In 2002 I Had a Asbestos Case Solved With Csx if I Get Lung Cancer Can I Open the Case Again

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Additive Synergism betwixt Asbestos and Smoking in Lung Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Yuwadee Ngamwong,
• Wimonchat Tangamornsuksan,
• Ornrat Lohitnavy,
• Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk,
• C. Norman Scholfield,
• Brad Reisfeld,
• Manupat Lohitnavy

ten

• Published: Baronial 14, 2015
• https://doi.org/ten.1371/journal.pone.0135798

Figures

Abstract

Smoking and asbestos exposure are important risks for lung cancer. Several epidemiological studies take linked asbestos exposure and smoking to lung cancer. To reconcile and unify these results, nosotros conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a quantitative estimate of the increased run a risk of lung cancer associated with asbestos exposure and cigarette smoking and to classify their interaction. Five electronic databases were searched from inception to May, 2015 for observational studies on lung cancer. All case-control (N = 10) and accomplice (N = 7) studies were included in the analysis. Nosotros calculated pooled odds ratios (ORs), relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model for the clan of asbestos exposure and smoking with lung cancer. Lung cancer patients who were non exposed to asbestos and not-smoking (A-Southward-) were compared with; (i) asbestos-exposed and not-smoking (A+Due south-), (ii) non-exposure to asbestos and smoking (A-Southward+), and (3) asbestos-exposed and smoking (A+South+). Our meta-assay showed a significant departure in risk of developing lung cancer among asbestos exposed and/or smoking workers compared to controls (A-S-), odds ratios for the affliction (95% CI) were (i) ane.seventy (A+S-, one.31–2.21), (ii) 5.65; (A-S+, iii.38–9.42), (iii) eight.70 (A+Due south+, five.8–13.x). The additive interaction index of synergy was 1.44 (95% CI = 1.26–1.77) and the multiplicative index = 0.91 (95% CI = 0.63–one.30). Corresponding values for cohort studies were 1.11 (95% CI = 1.00–1.28) and 0.51 (95% CI = 0.31–0.85). Our results point to an additive synergism for lung cancer with co-exposure of asbestos and cigarette smoking. Assessments of industrial health risks should take smoking and other airborne health risks when setting occupational asbestos exposure limits.

Commendation: Ngamwong Y, Tangamornsuksan Due west, Lohitnavy O, Chaiyakunapruk North, Scholfield CN, Reisfeld B, et al. (2015) Condiment Synergism between Asbestos and Smoking in Lung Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One 10(8): e0135798. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135798

Editor: Scott K. Langevin, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, United states of america

Received: Jan 22, 2015; Accustomed: July 27, 2015; Published: August 14, 2015

Copyright: © 2015 Ngamwong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Artistic Eatables Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in whatsoever medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Data Availability: All relevant data are inside the newspaper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: Yuwadee Ngamwong was financially supported by the Opa Tangpitukkul'due south scholarship and Center of Excellence for Innovation in Chemical science (PERCH-CIC).

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests be.

Introduction

Lung cancer is responsible for twenty% of all global cancer deaths. Its latency menstruation is long (~20 year) and survival rate poor (x%) [ane]. Meta-analyses of epidemiological studies demonstrated that smoking had a strong relationship with lung cancer [2,3] and 70–90% of lung cancer patients are directly attributed to cigarette smoking [4]. Several compounds in tobacco smoke are classified as human carcinogens (Group 1) by the IARC including tobacco specific nitrosamines and benzo(a)pyrene, a carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon [4,5]. Second-hand fume also increases the risk of developing lung cancer by an estimated 25% in by-standers [six]. Besides smoking, other gamble factors for lung cancer are arsenic, particulates from diesel engine exhausts, radon, and exposure to asbestos and other mineral fibers, [7,8].

Asbestos is a group of naturally occurring silicate mineral fibers widely used in building materials, vehicle brakes and thermal insulators since the 1900s. Asbestos types are classified according to their structures, chemical composition and thermal stability. Chrysotile or white asbestos (mainly Mg_three(Si₂O_v)(OH)₄) [9,10] accounts for most electric current use where asbestos is permitted while amosite (brown) and crocidolite (bluish asbestos), belonging to the amphibole course, are stronger, more than durable, and more than oestrus resistant than chrysotile. There are many well documented lung disease cases in asbestos factory workers and miners from 1900 onwards [eleven–fifteen]. The most common asbestos-associated diseases are benign pleural disease, asbestosis, lung carcinoma (small-scale jail cell, squamous, and adenocarcinoma) and mesothelioma [xvi]. Mesothelioma has a very high association with asbestos exposure merely otherwise uncommon [17]. Information technology has high incidences amongst males of western countries and Nippon where it is projected to peak between 2012 and 2030, a latency of 40–50 years after the peak use of asbestos during the 1930s-1970s [18].

