“Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer in which (cancerous) cells are found in the mesothelium, a protective sac that covers most of the body’s internal organs.” The disease then proceeds to affect the abdomen wall or in this case, the peritoneum. It then goes on to infect a serious of membranes in the region as well as the membranes that enclose several other major organs. Mesothelioma is most oftenly found in people who have in some way inhaled asbestos particles or other airborn particles at their job or place of residence. Although, there is no connection between mesothelioma and smoking, which is a major factor in lung cancer. While smoking has not been proven to cause mesothelioma, it has been found to increase the risk of other asbestos-induce cancer. Of the 2.6 million annually diagnosed cases of mesolthelioma, 15% to 20% are peritoneal mesothelioma.

Asbestos

“Asbestos is a naturally occurring silicate mineral with long thin fibrous crystals.” This naturally occurring substance has been used in fire retardant coatings, bricks, pipes, drywall, and roofing. Its importance became known during the Industrial Revolution and is now being utilized in various ways. Although this mineral has numerous practical appliances, it does have very hazardous effects on the body. If inhaled, asbestos particles are known to cause very serious and potentially fatal diseases such as lung cancer, malignant mesothelioma, and asbestosis. Various other minor effects of asbestos exposure include asbestos warts, pleural plaques, and diffuse pleural thickening. While these conditions can all be a results of asbestos exposure, malignant “peritoneal” mesothelioma is the most deadly. Basically, mesothelioma is a lethal cancer that “attacks the membranes around the lungs, the heart, and the abdominal cavity.” Of the various forms of this cancer, mesothelioma of the lung is most common. Mesothelioma of the lung, much like that of lung cancer, is a very deadly and underdiagnosed disease because of the very subtle symptoms. Fortunately for those who have inhaled asbestos fibers, it takes years for the fibers to infect the membranes and then cause fluid accumulation and even tumor development. Asbestos particles are extremely harmful for they can result in the development of lethal diseases.

Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma
Asbestos Exposure

There are no posts related to Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma.

Areas Of The United States Recording The Highest Rates Of Cases

Below, we address the environmental issues that are leading factors of asbestos exposure that results in higher rates of this disease and asbestosis. Of course, that is a direct determinant to where there are the highest rates of asbestos-related diseases.

You cannot point a finger at a particular state or community that is responsible for this dangerous disease until you examine and identify which locations have a cluster of cases of mesothelioma or other asbestos-related problems. Once identified, you will invariably find this area with victims is a high source of asbestos exposure.

Let’s start by looking at one highly visible case as a recent example of a town that had a high incidence of this disease. This case has been well documented in print and on TV. Rates of mesothelioma have been very high in Libby, Montana. Without fear of repercussion in this article because they have already publicly admitted their responsibility, W.R. Grace’s vermiculite mine caused human casualties due to their neglect to consider the risks of asbestos exposure. The human casualties are truly a shame.

Generally, both the East and West Coasts of America are locations where governments and medical communities should be educated and concerned about their citizens who may contract mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases because industries including shipbuilding are congregated on the coasts. For example, in North Carolina high rates of diseases due to asbestos exposure are evident, even if they are no longer active in shipbuilding and textile industries because this insidious disease can sometimes wait 20 to 30 years to manifest after exposure.

Environmental Factors Leading Residents And Workers In These Areas To Suffer This Disease

Each year, approximately 2,000 to 3,000 folks in the United States are diagnosed with mesothelioma. The Asbestos Information Association identifies 3,000 uses of asbestos in trades and job sites across the country. Exposure to workers include industries related to construction, mining, milling, shipbuilding, and manufacturing as well as many other industries concerned with fire prevention, which is historically a primary use for asbestos. Mechanics who work on cars are also at risk since they may repair brakes or clutches with asbestos to prevent fire and friction.

First-responders who are called upon to put out fires in older buildings riddled with asbestos are especially put at a high risk of exposure. This includes firefighters, police, and EMS personnel who may all be vulnerable to fumes as buildings burn.

Residents who live near burning buildings or near older construction sites being razed are also at risk. Studies have estimated that the airborne release of asbestos at older construction sites can be as high as one-hundred times the environmental levels compared to natural sites.

