Frontiers in public health · 2025
Comparison of various methodological approaches to model asbestos thresholds for mesothelioma.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Goodman Julie E, Korchevskiy Andrey, Wylie Ann G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is evidence to support several modes of action (MoAs), and particularly non-genotoxic MoAs, for mesothelioma induced by asbestiform elongate mineral particles (EMPs). In turn, these MoAs provide biological support for dose-response relationships that are non-linear and that include a threshold. However, statistical models of human data have not adequately addressed threshold dose-response relationships for asbestiform EMPs and mesothelioma. In addition, unlike other carcinogens, asbestiform EMPs are not uniform materials and display a range of properties.
OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to review various approaches for applying threshold dose-response models to asbestiform EMPs and mesothelioma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected data from several sources, including the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program and published case-control studies, cohort studies, and a meta-analysis that evaluated various mineral types of asbestos and mesothelioma risk. Several threshold-based models were fit to the available data. We also evaluated thresholds for certain fiber characteristics.
RESULTS: Certain characteristics of asbestiform EMPs, such as width, length, and surface area, likely have thresholds for mesothelioma. Theoretical models and models based on epidemiology data supported thresholds. A Monte Carlo evaluation of the threshold hypothesis for mesothelioma in a meta-analysis of occupational exposures to various mineral fiber types, using a cumulative exposure metric, demonstrated the likelihood of a threshold to be 72% for non-textile chrysotile, 80.9% for textile chrysotile, 84% for amosite, and 60% for crocidolite. A multi-stage clonal expansion (MSCE) model applied to the SEER mesothelioma registry data demonstrated a good fit with the inclusion of a threshold by a surrogate predictor of cumulative exposure to amphiboles. Finally, lung burden studies also support a threshold. Our preliminary estimate of a central-tendency cumulative exposure threshold level for non-textile chrysotile is ~90 f/cc-years. Based on our proposed approach, we suggest thresholds of 1.04 f/cc-years for amosite, 0.25 f/cc-years for crocidolite, and 4.3-10.9 f/cc-years for tremolite. Future studies should be conducted to support these estimates.
CONCLUSIONS: While uncertainties remain, many angles of scientific evidence support the existence of mineral-specific thresholds for mesothelioma.
OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to review various approaches for applying threshold dose-response models to asbestiform EMPs and mesothelioma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected data from several sources, including the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program and published case-control studies, cohort studies, and a meta-analysis that evaluated various mineral types of asbestos and mesothelioma risk. Several threshold-based models were fit to the available data. We also evaluated thresholds for certain fiber characteristics.
RESULTS: Certain characteristics of asbestiform EMPs, such as width, length, and surface area, likely have thresholds for mesothelioma. Theoretical models and models based on epidemiology data supported thresholds. A Monte Carlo evaluation of the threshold hypothesis for mesothelioma in a meta-analysis of occupational exposures to various mineral fiber types, using a cumulative exposure metric, demonstrated the likelihood of a threshold to be 72% for non-textile chrysotile, 80.9% for textile chrysotile, 84% for amosite, and 60% for crocidolite. A multi-stage clonal expansion (MSCE) model applied to the SEER mesothelioma registry data demonstrated a good fit with the inclusion of a threshold by a surrogate predictor of cumulative exposure to amphiboles. Finally, lung burden studies also support a threshold. Our preliminary estimate of a central-tendency cumulative exposure threshold level for non-textile chrysotile is ~90 f/cc-years. Based on our proposed approach, we suggest thresholds of 1.04 f/cc-years for amosite, 0.25 f/cc-years for crocidolite, and 4.3-10.9 f/cc-years for tremolite. Future studies should be conducted to support these estimates.
CONCLUSIONS: While uncertainties remain, many angles of scientific evidence support the existence of mineral-specific thresholds for mesothelioma.