Numerous studies have shown a clear clan between carcinogenesis and either smoking or asbestos. Nevertheless, associations may outcome from contained and unrelated mechanisms and therefore show additive effects while furnishings greater than summed individual actions implies biological interactions [xix,20]. This is ordinarily referred to as synergism [21] merely additive synergism is more appropriate. Conversely, a smaller result than the sum of furnishings may exist due to antagonistic interactions. Synergism might, less commonly, exist multiplicative due to dissimilar types of interaction, for example where an upshot requires the activation of two or more series processes. Such distinctions are important for both possible treatment considerations and public health such as identifying those at greatest take chances of illness. Some authors have sought to appraise interactions between asbestos and smoking on lung cancer [22,23], and found the effects to exist additive [24], more than additive [25] and multiplicative [26,27]. In animal experiments, co-exposure to asbestos and cigarette smoke also found contradictory interaction models [28–30]. Two previous meta-analyses [31,32] institute associations between asbestos exposure and smoking for increased lung cancer risk and that the two carcinogenic effects were greater than the sum of their separate actions simply again failed to concur on the type of interaction (multiplicative or condiment). These reviews had some weakness (assessing individual interactive effects in each study and could not explicate the dose-response for asbestos exposure). Also, they have been superseded by boosted studies which relate asbestos exposure with smoking and lung cancer [22–27]. Besides increasing the power and weight of the data, these subsequently studies were better designed and controlled, especially the Markowitz et al. study [24], and therefore ameliorate able to resolve these problems. Thus, we incorporated this data into a new systematic review and meta-assay. We conceptualize that such a study will ameliorate inform the run a risk assessment process in developing nations where most male person semi-skilled workers are smokers, and occupational asbestos exposure continues to pose a wellness gamble in populations where lung affliction is a leading cause of bloodshed [33].

Methods

The study was conducted and reported using the PRISMA (S1 PRISMA Checklist) [34] and MOOSE [35] guidelines.

Search Strategy and study option

We searched titles and abstracts PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ISI Web of Noesis, and TOXLINE databases from their inception to May 2015. Combinations of the following fundamental words were used: asbestos, crocidolite, amosite, chrysotile, tremolite, actinolite, anthophyllite, cigarette, cigarette fume, cigarette smoking, pipage, cigar, tobacco, tobacco smoking, lung cancer, mesothelioma, lung carcinoma, and lung adenocarcinoma. There was no language restriction. Additional studies were also hand-searched from bibliographies of the selected studies.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were included if they met all of the following criteria: (ane) original articles published in peer-reviewed journals; (2) homo studies; (three) observational studies; (4) studies investigating associations betwixt asbestos exposure and smoking with lung cancer, and; (5) studies reporting sufficient data for calculating odds ratios and relative risks. The studies not coming together the inclusion criteria described above were excluded. If in that location were duplicate populations, only the studies providing the most details, grater number of participants, followed populations for longer follow-upwards periods, or the almost recently published were selected for meta-analysis. Two reviewers (YN, WT) independently appraised titles and abstracts retrieved from the comprehensive searches. The controversial reviews were discussed and resolved by a tertiary reviewer (OL). If farther details were required, the reviewers contacted the authors for more information.

Data Brainchild and Quality Cess

Information extracted from each report included commencement author, publication year, geographic area, study type (hospital-based instance-control, population-based case-command, nested case-control, retrospective cohort, prospective cohort, and cantankerous-sectional), total number of cases, and controls, fiber type (chrysotile, crocidolite, tremolite), manufacture type, measurement of asbestos and/or smoking exposure, asbestos exposure assessment method, definition of asbestos exposure and/or smoking, period of employment/exposure, measurement method (asbestos exposure, smoking), and nomenclature of outcome. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) was used to appraise the quality of the selected observational studies. The categories of NOS was based on selection of participants, comparability of study groups, and the exposure of involvement (example-command studies) or issue of interest (cohort studies) [36]. When each category is satisfied information technology attracts one or sometimes two 'star(s)' and a maximum of 9 stars for either case-control or cohort study, indicates the highest quality study [37].

Statistical Analysis

Asbestos exposure was arbitrarily taken as more than 100 air-borne cobweb-yr/ml of environmental air for >v% of their work time and cigarette smoking was categorized as smokers who smoked >fifteen cigarettes/mean solar day. Those subjects having lower and shorter fiber exposures and lower cigarette consumption were deemed as non-exposed or non-smokers, respectively.

Using the higher up cut-offs, subjects were placed into four groups: (ane) those people not exposed to asbestos and not-smokers were classified as not exposed to asbestos and non-smoking (A-S-), (two) workers exposed asbestos and not-smokers were classified as asbestos-exposed and non-smoking (A+Due south-), (3) those not exposed to asbestos just smoked were grouped as non-exposed to asbestos and were smokers (A-South+), and (4) workers exposed to asbestos and smoked were classified every bit asbestos-exposed and smokers (A+S+). The primary outcome of the pooled analysis focused on comparing the summary effect of lung cancer risk in people without asbestos exposure and non-smoking versus co-exposure to asbestos and/or smoking as follows: (i) A+South- compared with A-Due south- (ii) A-S+ compared with A-South-, and (iii) A+Southward+ compared with A-S- and interaction between asbestos and smoking were evaluated using the Rothman Synergy Index [38]. Summary effect estimates were assessed discretely by averaging the natural logarithmic OR and/or RR weighted by their inverse variances. The pooled effect estimates were calculated using a random effects model by the method of DerSimonian and Laird [39]. Heterogeneity among selected studies was determined using the Q-statistic and I-squared tests [forty]. I-squared (I ^two ) values of 25%, l%, and 75% represented depression, moderate, and high degrees of heterogeneity, respectively [41]. The meta-analysis of case-control and accomplice studies were conducted separately due to differences in the nature of study pattern [42].

Subgroup analyses were performed according to the geographic expanse (Europe, America, others), asbestos type, study design (hospital or population, retrospective, prospective), and stratification of smoking level were used to assess the impacts of study characteristics on outcomes. Publication bias was quantified using funnel plot, Begg'southward exam and Egger's test, where p>0.05 for both tests was considered to take no meaning publication bias [43,44]. All analyses were performed using STATA software V.10.i (Stata Corp, Higher Station, TX, USA).