Navy personnel may be victims of asbestos when they repair old ships. All current military personnel or veterans who now work or have worked overseas are also vulnerable to asbestos if they served in countries that do not regulate asbestos exposure as we have tried to do in America.

As far as environmental factors in reference to asbestos that may possibly lead to contracting this disease, asbestosis, or other lung-related cancers, OSHA distinguishes between construction jobs and the “general industry.” People with construction jobs may have torn down or renovated older buildings before asbestos laws and mesothelioma legislation went into effect, making them more vulnerable to the risks of exposure.

Governmental Actions And Legislation Taken To Prevent This Disease

Mesothelioma legislation to limit the spread of this disease, asbestosis, or any other diseases related to asbestos exposure is extremely important to fight these asbestos-related diseases. On a federal level, a bill that supports mesothelioma legislation passed in March 2009. The U.S. Senate passed a bill called ALERT, which included prevention of cancer caused by environmental and occupational exposure to carcinogens. This included asbestos. Since the late 1970s and early 1980s, OSHA, a governmental agency, has regulated exposure to asbestos.

Chris Harmen writes for the mesothelioma website, MesotheliomaHelp.net, and the law firm, Belluck & Fox, LLP, which has worked on dozens of asbestos exposure lawsuits.

There are no posts related to Incidence Rate of Mesothelioma Based on Geographic Location.

Asbestos was generally considered an extremely useful material in a number of different industries. As a silicate mineral, asbestos is a highly insulating material. It resists the effects of heat, flame, chemicals, electricity, and degradation. Additionally, it is very flexible and has high tensile strength. Thus, it is no surprise that it was added to drywall, roofing tiles, texturing, gaskets, brake pads, stage curtains, and even firefighter’s gear.

This mineral isn’t dangerous until it becomes airborne. Asbestos easily breaks off into microscopic airborne fibers. From there, you can inhale or ingest the particles, which can then cause a variety of health problems. Asbestos warts, pleural thickening, pleural plaques, and asbestosis are just a few of the health issues that can develop from asbestos exposure.

Additionally, asbestos has been linked to several different types of cancer. If inhaled, the fibers can lodge in the lungs and cause serious illness. First, it directly contributes to mesothelioma, which is a specific form of lung cancer. Mesothelioma occurs in the lining of the internal organs, called the mesothelium. Exposure to asbestos can also cause lung cancer itself. This happens when tumors develop in the walls of the bronchi. From here, the cancer can spread to the liver, bones, and brain, among other places.

Next, another way for you to develop health problems is to ingest the asbestos fibers. This occurs when people breathe in the fibers, which can get trapped in the saliva. After swallowing the particles can spread throughout your digestive system. Thus, there are several cancers relating to this process that can be spurred on as a result of asbestos exposure, including gastrointestinal and colorectal. Gastrointestinal cancer can hit the stomach, small intestine, and/or large intestine. Colorectal cancer refers to the tumors that hit the colon, which is the muscular tube that connects the small intestines to the rectum.

Also, asbestos exposure can increase your risks for developing several other types of cancer, including the throat, gallbladder, kidney, and esophagus. However, these connections have not yet been confirmed.

Exposure to asbestos can lead to the formation of deadly cancers. If you or someone you know has been illegally exposed to asbestos and now has mesothelioma, you should consult legal counsel concerning your rights. For more information, talk to a mesothelioma lawyer at the firm of Williams Kherkher today.

Joseph Devine

There are no posts related to Cancers Relating to Asbestos Exposure.

The great asbestos wars of the 1960s, 70s and 80s were iconic. The issue of whether asbestos in products caused health problems was highly disputed. The manufacturers claimed that it didn’t. Workers claimed that not only did it, but the manufacturers had known it did and still released it in products. This created a war of lawyers unlike any seen in a long time.

Eventually, it became clear that the manufacturers of asbestos were in the wrong. As is often the case, the government took its sweet time doing anything but finally did. The response finally occurred on July 12, 1989 when the EPA issued a final ruling effectively banning asbestos in the vast majority of products whether they be building materials, brake pads, insulation or whatever. The story, however, was not at an end.

