Hospital and Research Centre experience" by Khan et al [1] and would like to address several points: Although I do not doubt the histological diagnosis of the ten cases described, the finding that only one case had established occupational exposure to asbestos is most likely explained by incomplete occupational and environmental histories. Most patients have had several occupations during their working lives and physicians tend only to record the last occupation. Retired people often give the most prestigious occupation when queried. It is also probable that the two Bedouins mentioned in the study had had several undisclosed occupations during their lives. In addition, the two housewives described in the study with mesothelioma, the occupations of their husbands are relevant but were not stated. Asbestos exposure has occurred when wives wash contaminated work clothing of their husbands.Thus, the occupations stated in this study may be very misleading, this being particularly relevant when one considers the long dormant period (at times as long as 40 years) between the exposure to asbestos and the development of mesothelioma.There was no report in the study denoting whether sputum or lung histological searches for asbestos bodies were performed which could have also established exposure to asbestos.To my knowledge, asbestos is not presently being mined in Saudi Arabia but there have been vast amounts of imported insulating materials etc., pipes and automobile brake shoes; many of which contain asbestos. Demolition sites and junk yards are the most likely places for asbestos exposure.Mesothelioma is a rare tumor and asbestos is the most common known cause. Although it is tempting to postulate other causes of mesothelioma, I believe the most likely cause of mesothelioma in the cases described in this study was asbestos exposure.
J.C. Hughes, MSC, DRCOG, DCH, MRCGP, AFOM Occupational Physician and Medical Officer Saudi