Conclusion of interactive issue

For measurement of interaction, at that place are 2 models to summate this: the additive and the multiplicative scales. If these yield more than condiment and multiplicative, in that location is a positive interaction. If less than condiment/multiplicative, information technology is referred to as a negative interaction. The word "synergistic" means the effect ii exposures is greater than the combined event of each exposure. Thus, the value of interaction is more than either the additive or the multiplicative scales as appropriate, i.eastward., either additive or multiplicative synergism.

The joint effect of exposure to asbestos and smoking was first examined by estimating odds ratio (ORs) and relative risk (RRs). To determine whether co-exposure to asbestos and smoking is an additive and multiplicative scale, the synergy (Due south) and multiplicative (V) indices were calculated equally follow [38,45].

Synergy alphabetize (S)

Multiplicative index (Five) Where 10 ₀ is the odds ratio and/or relative run a risk for lung cancer amidst non-exposed to asbestos and not-smokers; Ten _A is the corresponding value for lung cancer among asbestos exposure in non-smokers; X _S is for lung cancer and smoking in those without asbestos-exposure; and X _As is for lung cancer and co-exposure to asbestos and smoking. The synergy index (S) is an interaction on an additive calibration. The estimation is Southward = i suggests no interaction between asbestos exposure and smoking on lung cancer; S >ane suggests a positive interaction (synergism); and Southward<ane suggests a negative interaction (i.e., antagonism). For the multiplicative alphabetize (V), it tin be interpreted every bit either: when 5 = 1, there is no interaction on the multiplicative calibration; when 5 >i, the multiplicative interaction is positive; or when V<1, information technology is negative. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the method of Rothman, and Andersson et al. [38,45,46].

Results

Written report Selection

We identified 2,499 records of which 2,479 were duplicated, irrelevant, review manufactures, example reports, non-homo or experimental studies, or lacked lung cancer outcomes or lacking control groups, and were excluded. 5 additional publications coming together the inclusion criteria were added from the bibliographies of the retrieved articles (Fig i). In the final review of 25 studies, we excluded 5 studies [47–51] due to duplicate populations, and three studies [52–54] had insufficient information. Only one by Kjuus et al [55] was selected of three articles [47,48,55] which analyzed the aforementioned data. Case-control studies by Bovenzi (1992 and 1993) [49,56], the cohort studies of McDonald 1980 and Liddell 1984 [51,57]; and cohort studies of Klerk 1991 and Reid 2006 [26,50] as well described the same populations of which the most contempo [26,56,57] was selected. The Blot et al. report 1982 [52] did non study smoking condition in asbestos-exposed populations. Finally, the studies of Hilt et al. 1986, and Markowitz et al. 1992 [53,54] were excluded considering numbers of controls were missing. Therefore, a total of 17 studies (10 case-control and vii cohort studies) were included for meta-analysis. The 13 included studies were identified using the search terms, and another 4 studies derived from their bibliographies.

Study Characteristics

The characteristics and information of the included studies are shown in Tabular array 1. The 10 example-control studies [22,25,27,55,56,58–62], independent 10,223 participants in all of which 4,768 were population-based controls, and 1,128 hospital-based controls. Seven cohort studies [23,24,26,57,63–65] had an aggregate of 64,924 participants, comprising of the iii,316 cases and 61,608 controls. In all the included studies asbestos exposure was occupational. Where reported, the average participant historic period was approximately 60 (range xl–80 y) for instance control studies. Some [22,sixty] reported the type of asbestos used (tremolite or mixed asbestos), while the remaining eight [25,27,55,56,58,59,61,62] did non categorize the asbestos (Table 1). The settings for the exposure was occupational, either asbestos mines (ane study [22]), ship edifice/repair (ii studies [59,62]), textile production (ane study [threescore]), and the remaining 6 [25,27,55,56,58,61] studies failed to specify. Environmental monitoring was measured by using the membrane filter method and were analyzed past phase contrast microscopy [25] but most studies relied on personal/telephone interview and/or questionnaire. Smoking habits of participants were quantified by personal/telephone interview and/or questionnaire. If the subject had already died, the appropriate information was sought from their next-of-kin or spouse (Tabular array 2).

In that location were vii cohort studies, and all of these nerveless asbestos exposure information prospectively and as well prospectively for smoking data in six studies and retrospectively in one [64]. The hateful follow-up period of cohort studies was 19.3 twelvemonth. Exposure was to chrysotile in three studies [23,57,65], one study to crocidolite [26], and the asbestos type was unspecified in remaining iii studies [24,63,64] (Table ane). Four studies [23,26,57,65] were from mining and 3 studies [24,63,64] originated from factories making asbestos products. Workplace asbestos exposure was assessed by lung histology, counting fibers trapped by midget impingers or membrane filters [23,57,65], a long-duration personal konimeter [26], or postal questionnaires [63,64]. Simply ane report assessed exposure past chest Ten-ray radiographs and a low FEV1 by spirometry [24]. Smoking was assessed by interviewing or questionnairing the workers or their side by side-of-kin (Table 2). Diagnosis of lung cancer was confirmed by histological examination of lung biopsies, chest X-ray, CT scan, MRI, bronchoscopy, or thoracoscopy. Nearly studies classified lung cancer using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), published by the Earth Health System (Tabular array 3).

Quality Assessment

The methodological quality of case-control studies was summarized as a mean NOS of 6 (range five–7) and a score of six.7 (range 6–8) for cohort studies (Table 1).