The manufacturers struck back. They appealed the order and to some effect. In 1991, the Fifth Circuit Appellate Court struck down part of the EPA order. It was a lengthy and complex decision, but essentially found certain areas should not be regulated. This ultimately resulted in the “sort-of” asbestos ban that we have today.

So, where do things stand with asbestos? Generally, asbestos cannot be used in any new products that traditionally have not used it before. Also, it is banned from use in roll board, flooring felt, and commercial, corrugated, or specialty paper. Other than that, there is no ban. If this doesn’t surprise you, it should.

There is a common belief that Mesothelioma cases will start to fade away in the next ten to twenty years as asbestos ban of 1989 starts to take real effect given the 40 year gestation period for Mesothelioma. This assumption is simply wrong. How so? We know that asbestos is still being used widely despite the EPA ban. Where asbestos and humans mix, Mesothelioma is sure to follow.

Thomas Ajava writes for MesotheliomaLawyersBeaumont.com – where you can find Mesothelioma lawyers in Beaumont, Texas.

There are no posts related to Mesothelioma - The Asbestos Ban That Wasn't.

The original law assumed that all chemicals were benign until proven otherwise, and placed the burden of proof on the EPA. The new legislation will reverse this arrangement: manufacturers will be required to prove that their products are safe. All chemicals and materials will now be evaluated against current standards for human health and environmental safety. The revised legislation also requires that the standards be based on valid scientific research.

In 1973 the then-fledgling agency ruled that spray-on asbestos insulation constituted a serious air-pollution hazard, and banned its use in the US. Sixteen years later, the EPA widened its ruling to ban all use of asbestos. The industry immediately attacked the ruling in federal court, and two years later, it was struck down. Since then, despite the large and increasing body of knowledge about the fatal potential of asbestos exposure, this dangerous substance is used in hundreds of applications in homes, automobiles and industry. The new legislation, with the prospect of stronger safety standards, provides the best chance for implementing a total ban against asbestos.

Support for the new legislation comes not only from public health and environmental groups, but the chemical industry as well. Chemical manufacturers and cleaning product companies report that their customers are asking hard questions about the safety of products. States and municipalities are implementing their own laws covering chemical exposure. Manufacturers recognize that a higher standard of transparency and reliability has evolved within the public, and they must now provide much more information about their processes and products. The American Chemistry Council, the chemical manufacturers’ trade group, supports a single set of federal standards that would apply across the country.

Commenting on the proposed legislation, Sen. Lautenberg said, “America’s system for regulating toxic chemicals is broken. [The EPA's] announcement marks a breakthrough for public health and makes clear that President Obama and the EPA understand the problem and will fight for the right solution.”

Legislation, like a ball game, ain’t over til it’s over. Nonetheless, the commitment to a tougher law, and the wide support from the manufacturing community give the EPA’s and Sen Lautenberg’s initiative a good chance of passage. This Congress may be the one to write a law that leads to the end of asbestos use in the US.

California mesothelioma attorney Frederick Schenk, has represented individuals who have received a diagnosis of mesothelioma and other asbestos caused diseases since 1983. His work has achieved compensation for mesothelioma victims from the companies that manufactured, installed and sold asbestos products throughout the United States.

There are no posts related to EPA Takes Aim at Asbestos.

