Search

Asbestos, a group of class I (WHO) carcinogenic fibers, is the main cause of mesothelioma. Asbestos inhalation also increases the risk to develop other solid tumours with lung cancer as the most prominent example [91]. The incidence of asbestos-related lung cancer (ARLC) is estimated to be to six times larger than the mesothelioma incidence thereby becoming an important health issue [86]. Although the pivotal role of asbestos in inducing lung cancer is well established, the precise causal relationships between exposures to asbestos, tobacco smoke, radon and 'particulate' (PM2.5) air pollution remain obscure and new knowledge is needed to establish appropriate preventive measures and to tailor existing screening practices[22,61,65]. We hypothesize that a part of the increasing numbers of lung cancer diagnoses in never-smokers can be explained by (historic and current) exposures to asbestos as well as combinations of different forms of air pollution (PM2.5, asbestos and silica)., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

All six fiber types called asbestos can cause all the diseases related to exposure, including lung cancer. Known to the ancients, the modern history of asbestos hazards started in the 1890s with more and more data accumulating over time. Use increased exponentially in the middle of the 20th century with major use coming in construction and ship building. The recognition of asbestos as causing lung cancer dates to the early 1940s., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Nico van Zandwijk declares that he has no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Arthur L Frank regularly testifies in asbestos legal cases, primarily for plaintiffs., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Asbestos-Related Lung Cancer (ARLC) presents ongoing diagnostic challenges despite improved imaging technologies. The long latency period, coupled with limited access to occupational and environmental data along with the confounding effects of smoking and other carcinogens adds complexity to the diagnostic process. Compounding these challenges is the absence of a specific histopathologic or mutational signature of ARLC. A correlation between PD-L1 expression and response to immune checkpoint inhibition has not yet been proven. Thus, new biomarkers are needed to allow accurate diagnoses of ARLC, to enable prognostication and to offer personalized treatments. Liquid biopsies, encompassing circulating DNA and circulating tumor cells (CTCs), have gained attention as novel diagnostic methods in lung cancer to screen high-risk populations including those exposed to asbestos. CTCs can be enumerated and molecularly profiled to provide predictive and prognostic information. CTC studies have not been undertaken in populations at risk of ARLC to date. The potential of CTCs to provide real-time molecular insight into ARLC biology may significantly improve the diagnosis and management of ARLC patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: JEJR. reports advisory roles in Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Australian Government; and Human Research Ethics Committee, Genea. JEJR also reports honoraria speaker fees or advisory roles for SPARK Therapeutics, Cynata, and Pfizer Inc.; Woke Pharmaceutical (shares); Kennerton Capital (non-executive director); AAVec Bio (co-founder); consultant role for Rarecyte (stocks in lieu). SK served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, BMS, Roche, Amgene, Beigene and Boeringher. SK received honorarium (partly to institution) from MSD, BMS, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Takeda and Beigene. SK received research grant (to institution) from AstraZeneca. All the other authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Due to difficulties in identifying sufficient-sized cohorts there remains uncertainty about prognostic and clinical differences that may be unique to asbestos-related lung cancer (ARLC). In this study, we use the Helsinki Criteria to define a group of ex-workers with lung cancer attributable to asbestos exposure and investigate differences that may exist., Methods: A total of 529 patients seeking workers' compensation for their lung cancer were assigned to either ARLC or the non-ARLC based on parameters defined in the Helsinki Criteria. Clinical and survival details were collected and analyzed., Results: In our study population, ARLC