Quantitative Synthesis

1. (i). Case-command studies: A random-furnishings meta-assay of 10 studies [22,25,27,55,56,58–62] revealed associations between asbestos exposure and/or smoking, and developing lung cancer. The summary odds ratio of (A+S-) workers compared with (A-S-) workers was 1.70 (95% CI = ane.31–2.21). The summary odds ratio of (A-Southward+) workers compared with (A-S-) was v.65 (95% CI = 3.38–ix.42). Additionally, the summary odds ratio of (A+S+) workers compared with (A-S-) workers was 8.70 (95% CI = v.78–13.10). Evidence of heterogeneity was found in A-Due south+/A-S- and A+S+/A-S- groups (I ² = ninety.6%, p = 0.000 and I ² = 78.7%, p = 0.000) (Fig 2A–2C). Equally shown in Tabular array 4, the results of subgroup analyses according to dissimilar characteristics are in shut understanding with our major findings. Such heterogeneity probably arises from the differing interaction effects across varying levels of smoking exposure. We stratified studies with similar smoking classification past subdivision into 3 levels: non-smokers (non-smoking or light smoking), moderate smokers (1–19 cigarettes/day) and heavy smokers (>20 cigarettes/day) (Table 5). In that location were no differences betwixt non-smokers 2.63 (95% 1.43–iv.83) and light smokers 2.63 (95% ane.57–four.42) for exposed-asbestos grouping. But for both subgroups, the moderate and heavy smoking categories showed elevated odds ratios with asbestos exposure.
   Publication bias: Begg's funnel plot and Egger'due south exam were performed to assess publication bias of the literature. Publication bias for (i) A+S- was p = 0.437 (Begg's exam), and 0.659 (Egger's), (2) A-S+ was p = 0.252 (Begg'due south test), and 0.362 (Egger's), and (three) A+S+, p = 0.154 (Begg's test) and 0.294 (Egger'south examination) suggesting no bias. Funnel plots suggested evidence of publication bias. In that location was asymmetry of funnel plots accordant with high heterogeneity studies (A-South+ and A+S+). However, trim and fill analysis showed that the overall odds ratios were unchanged (information shown in supplement, S1 Fig).
2. (ii). Cohort studies: Vii studies [23,24,26,57,63–65] were included in our chief analysis (Fig 3A–3C). The summary relative risks for lung cancer in the cohort studies of (A+S-) workers was 2.72 (95% CI = 1.67–4.40), (A-S+) workers was half-dozen.42 (95% CI = iv.23–ix.75), and for (A+Due south+) workers was viii.90 (95% CI = vi.01–13.18) compared with (A-S-) workers. The results of the cohort studies are consequent with the analysis of the case-control studies. Show of heterogeneity was not constitute in cohort studies (I ⁱⁱ = 0.0%, p = 0.968, I ² = 25.i%, p = 0.237 and I ² = 17.three%, p = 0.298). In addition, example-command studies estimates of the combined effect of asbestos and smoking on lung cancer risk were in concordance with those from accomplice studies.
   Publication bias: Evaluation of publication bias for A+S-, A-Southward+ and A+South+ are Begg's test (p = 0.063) Egger's test (p = 0.079), Begg's test (p = 0.026) Egger's examination (p = 0.065) and Begg'due south test (p = 0.118) Egger'south test (p = 0.254), respectively. These results did non betoken a potential for publication bias when using funnel plots (data shown in supplement, S2 Fig).

Fig ii. Random-effects meta-analysis of the synergistic effect between asbestos exposure and smoking cause lung cancer- Case control studies.

(A) Summary odds ratio of asbestos-exposed and non-smoking (A+S-) compared with not asbestos-exposed and non-smoking (A-Southward-). (B) Summary odds ratio of non-exposure to asbestos and smoking (A-S+) compared with not asbestos-exposed and non-smoking (A-S-). (C) Summary odds ratio of asbestos-exposed and smoking (A+S+) compared with not asbestos-exposed and not-smoking (A-Southward-).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135798.g002

Fig 3. Random-effects meta-assay of the synergistic effect betwixt asbestos exposure and smoking cause lung cancer- Accomplice study.

(A) Summary relative risk of asbestos-exposed and not-smoking (A+Southward-) compared with not asbestos-exposed and non-smoking (A-S-). (B) Summary relative adventure of not-exposure to asbestos and smoking (A-Due south+) compared with non asbestos-exposed and not-smoking (A-S-). (C) Summary relative risk of asbestos-exposed and smoking (A+Due south+) compared with not asbestos-exposed and non-smoking (A-Due south-).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135798.g003

Interaction between asbestos exposure and cigarette smoking

Evaluation of interaction is summarized in Table half-dozen. All 17 studies provided data which enabled evaluation of the articulation effects of co-exposure of both asbestos and cigarette smoking on the risk of lung cancer. For case-control studies, the interaction alphabetize of synergy (S) and multiplicative index (5) were 1.44 (95% CI = 1.26–ane.77) and 0.91 (95% CI = 0.63–1.thirty), respectively, with corresponding values for the accomplice studies of one.xi (95% CI = 1.00–one.28) and 0.51 (95% = 0.31–0.85). These results advise that the interaction between asbestos exposure and smoking tin be a positive interaction on the condiment scale (an additive synergistic upshot). There was a proffer of a negative multiplicative interaction for both example-control and cohort studies. Notably our results do not evidence a multiplicative event betwixt the 2 known human carcinogens.

Discussion

Our results demonstrate a positive synergistic interaction on an additive scale between asbestos exposure and cigarette smoking in workers developing lung cancer (Table 6). Employees exposed to asbestos and having a history of smoking have a higher gamble of developing lung cancer than those but exposed to i hazard (either smoking or asbestos solitary). In contrast, the multiplicative index for case-control studies was close to 1.0, although for cohort studies, a negative multiplication interaction is suggested (Five = 0.51, 95%CI = 0.31–0.85).