There were three postoperative complications (16%) requiring reoperation and one postoperative death (5%). Intrapleural chemotherapy was well tolerated with no complications. Systemic chemotherapy was poorly tolerated, and there was one chemotherapy-related death. Sixteen patients (84%) experienced good to excellent palliation. Three patients are currently alive with no evidence of recurrent disease at 10, 35, and 43 months. The median overall survival was 13 months and the median disease-free survival, 11 months. Overall and disease-free 3 year survivals were 17% and 22%, respectively. Patients with epithelial malignant pleural mesothelioma had significantly better overall survival (p = 0.037) and disease-free survival (p = 0.02) than patients with sarcomatous or biphasic malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Another study is called, “Cisplatin administered by the intracavitary route as treatment for malignant mesothelioma” by Maurie Markman MD, Stephen Cleary PA-C, Craig Pfeifle MD, Stephen B. Howell MD, Cancer Volume 58, Issue 1, pages 18–21, 1 July 1986. Here is an excerpt: “Abstract – Twenty-one patients with malignant mesothelioma were treated with an experimental Intracavitary chemotherapy regimen of weekly intraperitoneal or intrapleural cisplatin (90–100 mg/m2) with simultaneous intravenous sodium thiosulfate delivered to protect against cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity. One of eight patients (12.5%) receiving intrapleural therapy and nine of 13 patients receiving intraperitoneal therapy demonstrated objective evidence of a clinical response, including three surgically defined major tumor regressions (23%). Patients receiving intrapleural treatment had more advanced disease prior to therapy than those receiving intraperitoneal therapy. It was concluded that intraperitoneal cisplatin is an active treatment program for intra-abdominally localized mesothelioma. Additional investigation of intrapleural cisplatin should be undertaken in a patient population with less advanced disease or following surgical debulking.” Cancer 58:18–21, 1986.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to these fine researchers. If you found any of these excerpts interesting, please read the studies in their entirety.
Montwrobleski77

Monty Wrobleski is the author of this article. For more information please click on the following links

Depuy Hip Recall Attorney

Depuy Hip Recall Attorney

Malignant Mesothelioma

There are no posts related to Unresectable Pleural and Peritoneal Mesothelioma Research.

Another interesting study is called, “Cytologic differential diagnosis among reactive mesothelial cells, malignant mesothelioma, and adenocarcinoma – Utility of combined E-cadherin and calretinin immunostaining” by Hiromi Kitazume C.T., Kazuhisa Kitamura C.T. Katsuhiko Mukai M.D., Yoshiaki Inayama M.D., Naomi Kawano M.D., Nobuo Nakamura M.D., Jinyu Sano M.D., Kunihiro Mitsui C.T., Sachiko Yoshida M.D., Yukio Nakatani M.D. – Cancer Cytopathology – Volume 90, Issue 1, pages 55–60, 25 February 2000. Here is an excerpt: “The differential diagnosis between reactive mesothelial cells (RMs), malignant mesotheliomas (MMs), and adenocarcinomas (ACs) is often difficult in cytologic specimens, and the utility of various immunohistochemical markers have been explored. Because recent immunohistologic studies have suggested that E-cadherin (E-cad) and calretinin (Cal) may be useful markers for epithelial and mesothelial differentiations, respectively, the authors investigated their utility in cytologic diagnosis. METHODS – In this retrospective study, immunostaining was performed on smears retrieved from Papanicolaou-stained slides of effusions using the labeled streptavidin-biotin method. Sixteen cases of RM, 9 cases of MM, and 52 cases of AC from various sites, including 13 pulmonary primaries, were examined with primary antibodies against E-cad and Cal – RESULTS The positive rates for E-cad and Cal, respectively, were as follows: RM, 0/16 (0%) and 16/16 (100%); MM, 9/9 (100%) and 8/8 (100%); and AC, 45/52 (86.5%) and 0/51 (0%). The E-cad expression by neoplastic cells was strongest in the intercellular junctions, and poorly differentiated neoplastic cells in the single cell form showed the weakest expression. CONCLUSIONS – In contrast to the results of previous immunohistochemical studies, the current study indicates that MMs constantly express E-cad, whereas RMs lack its expression in cytologic specimens, which would be useful in the differential diagnosis between the two. On the other hand, E-cad expression is not reliable for distinguishing AC from MM. The Cal expression can be a very useful marker for the distinction between AC and the mesothelial lineage. The combined immunostaining for E-cad and Cal has utility in differential diagnosis among RM, MM, and AC. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2000;90:55–60. © 2000 American Cancer Society.