patients were on average older (72.1 ± 7.8) than non-ARLC patients (66.5 ± 10.2, P < 0.001) and were more likely to be diagnosed as a result of incidental findings or screening program (P < 0.001). The groups were similar in terms of clinical characteristics with the only difference being that plaques were more prevalent among ARLC patients (P < 0.001). Differences were observed for median overall survival (OS), ARLC (9 months) and non-ARLC (13 months, P = 0.005), as well for treatment (P = 0.01). After adjusting for age, however, these differences disappeared., Conclusions: Age at diagnosis, pleural plaques, and asymptomatic presentation were the attributes that we identified as significantly different between asbestos-related cancer and other lung cancers. In this cohort, ARLC patients were older diagnosis and with worse overall survival., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Asbestos and zeolites are silicate-based minerals, linked inextricably via paradoxical similarities and differences which have emanated from different geological epochs. Both have been employed in the service of humanity through millennia: asbestos, for its "inextinguishable" quality of being an insulator against heat and fire; zeolite, a "boiling stone" with its volcanic and marine sedimentary rock origins, for its propensity to adsorb water and remove metals and toxins. Serious adverse health effects observed in asbestos miners as long ago as the 1st Century AD did not halt the rising popularity of asbestos. As the miracle material of the 1900s, asbestos production and consumption exploded, culminating in its ubiquity in ships, vehicles, homes, commercial buildings, and over 3000 different industrial and household products. Through the 1940s and 1950s, epidemiological studies concluded that asbestos was a likely cause of asbestosis, lung cancer, and malignant mesothelioma, and it is now banned in many but far from all countries. The long latency between exposure to asbestos and the occurrence of cancer has obscured the deadly consequences of asbestos exposure for centuries. Even today, a considerable part of the world population is insufficiently aware of the dangers of asbestos, and millions of tons of this carcinogen continue to be mined and used worldwide. Zeolites, both natural and synthetic, are microporous aluminosilicate minerals commonly used in a myriad of processes, in the petrochemical industry, in domestic appliances and cleaning agents, as commercial adsorbents and exchangers for toxins and pollutants, and as catalysts. Zeolites are found in agriculture, veterinary science, and human health. More recently, new materials such as carbon nanotubes are being employed in materials requiring durability and thermal and electrical conductivity, yet nanotubes are now joining the ranks of more established particulates such as asbestos and silica, in causing human disease. In this review, we compare and contrast the similarities and differences of these two groups of silicate minerals and their waxing and waning use in the employ of humanity.

Introduction : Asbestos, the most frequent cause of occupational cancer, continues to be consumed on a massive scale, with millions of people exposed on a daily basis. This review explains why we have failed in curtailing the silent epidemic of asbestos-related disease and why the numbers of asbestos victims are likely to remain high. Emerging and developed countries have to be reminded that asbestos exposure has yet to become a problem of the past. The worldwide spread of asbestos, followed by the surge of asbestos-related cancers, resembles the lung cancer epidemic caused by smoking and stimulated by manufacturers. Areas covered : Underreporting of malignant mesothelioma and asbestos-induced lung cancer, frequently-used arguments in the amphibole/chrysotile debate and the conclusion from bona-fide research organizations, that all forms of asbestos are carcinogenic, are reviewed. Special attention is paid to the consequences of ubiquitous environmental asbestos and the 'changing face' of malignant mesothelioma in countries with heavy asbestos use in the past. Expert opinion : Experts in oncology, respiratory medicine, occupational and public health, and basic researchers must take responsibility and acknowledge the ongoing silent epidemic of asbestos-related diseases. The call for a world-wide asbestos ban is more urgent than ever.