Some data suggests that smoking does not enhance mesothelioma [66], which implies that the synergistic lung cancer risk arises from the two carcinogens interacting in the aforementioned lung tissue. There are several mediators contributing to cigarette fume and asbestos-induced lung diseases. Both smoking [67] and asbestos [68] elicit chronic inflammation, which is central to tumorigenesis and is augmented through reduced active immunity, increased infections, and compromised tumor surveillance [69,70]. Tobacco smoke causes inflammation through a vast array of chemical and particulate irritants. Mineral fibers are inflammatory primarily through activation of Nod-like receptor-family protein three (NLRP3) of inflammasomes in tissue macrophages. Asbestos fibers evoke vain attacks by macrophages ensuring their continual activation while also adversely affecting function of other allowed cells [71,72]. Symptoms of inflammation include oxidative stress, which is worse in blue asbestos (amosite, crocidolite, tremolite) containing Fe ions which generate additional reactive species through Fenton catalysis [73]. The prolonged bio-persistence of these amphiboles farther contributes to their greater carcinogenicity than chrysotile and other mineral fibers. Tobacco smoke likewise contains multiple carcinogens (eastward.g., four-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-i-butanone or NNK, 1,3-butadiene, ethylene oxide, chromium, polonium-210, arsenic, ethyl carbamate, and hydrazine) that direct collaborate with Deoxyribonucleic acid [74]. Thus, the common localized inflammatory actions of tobacco smoke and asbestos readily explains condiment furnishings, while the additional actions (direct carcinogenesis and Fenton catalysis) of each insult could account for the additive synergistic interaction.

The nowadays study has some limitations which are mostly inherent in this type of study.

Odds ratios were roughly estimated from the included studies where the measurement methods used and exposure nomenclature varied between studies. For example at that place were several studies challenge that the elapsing of asbestos exposure was the same every bit the period of employment in the workplace. Therefore, short elapsing jobs reduce the validity and reliability of questionnaires about occupational history. Some studies [58,60,61] did non provide estimates of adapted risks (age, sexual activity, etc.). The methods used to quantitate exposures to asbestos and cigarette fume were arbitrary and varied across studies. The blazon of asbestos used was usually not stated. The diagnosis for lung cancer used different criteria (by doctor, chest ten-ray, radiography, or data taken from the death document). In dissimilarity, other studies have objective exposure and clinical criteria (e.one thousand., Markowitz et al. [24]). The type of lung cancer was rarely stated or even whether mesothelioma was excluded but mesothelioma was never explicitly included. Some instance-command studies [55,59] used command populations who had other diseases (e.thousand., myocardial infarction, float cancer, other cancerous neoplasms or other lung disease). Virtually of these diseases are also smoking-related. Nevertheless, all instance-control studies endeavored to match controls for confounders. Some studies accept data derived from recalling events that took place x years or more earlier the interview/questionnaire, which raises the issue of recall bias and misclassification. Subgroup analysis by smoking level retained high heterogeneity (Table 5) probably due to different methods of information drove and measurement, uncertain duration of smoking (just daily number of cigarettes smoked quoted).

Yet, our report has some strength. It includes new data and the selection criteria complied with the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines to perform the first systematic review and meta-analysis. Our analysis differed from previous analyses because (i), the strict selection criteria and heterogeneity testing, (2) testing for statistical interaction (additive and multiplicative). Most studies randomly enrolled greater numbers of control subjects from hospital registers or wellness authority databases thus reducing option bias. 1 study [59] excluded participants who provided incomplete questionnaire information, were non-responders, or who had emigrated from the area. These unavoidable variations in the study population and diverse methods utilized readily explicate the substantial heterogeneity we detected.

While the nigh dangerous asbestos types are no longer used, other siliceous fibers and chrysotile (in developing nations) are still incorporated into many building products without clear long-term wellness assessments in humans. Workers exposed to chrysotile showed increased risk of lung cancer (Table 4) [75]. The scientific rigor of cohort studies has improved since the early asbestos work. However, the long latencies for asbestos-induced neoplasms [76] brand retrospective written report the only applied protocol. Cigarette smoke inhalation and hence airway exposure can be accurately assessed (cigarette numbers, inhalation, filters). However, our study reiterates the difficulty in accurately assessing actual airway exposure to asbestos and was all-time assessed in the Markowitz et al. study [24]. Personal monitors provided the best indication of exposure only ultimately, only random sputum fiber counts past public health agencies can provide unbiased and accurate measures of exposure. Another problem highlighted past Markowitz et al. [24] and our study is accurately diagnosing the end-phase pathology. Over again, monitoring past independent public health government is the mechanism most likely to yield authentic reporting. In addition, potential confounders including life-style and specially local air quality data need collecting for the aforementioned cohorts.

Conclusion

The present meta-assay nerveless and synthesized data currently available and revealed a positive interaction on an condiment scale between asbestos exposure and smoking, while showing niggling testify of an interaction on a multiplicative calibration. The combined effect of asbestos exposure with moderate and heavy smoking in lung cancer suggested a strong positive interaction on an additive scale, i.e., an additive synergism.

Supporting Information

S1 Fig. Funnel plot for 10 case-control studies of relationship between asbestos and cigarette smoking on lung cancer with subjects whom are exposed to asbestos and non-smokers (A), subjects whom are non exposed to asbestos and smokers (B) and subjects whom are exposed to asbestos and smokers (C).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135798.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Funnel plot for vii accomplice studies of relationship between asbestos and cigarette smoking on lung cancer with subjects whom are exposed to asbestos and non-smokers (A), subjects whom are not exposed to asbestos and smokers (Be) and subjects whom are exposed to asbestos and smokers (C).

https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pone.0135798.s002

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

Yuwadee Ngamwong was financially supported by the Opa Tangpitukkul Scholarship and Center of Excellence for Innovation in Chemistry (PERCH-CIC).