It has long been a major diagnostic challenge to distinguish among reactive mesothelial cells (RMs), malignant mesothelioma (MM), and adenocarcinoma (AC) in both cytologic and surgical pathologic specimens. For differential diagnosis between MM and AC, previous immunohistochemical and immunocytochemical studies established panels of useful antibodies against immunodeterminants, including carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CD15 (recognized by the monoclonal antibody Leu M1), tumor-associated glycoprotein 72 (recognized by the monoclonal antibody B72.3), BerEP4 glycoprotein, and MOC-31 glycoprotein.1–5 Most of these are markers for AC and can be useful in the setting of differential diagnosis between RM and AC as well. For differentiation between RMs and MMs, on the other hand, only a few markers have been reported to be of utility. Among these are epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) and p53 protein, which are often expressed in MMs but usually not in RMs.6, 7 Recently, two new immunohistochemical markers have come into notice: E-cadherin for ACs8, 9 and calretinin for the mesothelial lineage.10 Because there are only a few reports of experience with the immuonostaining of these new markers in cytologic specimens,11, 12 we investigated their utility in cytologic differential diagnosis.”

We all owe a debt of gratitude to these fine researchers. If you found any of these excerpts interesting, please read the studies in their entirety.
Montwrobleski77

Monty Wrobleski is the author of this article. For more information please click on the following links

Depuy Hip Recall Lawyer

Depuy Hip Recall Lawyer

Malignant Mesothelioma

There are no posts related to Pleurectomy and Decortication Followed by Immediate Intrapleural Chemotherapy.

Another interesting study is called, “Successful adenovirus-mediated gene transfer in an in vivo model of human malignant Mesothelioma” – The Annals of Thoracic Surgery Volume 57, Issue 6, June 1994, Pages 1395-1401 – by W.Roy Smythe MDa, Larry R. Kaiser MD, Harry C. Hwang BS, Kunjlata M. Amin PhD, Joseph M. Pilewski MD, Stephen J. Eck MD, PhD, James M. Wilson MD, PhD and Steven M. Albelda MD – Here is an excerpt: “Abstract – Malignant mesothelioma remains a frustrating clinical problem with uniformly poor responses to current therapeutic regimens. However, the localized nature of the disease, the potential accessibility of the tumor, and the relative lack of distant metastases make it a particularly attractive candidate for somatic gene therapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of an adenoviral vector system to transfer genetic material to human mesothelioma cells in vitro and in vivo. Using a replication-deficient recombinant adenovirus carrying the Escherichia coli lacZ market gene, we found that human mesothelioma cell lines were susceptible to adenovirus infection. Furthermore, surprisingly effective gene transfer was accomplished within tumor implants of human mesothelioma growing within the peritoneal cavity c. immunodeficient mice after intraperitoneal administration of virus. These studies demonstrate that adenoviral vectors hold promise as vehicles to deliver gene therapy in human malignant mesothelioma.”

Another interesting study is called, “Immunohistochemical staining for vimentin and keratin in malignant Mesothelioma” by Churg, Andrew M.D; From the Department of Pathology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.  May 1985 – Volume 9 – Issue 5 Here is an excerpt: “Abstract -  Because tissue culture studies have suggested that mesothelial cells might produce large amounts of vimentin, I stained eight mesotheliomas (two fixed in alcohol) for vimentin using the Gown and Vogel monoclonal antibody 43[beta] 8. The two tumors that had alcohol fixed blocks were strongly positive for vimentin, whereas one of the tumors fixed only in formalin showed moderately strong staining and two others showed very weak focal positivity; the remaining tumors were negative. In the mesotheliomas that did stain, both epithelial and spindled elements gave a positive reaction. Three alcohol-fixed lung cancers and two blocks of alcohol-fixed pleura failed to stain for vimentin. By contrast, all mesotheliomas and carcinomas, whether alcohol or formalin fixed, as well as sections of pleura, were strongly positive when stained with anticytokeratin antibody 35[beta] Hl 1. I conclude that the combination of staining for vimentin and keratin might be a useful diagnostic finding in malignant mesothelioma, but that specially fixed material is required for reliable vimentin staining.”

We all owe a debt of gratitude to these fine researchers.  If you found any of these excerpts interesting, please read the studies in their entirety.

Monty Wrobleski is the author of this article. For more information please click on the following links

Depuy Hip Recall

Asbestos Disease

Depuy Hip Recall Attorney

There are no posts related to Mesothelioma and the Potential Accessibility of Tumors.