Background: Australia is known to have had one of the highest per-capita asbestos consumption rates, yet there are few contemporary reports on malignant mesothelioma trends., Methods: Data on 10 930 people with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and 640 people with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma diagnosed in Australia during 1982-2009 were analysed. Observed incidence rate trends were quantified. Incidence rates were projected up to 2030 using observed incident cases during 1982-2012. The relative per-decade change in excess mortality during 1999-2009 was estimated., Results: During 1982-2009, acceleration in MPM age-standardised incidence rates were highest for women and those aged 75 years and above, with average annual percentage changes of +4.9 (95% CI 3.6 to 6.2) and +7.2 (95% CI 5.4 to 9.0), respectively. Age-standardised incidence rates for men with MPM aged 0-64 years decelerated rapidly during 2003-2009, an average annual percentage change of -5.1% (95% CI -7.6% to -2.5%). Overall, male age-specific MPM incidence rates in the age group of 65-74 year during 2010-2030 are projected to decline with rates projected to increase for older men and women with MPM. There was a statistically significant 16% relative reduction in the excess mortality rate (EMR) up to 5 years postdiagnosis for people diagnosed with malignant pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma combined in 2009 compared with those diagnosed in 1999, an EMR ratio of 0.84 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.92)., Conclusions: Australia's malignant mesothelioma incidence rates appear to have reached maximum levels but with differences over time by age, gender and tumour location. Improvements over time in survival provide a glimpse of hope for this almost invariably fatal disease., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Australia is known to have had the highest per-capita asbestos consumption level of any nation, reaching a peak in the 1970s. Although crocidolite was effectively banned in the late 1960s, and amosite use ceased in the mid 1980s, a complete asbestos ban was not implemented until 2003. This resulted in an epidemic of asbestos-related disease, which has only now reached its peak. Between 1982 and 2011, 13,036 individuals were newly diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, with 690 diagnosed in 2011. A further 778 cases were identified between 1945 and 1981 from retrospective searches and the first 2 years of the Australian Mesothelioma Program. The age-standardized malignant mesothelioma incidence rate has leveled off in the last 10 years (2.8 per 100,000 in 2011). There has been a marked increase over time in the age-specific incidence rates for individuals aged 75 years or older. Data from the current Australian Mesothelioma Registry on asbestos exposure history in Australia is available for 449 subjects diagnosed between July 1, 2010, and April 1, 2015. This asbestos exposure history data show that 60% (n = 268) of cases had probable or possible occupational asbestos exposure, with trade-based jobs being the most frequent sources of occupational asbestos exposure. In addition, out of the 449 cases, 377 were recorded as having probable or possible nonoccupational asbestos exposure. Continuous vigilance toward changes over time in the settings in which people are exposed to asbestos and in the descriptive epidemiology of malignant mesothelioma is recommended to enable a comprehensive understanding of the current and future impact of asbestos-related diseases in Australia.

The relationship between asbestos exposure and malignant mesothelioma (MM) has been well established. Despite bans on asbestos use in an increasing number of nations, the prolonged latency from exposure to diagnosis, and the ongoing presence and use of these dangerous fibres, have led to the increasing prevalence of this deadly disease worldwide. Whilst occupational contact has been implicated in the bulk of diagnosed cases over the past 50 years, a significant proportion of disease has been linked to para-occupational, domestic and environmental exposure. In this review, we will provide an update on the impact of historical and ongoing asbestos contact in both occupational and non-occupational settings. Furthermore, we will address the unresolved controversies surrounding the use of chrysotile asbestos, the effect of gender and genetics on development of this disease, childhood mesothelioma and co-aetiological factors including SV40 exposure., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and objectives: Due to difficulties in identifying sufficient‐sized cohorts there remains uncertainty about prognostic and clinical differences that may be unique to asbestos‐related lung cancer (ARLC). In this study, we use the Helsinki Criteria to define a group of ex‐workers with lung cancer attributable to asbestos exposure and investigate differences that may exist. Methods: A total of 529 patients seeking workers' compensation for their lung cancer were assigned to either ARLC or the non‐ARLC based on parameters defined in the Helsinki Criteria. Clinical and survival details were collected and analyzed. Results: In our study population, ARLC patients were on average older (72.1 ± 7.8) than non‐ARLC patients (66.5 ± 10.2, P < 