Clinical study of asbestos‐related lung cancer diagnosed by asbestos medical examination

Yotsumoto, Takuma; Fukuda, T

doi:10.1002/cnr2.1124

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies indicating no increased lung cancer risk associated with asbestosis were also included in this review [ 25 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 33 ]. This could be explained at least partially by small numbers of participants or a low statistical power.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lung cancer risk and occupational pulmonary fibrosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Krabbe,

Steffens,

Drießen

et al. 2024

Eur Respir Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Molecular pathways found to be important in pulmonary fibrosis are also involved in cancer pathogenesis, suggesting common pathways in the development of pulmonary fibrosis and lung cancer.Research question:Is pulmonary fibrosis from exposure to occupational carcinogens an independent risk factor for lung cancer?Study design and methods:A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases with over 100 search terms regarding occupational hazards causing pulmonary fibrosis was conducted. After screening and extraction, quality of evidence and eligibility criteria for meta-analysis were assessed. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.Results:52 studies were identified for systematic review. Meta-analysis of subgroups identified silicosis as a risk factor for lung cancer when investigating odds ratios for silicosis in autopsy studies (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.13–1.90) and for lung cancer mortality in patients with silicosis (OR 3.21, 95% CI 2.67–3.87). Only considering studies with an adjustment for smoking as a confounder identified a significant increase in lung cancer risk (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.34–1.87). However, due to a lack of studies including cumulative exposure, no adjustments could be included. In a qualitative review, no definitive conclusion could be reached for asbestosis and silicosis as independent risk factors for lung cancer, partly because the studies did not take cumulative exposure into account.Interpretation:This systematic review confirms the current knowledge regarding asbestosis and silicosis, indicating a higher risk of lung cancer in exposed individuals compared to exposed workers without fibrosis. These individuals should be monitored for lung cancer, especially when asbestosis or silicosis is present.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lung cancer risk and occupational pulmonary fibrosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Krabbe,

Steffens,

Drießen

et al. 2024

Eur Respir Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other high-income countries have well-established medical surveillance programs for asbestos-exposed workers. Japan mandates periodic medical examinations for asbestos-exposed individuals under its Act on Asbestos Health Damage Relief passed in 2006 [ 65 ].…”

Section: Current Challenges To Application Of Ldct Among Aepmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lung Cancer Screening in Asbestos-Exposed Populations

Markowitz

2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Asbestos exposure is the most important cause of occupational lung cancer mortality. Two large randomized clinical trials in the U.S. and Europe conclusively demonstrate that annual low-dose chest CT (LDCT) scan screening reduces lung cancer mortality. Age and smoking are the chief risk factors tested in LDCT studies, but numerous risk prediction models that incorporate additional lung cancer risk factors have shown excellent performance. The studies of LDCT in asbestos-exposed populations shows favorable results but are variable in design and limited in size and generalizability. Outstanding questions include how to: (1) identify workers appropriate for screening, (2) organize screening programs, (3) inform and motivate people to screen, and (4) incorporate asbestos exposure into LDCT decision-making in clinical practice. Conclusion: Screening workers aged ≥50 years with a history of ≥5 years asbestos exposure (or fewer years given intense exposure) in combination with either (a) a history of smoking at least 10 pack-years with no limit on time since quitting, or (b) a history of asbestos-related fibrosis, chronic lung disease, family history of lung cancer, personal history of cancer, or exposure to multiple workplace lung carcinogens is a reasonable approach to LDCT eligibility, given current knowledge. The promotion of LDCT-based screening among asbestos-exposed workers is an urgent priority.

show abstract