Writer Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: ML YN. Performed the experiments: YN OL WT NC. Analyzed the information: YN OL WT. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: ML OL YN WT CNS BR NC. Wrote the newspaper: ML OL YN WT CNS BR NC.

References

1. 1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA: A Cancer Periodical for Clinicians. 2012; 62: 10–29.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
2. 2. Gandini South, Botteri E, Iodice Due south, Boniol M, Lowenfels AB, Maisonneuve P, et al. Tobacco smoking and cancer: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Cancer. 2008; 122: 155–164.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
3. 3. Lee PN, Forey BA, Coombs KJ. Systematic review with meta-assay of the epidemiological evidence in the 1900s relating smoking to lung cancer. BMC Cancer. 2012; 12.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. iv. IARC. Tobacco Fume and Involuntary Smoking. IARC momographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. 2004; 83: 1–1438.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
5. 5. IARC. Tobacco smoking. IARC momographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. 1986; 38: ane–421.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
6. vi. (U.s.) Office on Smoking and Wellness. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Illness Command and Prevention (US), 2006. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44324/.
7. 7. Hubaux R, Becker-Santos DD, Enfield KS, Lam S, Lam WL, Martinez VD. Arsenic, asbestos and radon: emerging players in lung tumorigenesis. Environmental Health. 2012; 11.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
8. 8. Yang M. A current global view of environmental and occupational cancers. Periodical of environmental science and health Part C, Environmental carcinogenesis & ecotoxicology reviews. 2011; 29: 223–249.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
9. ix. IARC. Asbestos (Chrysotile, Amosite, Crocidolite, Tremolite, Actinolite and Anthophyllite). IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. 2012; 100 C.
10. 10. IARC. Asbestos IARC Monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans. 1977; 14: 1–106. pmid:863456
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Ferguson DA, Berry G, Jelihovsky T, Andreas SB, Rogers AJ, Fung SC, et al. The Australian Mesothelioma Surveillance Programme 1979–1985. Medical Journal of Australia. 1987; 147: 166–172. pmid:3657627
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Rake C, Gilham C, Hatch J, Darnton A, Hodgson J, Peto J. Occupational, domestic and environmental mesothelioma risks in the British population: a instance-control study. British Journal of Cancer 2009; 100: 1175–1183. pmid:19259084
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. Olsen NJ, Franklin PJ, Reid A, de Klerk NH, Threlfall TJ, Shilkin K, et al. Increasing incidence of cancerous mesothelioma later exposure to asbestos during abode maintenance and renovation. Medical Journal of Australia. 2011; 195: 271–274. pmid:21895596
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
14. fourteen. Yano E, Wang X, Wang One thousand, Qiu H, Wang Z. Lung cancer bloodshed from exposure to chrysotile asbestos and smoking: a case-control written report within a cohort in Cathay. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2010; 67: 867–871. pmid:20833758
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Liddell FD, McDonald Advertising, McDonald JC. Dust exposure and lung cancer in Quebec chrysotile miners and millers. The Annals of Occupational Hygiene. 1998 42: 7–20. pmid:9566111
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. Niklinski J, Niklinska W, Chyczewska E, Laudanski J, Naumnik W, Chyczewski L, et al. The epidemiology of asbestos-related diseases. Lung Cancer 2004; 45: S7–S15. pmid:15261426
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Police MR, Ward FG, Hodson ME, Heard BE. Testify for longer survival of patients with pleural mesothelioma without asbestos exposure. Thorax 1983; 38: 744–746. pmcid: pmc459649. pmid:6648853
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
18. 18. Neumann V, Löseke Due south, Nowak D, Herth FJ, Tannapfel A. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: incidence, etiology, diagnosis, treatment, and occupational health. Deutsches Ärzteblatt international. 2013 110: 319–326. pmid:23720698
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. Nelson HH, Kelsey KT. The molecular epidemiology of asbestos and tobacco in lung cancer. Oncogene 2002; 21: 7284–7288. pmid:12379872
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Vainio H, Boffetta P. Mechanisms of the combined event of asbestos and smoking in the etiology of lung cancer. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Wellness. 1994; 20: 235–242.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Nielsen Elsa, Ostergaard Grete, John Christian Larsen. Toxicological Risk Assessment of Chemicals: A Applied Guide. New York: Informa Healthcare: CRC Press, 2008.
22. 22. Luce D, Bugel I, Goldberg P, Goldberg M, Salomon C, Billon-Galland MA, et al. Environmental exposure to tremolite and respiratory cancer in New Caledonia: a case-control report. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2000; 151: 259–265. pmid:10670550
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Wang X, Yano E, Lin South, Yu IT, Lan Y, Tse LA, et al. Cancer mortality in Chinese chrysotile asbestos miners: exposure-response relationships. PLoS One. 2013; 8.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Markowitz SB, Levin SM, Miller A, Morabia A. Asbestos, asbestosis, smoking, and lung cancer. New findings from the Northward American insulator cohort. American Journal of Respiratory and Disquisitional Intendance Medicine. 2013; 188: ninety–96. pmid:23590275
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Gustavsson P, Nyberg F, Pershagen Grand, Schéele P, Jakobsson R, Plato N. Low-dose exposure to asbestos and lung cancer: dose-response relations and interaction with smoking in a population-based case-referent report in Stockholm, Sweden. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2002; 155: 1016–1022. pmid:12034580
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Reid A, de Klerk NH, Ambrosini GL, Berry G, Musk AW. The adventure of lung cancer with increasing time since ceasing exposure to asbestos and quitting smoking. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2006; 63: 509–512. pmid:16849527
