The silent malignant mesothelioma epidemic: a call to action

Zandwijk, Nico van; Rasko, John E.J.; George, Anthony; Frank, Arthur L.; Reid, Glen

doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00269-8

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This leads to the perceived safety of alternative asbestos waste technologies and any resultant downstream by-products. The social acceptance of ACMs as a hazardous waste potentially entering the circular economy may be hindered by the historical distrust of the asbestos industry, which misled consumers about the supposed safety of ACMs and continues to use disinformation campaigns to target developing nations that have yet to ban asbestos [47], despite the clear detrimental health impacts [5,6]. Australian workplace health and safety laws, as well as environmental health laws, as with any similar laws around the world, prescribe the safety measures that must be adhered to in managing asbestos waste.…”

Section: Discussion: Assessing the Opportunity For Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Asbestos Waste Using Technological Alternatives to Approved Deep Burial Landfill Methods: An Australian Perspective

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given Australia’s significant and aged asbestos legacy, the long-term sustainability of effective and accessible asbestos waste management is a national priority of Australia’s Asbestos National Strategic Plan. The current policy for managing hazardous asbestos waste is via deep burial in landfill. Technological alternatives to approved deep burial landfill methods exist and could be considered innovative and sustainable additional options for managing asbestos waste, where these are proven viable, and where appropriate policy and regulatory changes are implemented. We present a summary of alternative asbestos waste management technologies and discuss issues influencing their potential application in the Australian context. Increasing the options for asbestos waste management in Australia may additionally facilitate the safe, planned removal of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) from the built environment. Altogether, this will reduce the potential for exposure to asbestos fibres and work towards eliminating asbestos-related disease in Australia, therefore contributing towards achieving the overarching aim of Australia’s Asbestos National Strategic Plan.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Assessing the Opportunity For Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Asbestos Waste Using Technological Alternatives to Approved Deep Burial Landfill Methods: An Australian Perspective

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We next reanalyzed malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) whole-genome sequencing data from our recent MESOMICS project 14 . This project sought to identify genomic differences between MPM tumors with varying exposure to asbestos, the primary cause of MPM 17 . The MESOMICS project found that MPM somatic alterations consisted mostly of copy number (CN) alterations, leading us to hypothesize that asbestos exposure would leave a footprint on CN signatures.…”

Section: Carcinogen Exposure Increases Diversity Of Mutational Signat...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, a large genomic study of lung cancer in never smokers (LCINS) found that patients exposed to second-hand smoke were genomically indistinguishable from unexposed patients, suggesting that second-hand smoke increases cancer risk through nonmutagenic means 11 . Third, our recent analysis of more than 100 malignant pleural mesothelioma tumor whole genome sequences 14 was the latest in a long line of failures to identify a genomic difference between asbestos-exposed and non-exposed tumors 15,16 , despite asbestos being one of the most powerful known carcinogenic substances 17 . Finally, the most extensive genomic study of cancer across continents to date has suggested that, incidence, like many carcinogen exposures, cannot be explained by genomic differences between tumors 18 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability of mutational signatures is a footprint of carcinogens

Morrison,

Mangé,

Senkin

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the genomic impact of carcinogens is fundamental to cancer biology and prevention. However, recent coordinated efforts to detect such fingerprints have been largely unsuccessful, challenging the paradigm that carcinogens induce identifiable mutational signatures. Here we introduce a new method based on statistics from population genetics, signature variability analysis (SVA), that elucidates both the diversity of tumorcausing processes and the heterogeneity of population carcinogen exposure. When we use SVA to re-analyze four prominent studies commonly cited as evidence of nonmutagenic carcinogens, we find that tumors induced by environmental carcinogens do possess mutational signature patterns that distinguish them from spontaneous tumors, even if a specific mutational signature cannot be detected. We find that, across cancers, organs, and model organisms, carcinogen exposure generally increases both the diversity of mutational signatures within a tumor and the homogeneity of signature activity across subjects. Importantly, we show that this increase in signature diversity, far from being a background effect, is associated with the geographic incidence of cancer and can facilitate the acquisition of cancer driver mutations. Our results both encourage a re-examination of the genomic impact of numerous substances and introduce new tools for the analysis of the genomic effects of other substances, potentially influencing carcinogen classifications and cancer prevention policies.

show abstract

“…Mesothelioma is an aggressive tumor arising from the lining membrane of the serous cavities of the body, including the pleura, peritoneum, pericardium, and vaginal tunic of the testicles; pleural mesothelioma (PM) accounts for nearly 90% of diagnosed patients [ 1 ]. Most cases of mesothelioma are due to asbestos exposure [ 2 ], although other uncommon etiologic factors have been reported [ 3 ]. The evidence of familial cases [ 4 ] and the occurrence of mesothelioma in patients with no identifiable history of exposure to asbestos or asbestos-like fibers have suggested the possibility of an underlying genetic susceptibility [ 5 , 6 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Second Primary Cancers in a Population-Based Mesothelioma Registry

Mensi

Stella

Dallari

et al. 2023

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The presence of a second primary cancer (SPC) in patients with pleural mesothelioma (PM) may impact overall survival and suggest a common mechanism of carcinogenesis or an underlying germline genetic alteration. Methods: We evaluated the occurrence of SPCs within PM cases collected from 2000 to 2018 by the Lombardy Mesothelioma Registry and their prognostic implications. Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed to estimate median survival times, together with univariate and multivariate Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of death. Results: The median overall survival (OS) of the entire study population (N = 6646) was 10.9 months (95% CI: 10.4–11.2); patient age and histotype were the strongest prognostic factors. No substantial survival difference was observed by the presence of an SPC (10.5 months in 1000 patients with an SPC vs. 10.9 months in 5646 patients in the non-SPC group, HR 1.03, p = 0.40). Shorter OS in the SPC group was only observed in 150 patients with the non-epithelioid subtype (median OS of 5.4 vs. 7.1 months, HR 1.21, p = 0.03). Conclusions: The diagnosis of an SPC did not influence the outcome of PM patients in the overall study population but was associated with shorter OS in non-epithelioid cases. Further studies are needed to clarify the role of SPCs as markers of genetic susceptibility in mesothelioma.

show abstract

The silent malignant mesothelioma epidemic: a call to action

Cited by 13 publications

References 29 publications

Managing Asbestos Waste Using Technological Alternatives to Approved Deep Burial Landfill Methods: An Australian Perspective

Managing Asbestos Waste Using Technological Alternatives to Approved Deep Burial Landfill Methods: An Australian Perspective

Variability of mutational signatures is a footprint of carcinogens

Second Primary Cancers in a Population-Based Mesothelioma Registry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About