Search

BackgroundEvidence has accumulated from observational studies that people eating more fruits and vegetables, which are rich in beta-carotene (a violet to yellow plant pigment that acts as an antioxidant and can be converted to vitamin A by enzymes in the intestinal wall and liver) and retinol (an alcohol chemical form of vitamin A), and people having higher serum beta-carotene concentrations had lower rates of lung cancer. The Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET) tested the combination of 30 mg beta-carotene and 25,000 IU retinyl palmitate (vitamin A) taken daily against placebo in 18314 men and women at high risk of developing lung cancer. The CARET intervention was stopped 21 months early because of clear evidence of no benefit and substantial evidence of possible harm; there were 28% more lung cancers and 17% more deaths in the active intervention group (active = the daily combination of 30 mg beta-carotene and 25,000 IU retinyl palmitate). Promptly after the January 18, 1996, announcement that the CARET active intervention had been stopped, we published preliminary findings from CARET regarding cancer, heart disease, and total mortality.PurposeWe present for the first time results based on the pre-specified analytic method, details about risk factors for lung cancer, and analyses of subgroups and of factors that possibly influence response to the intervention.MethodsCARET was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled chemoprevention trial, initiated with a pilot phase and then expanded 10-fold at six study centers. Cigarette smoking history and status and alcohol intake were assessed through participant self-report. Serum was collected from the participants at base line and periodically after randomization and was analyzed for beta-carotene concentration. An Endpoints Review Committee evaluated endpoint reports, including pathologic review of tissue specimens. The primary analysis is a stratified logrank test for intervention arm differences in lung cancer incidence, with weighting linearly to hypothesized full effect at 24 months after randomization. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated by use of Cox regression models; tests were performed for quantitative and qualitative interactions between the intervention and smoking status or alcohol intake. O'Brien-Fleming boundaries were used for stopping criteria at interim analyses. Statistical significance was set at the .05 alpha value, and all P values were derived from two-sided statistical tests.ResultsAccording to CARET's pre-specified analysis, there was an RR of 1.36 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-1.73; P = .01) for weighted lung cancer incidence for the active intervention group compared with the placebo group, and RR = 1.59 (95% CI = 1.13-2.23; P = .01) for weighted lung cancer mortality. All subgroups, except former smokers, had a point estimate of RR of 1.10 or greater for lung cancer. There are suggestions of associations of the excess lung cancer incidence with the highest quartile of alcohol intake (RR = 1.99; 95% CI = 1.28-3.09; test for heterogeneity of RR among quartiles of alcohol intake has P = .01, unadjusted for multiple comparisons) and with large-cell histology (RR = 1.89; 95% CI = 1.09-3.26; test for heterogeneity among histologic categories has P = .35), but not with base-line serum beta-carotene concentrations.ConclusionsCARET participants receiving the combination of beta-carotene and vitamin A had no chemopreventive benefit and had excess lung cancer incidence and mortality. The results are highly consistent with those found for beta-carotene in the Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study in 29133 male smokers in Finland.

* Context.--Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose. Objective.--To develop practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of MM. Data Sources.--A pathology panel was convened at the International Mesothelioma Interest Group biennial meeting (October 2006). Pathologists with an interest in the field also contributed after the meeting. Conclusions.--There was consensus opinion regarding (1) distinguishing benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations (both epithelioid and spindle cell lesions), (2) cytologic diagnosis of MM, (3) key histologic features of pleural and peritoneal MM, (4) use of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MM, (5) differentiating epithelioid MM from various carcinomas (lung, breast, ovarian, and colonic adenocarcinomas and squamous cell and renal cell carcinomas), (6) diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesothelioma, (7) use of molecular markers in the differential diagnosis of MM, (8) electron microscopy in the diagnosis of MM, and (9) some caveats and pitfalls in the diagnosis of MM. Immunohistochemical panels are integral to the diagnosis of MM, but the exact makeup of panels used is dependent on the differential diagnosis and on the antibodies available in a given laboratory. Immunohistochemical panels should contain both positive and negative markers. The International Mesothelioma Interest Group recommends that markers have either sensitivity or specificity greater than 80% for the lesions in question. Interpretation of positivity generally should take into account the localization of the stain (eg, nuclear versus cytoplasmic) and the percentage of cells staining (>10% is suggested for cytoplasmic membranous markers). These guidelines are meant to be a practical reference for the pathologist. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:1317-1331), As part of the International Mesothelioma Interest Group biennial meeting held in Chicago (October 2006), there was a pathology half-day workshop that included invited lecturers and an open forum on [...]

To the Editor.--We read with interest the editorial by Gibbs et al (1) regarding the Helsinki Criteria for attribution of lung cancer to asbestos exposure. The authors state that despite [...]

Mesothelioma is a rare neoplasm caused by asbestos exposure. The majority of mesotheliomas arise from the pleural lining of the thoracic cavity, but also involve the peritoneal and pericardial cavities. Another type of neoplasm referred to as pseudomesotheliomatous adenocarcinoma is rare. Most 'pseudomesotheliomas' arise in the pleural tissue of the chest cavity and resemble pleural mesotheliomas, macroscopically and histologically. While most arise in the pleura, there are some that metastasize to the pleura from another site. We evaluated asbestos fiber concentrations in 20 cases of pseudomesotheliomatous lung cancer and found a significant number to contain an elevated concentration of asbestos in their lung tissue, which is similar with our study of 55 mesothelioma cases published in 1997. This would provide evidence that some pseudomesotheliomatous lung cancers are caused by asbestos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]