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Villeneuve PJ, Parent MÉ, Harris SA, Johnson KC, The Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research Group. Occupational exposure to asbestos and lung cancer in men: evidence from a population-based case-control study in eight Canadian provinces. BMC Cancer. 2012; 12.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Sekhon H, Wright J, Churg A. Effects of cigarette smoke and asbestos on airway, vascular and mesothelial prison cell proliferation. International Journal of Experimental Pathology. 1995; 76: 411–418. pmcid:pmc1997213. pmid:8652361
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Jung Grand, Davis WP, Taatjes DJ, Churg A, Mossman BT. Asbestos and cigarette smoke cause increased Deoxyribonucleic acid strand breaks and necrosis in bronchiolar epithelial cells in vivo. Free Radical Biology and Medicine. 2000; 28: 1295–1299. pmid:10889460
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
30. 30. Eastman A, Mossman BT, Bresnick Eastward. Influence of asbestos on the uptake of benzo(a)pyrene and Dna alkylation in hamster tracheal epithelial cells. Cancer Research. 1983; 43: 1251–1255. pmid:6297722
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Erren TC, Jacobsen Thousand, Piekarski C. Synergy betwixt asbestos and smoking on lung cancer risks. Epidemiology. 1999; 10: 405–411. pmid:10401875
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Lee PN. Relation between exposure to asbestos and smoking jointly and the risk of lung cancer. Occup Environ Med. 2001; 58: 145–153. pmid:11171926
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Hashim D, Boffetta P. Occupational and environmental exposures and cancers in developing countries. Ann Glob Health. 2014; 80: 393–411. pmid:25512155
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. Liberati Alessandro, Altman Douglas M, Tetzlaff Jennifer, Mulrow Cynthia, Gøtzsche Peter C, Ioannidis John P A, et al. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Wellness Care Interventions: Caption and Elaboration. PLOS Medicine. 2009; vi.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-assay of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) grouping. JAMA. 2000; 283: 2008–2012.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2007; 36: 666–676. pmid:17470488
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Wells One thousand, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch 5, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2013. Available: http://world wide web.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Rothman KJ. The interpretation of synergy or antagonism. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1976; 103: 506–511. pmid:1274952
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. DerSimonian R, Laird Due north. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1986; 7: 177–188. pmid:3802833
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
40. 40. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine. 2002; 21: 1539–1558. pmid:12111919
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003; 327: 557–560. pmcid: pmc192859. pmid:12958120
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Wong O, Raabe GK. Application of meta-analysis in reviewing occupational cohort studies. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 1996; 53: 793–800. pmcid: pmc1128611. pmid:8994397
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. Begg CB, Berlin JA. Publication bias and broadcasting of clinical research. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1989; 81: 107–115. pmid:2642556
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
44. 44. Egger Chiliad, Smith GD. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ. 1998; 316: 61–66. pmcid: pmc2665334. pmid:9451274
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
45. 45. Andersson T, Alfredsson L, Källberg H, Zdravkovic S, Ahlbom A. Computing measures of biological interaction. European Journal of Epidemiology. 2005; 20: 575–579. pmid:16119429
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Conviction interval interpretation of interaction. Epidemiology. 1992; 3: 452–456. pmid:1391139
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Kjuus H, Skjaerven R, Langård S, Lien JT, Aamodt T. A case-referent study of lung cancer, occupational exposures and smoking. I. Comparison of title-based and exposure-based occupational data. Scandinavian Journal of Piece of work, Environment & Health. 1986; 12: 193–202.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. Kjuus H, Skjaerven R, Langård Southward, Lien JT, Aamodt T. A case-referent study of lung cancer, occupational exposures and smoking. Two. Office of asbestos exposure. Scandinavian Periodical of Work, Environment & Health. 1986; 12: 203–209.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
49. 49. Bovenzi Grand, Stanta G, Antiga GL, Peruzzo P, Cavallieri F. Occupation and lung cancer gamble in the province of Trieste: a case-command study. Medicina del Lavoro. 1992; 83: 338–348. pmid:1334212
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
50. 50. de Klerk NH, Musk AW, Armstrong BK, Hobbs MS. Smoking, exposure to crocidolite, and the incidence of lung cancer and asbestosis. British Journal of Industrial Medicine. 1991; 48: 412–417. pmcid: pmc1035388. pmid:1648376
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
51. 51. McDonald JC, Liddell FD, Gibbs GW, Eyssen GE, McDonald AD. Grit exposure and mortality in chrysotile mining, 1910–75. British Periodical of Industrial Medicine. 1980; 37: 11–24. pmcid: pmc1061328. pmid:7370189
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
52. 52. Blot WJ, Davies JE, Brown LM, Nordwall CW, Buiatti E, Ng A, et al. Occupation and the high risk of lung cancer in Northeast Florida. Cancer Inquiry. 1982; 50: 364–371.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
53. 53. Morabia A, Markowitz S, Garibaldi Grand, Wynder EL. Lung cancer and occupation: results of a multicentre case-control study. British Periodical of Industrial Medicine. 1992; 49: 721–727. pmcid: pmc1012148. pmid:1419861
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
