. Thus, the higher exposure levels estimated by Hansen et al 14 yielded PMM risks 3.0-fold to 6.5-fold lower than those reported by Ferrante et al 24. This inconsistency was exacerbated by the fact that subjects in Ferrante et al 24 were exposed to mixed chrysotile/amphibole fibres, whereas the residents of Wittenoom were exposed to pure crocidolite fibres.…”

“…As we noted in a recent letter to the editor,30 the highest exposure groups considered by Hansen et al had cumulative exposures of at least 20 f/mL-years (fibers/mL-years), with RRs ranging from 3.6 to 6.3 depending on the type of censoring 14. In contrast, Ferrante et al 24 found an OR of 23.3 (95% CI 2.9 to 186.9) for their highest non-occupational cumulative exposure category of 10.0 f/mL-years to 24.2 f/mL-years. Thus, the higher exposure levels estimated by Hansen et al 14 yielded PMM risks 3.0-fold to 6.5-fold lower than those reported by Ferrante et al 24.…”

“…The Ferrante et al 24 study also contained internal inconsistencies in PMM effect estimates relative to asbestos exposure. For example, Boffetta31 recently noted that the ORs for environmental asbestos exposure appeared to be higher for the same level of exposure than the corresponding ORs for occupational asbestos exposure.…”

Current and future risks of asbestos exposure in the Australian community

“…7,22,[32][33][34][35][36][37][38] Non occupational exposure tends to be lower than occupational exposure, 32,37,39 and the latency period between exposure and disease incidence longer. 35,40 A review of studies from South Africa, France, and Italy suggested that up to 20% of mesotheliomas in those countries may be attributed to non-occupational exposure to asbestos.…”