Lung cancer risk at low cumulative asbestos exposure: meta-regression of the exposure–response relationship
- 1.4k Downloads
Existing estimated lung cancer risks per unit of asbestos exposure are mainly based on, and applicable to, high exposure levels. To assess the risk at low cumulative asbestos exposure, we provide new evidence by fitting flexible meta-regression models, a notably new and more robust method.
Studies were selected if lung cancer risk per cumulative asbestos exposure in at least two exposure categories was reported. From these studies (n = 19), we extracted 104 risk estimates over a cumulative exposure range of 0.11–4,710 f-y/ml. We fitted linear and natural spline meta-regression models to these risk estimates. A natural spline allows risks to vary nonlinearly with exposure, such that estimates at low exposure are less affected by estimates in the upper exposure categories. Associated relative risks (RRs) were calculated for several low cumulative asbestos exposures.
A natural spline model fitted our data best. With this model, the relative lung cancer risk for cumulative exposure levels of 4 and 40 f-y/ml was estimated between 1.013 and 1.027, and 1.13 and 1.30, respectively. After stratification by fiber type, a non-significant three- to fourfold difference in RRs between chrysotile and amphibole fibers was found for exposures below 40 f-y/ml. Fiber-type-specific risk estimates were strongly influenced by a few studies.
The natural spline regression model indicates that at lower asbestos exposure levels, the increase in RR of lung cancer due to asbestos exposure may be larger than expected from previous meta-analyses. Observed potency differences between different fiber types are lower than the generally held consensus. Low-exposed industrial or population-based cohorts with quantitative estimates of asbestos exposure a required to substantiate the risk estimates at low exposure levels from our new, flexible meta-regression.
KeywordsAmphiboles Asbestos Chrysotile Exposure Lung cancer Meta-analysis
This study was supported by the Institute for Asbestos Victims, The Netherlands.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 4.Lenters V, Vermeulen R, Dogger S, Stayner L, Portengen L, Burdorf A, Heederik D (2011) A meta-analysis of asbestos and lung cancer: Is better quality exposure assessment associated with steeper slopes of the exposure-response relationships? Environ Health Perspect 119:1547–1555Google Scholar
- 6.Virta RL (2005) Mineral commodity profiles-asbestos: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1255-KK. p 56Google Scholar
- 11.Harrel FE (2001) Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 15.National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1976) Revised Recommended Asbestos Standard. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Washington, DC (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 77–169)Google Scholar
- 16.Occupational Safety and Health Administration Health (1995) Asbestos standard for general industry. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Washington, DC (OSHA publication 3095 1995 (revised))Google Scholar
- 32.Berry G, de Klerk NH, Reid A, Ambrosini GL, Fritschi L, Olsen NJ, Merler E, Musk AW (2004) Malignant pleural and peritoneal mesotheliomas in former miners and millers of crocidolite at Wittenoom. Western Australia. Occup Environ Med 61:e14Google Scholar
- 40.Lacquet LM, van der Linden L, Lepoutre J (1980) Roentgenographic lung changes, asbestosis and mortality in a Belgian asbestos-cement factory. IARC Sci Publ, pp 783–793Google Scholar