54. 54. Hilt B, Langård Due south, Lund-Larsen PG, Lien JT. Previous asbestos exposure and smoking habits in the county of Telemark, Norway—a cantankerous-exclusive population study. Scandinavian Periodical of Work, Environment & Health. 1986; 12: 561–566.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
55. 55. Kjuus H, Langård South, Skjaerven R. A case-referent study of lung cancer, occupational exposures and smoking. Three. Etiologic fraction of occupational exposures. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health. 1986; 12: 210–215.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
56. 56. Bovenzi Grand, Stanta G, Antiga Yard, Peruzzo P, Cavallieri F. Occupational exposure and lung cancer take chances in a coastal surface area of northeastern Italian republic. International Athenaeum of Occupational and Environmental Health. 1993; 65: 35–41. pmid:8354573
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
57. 57. Liddell FD, Thomas DC, Gibbs GW, McDonald JC. Fibre exposure and mortality from pneumoconiosis, respiratory and abdominal malignancies in chrysotile production in Quebec, 1926–75. Register of the University of Medicine, Singapore. 1984; thirteen: 340–344. pmid:6497336
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
58. 58. Martischnig KM, Newell DJ, Barnsley WC, Cowan WK, Feinmann EL, Oliver E. Unsuspected exposure to asbestos and bronchogenic carcinoma. British Medical Journal. 1977; ane: 746–749. pmcid: pmc1605619. pmid:856382
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
59. 59. Absorb WJ, Morris LE, Stroube R, Tagnon I, Fraumeni JF Jr. Lung and laryngeal cancers in relation to shipyard employment in coastal Virginia. The Journal of the National Cancer Plant. 1980; 65: 571–575. pmid:6931936
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
60. 60. Pastorino U, Berrino F, Gervasio A, Pesenti V, Riboli E, Crosignani P. Proportion of lung cancers due to occupational exposure. International Journal of Cancer. 1984; 33: 231–237.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
61. 61. Dave S M, Edling C, Jacobsson P, Axelson O. Occupation, smoking, and lung cancer. British Journal of Industrial Medicine. 1988; 45: 790–792. pmcid: pmc1009698. pmid:3203084
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
62. 62. Blot WJ, Harrington JM, Toledo A, Hoover R, Heath CW Jr, Fraumeni JF Jr. Lung cancer afterward employment in shipyards during World War II. New England Periodical of Medicine. 1978; 299: 620–624. pmid:683235
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
63. 63. Berry G, Newhouse ML, Antonis P. Combined issue of asbestos and smoking on bloodshed from lung cancer and mesothelioma in manufacturing plant workers. British Journal of Industrial Medicine. 1985; 42: 12–xviii. pmcid: pmc1007410. pmid:3965010
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
64. 64. Drupe G, Newhouse ML, Turok M. Combined result of asbestos exposure and smoking on mortality from lung cancer in factory workers. Lancet. 1972; 2: 476–478. pmid:4115357
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
65. 65. Rubino GF, Piolatto Thou, Newhouse ML, Scansetti Thou, Aresini GA, Murray R. Mortality of chrysotile asbestos workers at the Balangero Mine, Northern Italy. British Journal of Industrial Medicine. 1979; 36: 187–194. pmcid: pmc1008562. pmid:500777
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
66. 66. Muscat JE, Wynder EL. Cigarette smoking, asbestos exposure, and malignant mesothelioma. Cancer Inquiry. 1991; 51: 2263–2267. pmid:2015590
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
67. 67. Valavanidis Athanasios, Vlachogianni Thomais, Fiotakis Konstantinos, Loridas Spyridon. Pulmonary oxidative stress, inflammation and cancer: respirable particulate matter, fibrous dusts and ozone as major causes of lung carcinogenesis through reactive oxygen species mechanisms. International Periodical of Ecology Research and Public Health. 2013; 10: 3886–3907. pmcid: pmc3799517. pmid:23985773
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
68. 68. Matsuzaki Hidenori, Maeda Megumi, Lee Suni, Nishimura Yasumitsu, Kumagai-Takei Naoko, Hayashi Hiroaki, et al. Asbestos-induced cellular and molecular alteration of immunocompetent cells and their relationship with chronic inflammation and carcinogenesis. Periodical of Biomedicine and Biotechnology. 2012; 2012. pmcid: pmc3304550.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
69. 69. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the side by side generation. Cell. 2011; 144: 646–674. pmid:21376230
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
70. 70. Lee J, Taneja V, Vassallo R. Cigarette smoking and inflammation cellular and molecular mechanisms. Journal of Dental Research. 2012; 91: 142–149. pmid:21876032
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
71. 71. Donaldson Thou, Murphy FA, Duffin R, Poland CA. Asbestos, carbon nanotubes and the pleural mesothelium: a review of the hypothesis regarding the part of long fibre retention in the parietal pleura, inflammation and mesothelioma. Particle and Fibre Toxicology. 2010; 7. pmcid: pmc2857820.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
72. 72. Nishimura Y, Maeda Yard, Kumagai-Takei N, Lee Southward, Matsuzaki H, Wada Y, et al. Altered functions of alveolar macrophages and NK cells involved in asbestos-related diseases. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine. 2013; 18: 198–204. pmcid: pmc3650181. pmid:23463177
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
73. 73. Liu G, Cheresh P, Kamp DW. Molecular basis of asbestos-induced lung disease. Almanac Review of Pathology: Mechanisms of Disease. 2013; 8: 161–187. pmcid: pmc3900296.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
74. 74. Hecht SS. Tobacco carcinogens, their biomarkers and tobacco-induced cancer. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2003; 3: 733–744. pmid:14570033
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
75. 75. Bernstein D, Dunnigan J, Hesterberg T, Brownish R, Velasco JA, Barrera R, et al. Health risk of chrysotile revisited. Critical Reviews in Toxicology. 2013; 43: 154–183. pmid:23346982
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
76. 76. Kamp DW. Asbestos-induced lung diseases: an update. Translational Research. 2009; 153: 143–152. pmid:19304273
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar

cramherry1979.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0135798

Share this post