0.001) and were more likely to be diagnosed as a result of incidental findings or screening program (P < 0.001). The groups were similar in terms of clinical characteristics with the only difference being that plaques were more prevalent among ARLC patients (P < 0.001). Differences were observed for median overall survival (OS), ARLC (9 months) and non‐ARLC (13 months, P = 0.005), as well for treatment (P = 0.01). After adjusting for age, however, these differences disappeared. Conclusions: Age at diagnosis, pleural plaques, and asymptomatic presentation were the attributes that we identified as significantly different between asbestos‐related cancer and other lung cancers. In this cohort, ARLC patients were older diagnosis and with worse overall survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Background and objective Whilst the impact of clinicopathological factors on the prognosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma ( MPM) is well understood, socioeconomic and geographic factors have received less attention. We analysed the relationship between geographic and socioeconomic factors upon survival and treatment provision in a large series of patients with MPM. Methods We assessed MPM patients awarded compensation between 2002 and 2009 with additional MPM incidence data from the New South Wales ( NSW) Cancer Registry. The impact of geographic remoteness, distance from oncological multidisciplinary team ( MDT) and Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage and Disadvantage ( IRSAD) upon survival, clinical features and treatment received was analysed. Results We identified 910 patients (67% residing in major cities; 92% <50 km from MDT). Median overall survival was 10.0 months. On multivariate analysis, age >70 (hazard ratio ( HR) = 1.39), male gender ( HR =1.36), non-epithelioid histological subtype ( HR = 2.18) and IRSAD status by decreasing quintile ( HR = 1.06) were independent prognostic factors. There was no significant advantage for patients residing in major cities (10.6 months vs 8.8 months; P = 0.162) or within 50 km of MDT (10.3 months vs 7.8 months; P = 0.539). Patient's geographic location and distance to MDT did not impact chemotherapy, adjuvant radiotherapy or extrapleural pneumonectomy provision. Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients were significantly less likely to receive chemotherapy (37.4% vs 54.8%; P = 0.001). Conclusion This study provides evidence for differences in the treatment and survival according to socioeconomic status for compensated MPM patients in NSW. Further research is warranted to seek additional explanations for the differences noted by comparing the treatments and outcomes of compensated and non-compensated MPM patients in NSW. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Global asbestos consumption has shifted toward lower income countries, particularly in the Asian region including Vietnam where asbestos and asbestos-containing products have been imported since the late 1960s.Methods: This pilot descriptive epidemiological study aimed to provide contemporary estimates of malignant mesothelioma incidence (histological subtype M9050/3; ICD-O-3) by gender and age group as recorded across nine cancer registries in Vietnam.Results: We identified 148 incident cases of malignant mesothelioma during 1987-2013. The majority of cases were recorded in the Hanoi region (n = 93) and were aged 55 years or older (n = 96).Discussion: By carefully reviewing existing cancer registry records in Vietnam, we identified a larger number of malignant mesothelioma cases than previously estimated. We recommend the use of cancer registry data in tracking future asbestos-related disease in Vietnam. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an almost invariably fatal, asbestos-related malignancy arising from the mesothelial membrane lining the thoracic cavities. Despite some improvements in treatment, therapy is not considered curative and median survival following diagnosis is less than 1 year. Although still classed as a rare cancer, the incidence of MPM is increasing, and the limited progress in treating the disease makes the identification of new therapies a priority. As there is evidence for expression of the integrins αvβ3 and αvβ5 in MPM, there is a rationale for investigating the effects on MPM of cilengitide, a synthetic peptide inhibitor of integrin αv heterodimer with high specificity for αvβ3 and αvβ5. In mesothelial cells (MC) and 7 MPM cell lines, growth inhibition by cilengitide was associated with the expression level of its target integrins. Furthermore, cilengitide caused cell detachment and subsequent death of anoikis-sensitive cells. It also suppressed invasion of MPM cells in monolayer and three-dimensional cultures. Gene knockdown experiments indicated that these effects of cilengitide were, at least partly, due to antagonism of αvβ3 and αvβ5. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the multidisciplinary approach used by the Asbestos Diseases Research Institute (ADRI) to prevent the burden of asbestos-related disease in Australia. It states that the institute drafted guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and establishment of biobank for research into biology of mesothelioma. It mentions the re-establishment of Australian Mesothelioma Registry (AMR).