RESULTS: Nineteen patients with MPM were included in this pilot study. According to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer prognostic score, two patients were in the good prognosis group, and 17 patients were in the poor prognosis group. The response rate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 32%. The major toxicity was thrombocytopenia. Extrapleural pneumonectomy was performed in 16 patients with no perioperative mortality. Major surgical complications occurred in six patients, and all were treated successfully. Thirteen patients received postoperative radiotherapy. The median survival time was 23 months. Two patients remain alive and free of disease 41 and 38 months after initiation of therapy.

CONCLUSION: For patients with potentially operable MPM, the availability of active and well-tolerated chemotherapy regimens, the fact that extrapleural pneumonectomy can be safely performed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in an experienced center, and the promising results regarding survival in our pilot study warrant further investigation of the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in a multimodality strategy.”

Another interesting study is called, “Histone deacetylase inhibitor downregulation of bcl-xl gene expression leads to apoptotic cell death in mesothelioma.” By Cao XX, Mohuiddin I, Ece F, McConkey DJ, Smythe WR. – m J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2001 Nov;25(5):562-8.  Here is an excerpt: “Abstract – It has been shown that mesothelioma expresses the antiapoptotic protein BCL-XL, but not BCL-2, rendering bcl-xl gene expression a potential therapeutic target. Sodium butyrate (NaB) is a histone deacetylase inhibitor capable of alteration of bcl-2 family protein expression in other tumor types. Mesothelioma cell lines (REN, I-45) were exposed to NaB, and viability (colorimetric assay) and apoptosis (TUNEL, Hoescht staining, flow cytometry) were evaluated. Effects on bcl-2 family protein, fas-fas ligand, and caspases were examined by Western blot analysis and functional assay. An RNase assay evaluated bcl-2 family messenger RNA (mRNA) expression. Overexpressing BCL-XL mesothelioma clones were created by plasmid transfer. Cells were sensitive to NaB at low IC(50) (REN, 0.3 mM; I-45, 1 mM) and demonstrated apoptosis (percentage of cells below G1 phase by flow cytometry [sub-G1]: REN, 38.5%; I-45, 30.9%). A significant decrease in BCL-XL protein expression was noted with BAK, BAX, and BCL-2 unchanged, and this was corroborated at the transcriptional level with selectively decreased bcl-xl mRNA production after sodium butyrate exposure. Fas expression and fas-fas ligand sensitivity were unchanged. Caspases demonstrated low-level activation. Stable overexpressing BCL-XL clones were proportionally resistant to the NaB effect. This study suggests that mesothelioma cells are sensitive to the induction of apoptosis related to the attenuation of antiapoptotic bcl-xl gene and protein expression. Additional study of the therapeutic benefit of targeting bcl-xl gene expression in mesothelioma is warranted.”

Another interesting study is called, “Ber-EP4 Antibody as a Discriminant in the Differential Diagnosis of Malignant Mesothelioma Versus Adenocarcinoma” – August 1991 – Volume 15 – Issue 8 – American Journal of Surgical Pathology by Sheibani, Khalil M.D.; Shin, Sung S. M.D.; Kezirian, Janice B.A.; Weiss, Lawrence M. M.D.  Here is an excerpt: “Abstract – The pathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma is often difficult, even with the benefit of special studies such as histochemistry, electron microscopy, and immunohistochemistry. Ber-EP4 is a newly characterized monoclonal antibody that reliably labels epithelial tissues but does not react with mesothelial cells. We evaluated Ber-EP4 on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections from 115 malignant mesotheliomas and 83 adenocarcinomas. Although 72 cases (87%) of adenocarcinoma were positive for Ber-EP4, only one (1%) of the mesotheliomas was reactive. The only adenocarcinomas that did not stain were from the breast (eight of 25 cases nonreactive) and the kidney (all three cases nonreactive). The staining pattern in the positive adenocarcinomas was usually intense and membranous, but additional weak cytoplasmic staining was seen in many cases. The reactivity was diffuse in 59 cases and focal in 13 cases. The results of our study suggest that the Ber-EP4 antibody may have great use in the differential diagnosis of mesothelioma versus adenocarcinoma, particularly when only formalin-fixed tissue is available.”

We all owe a debt of gratitude to these fine researchers.  If you found any of these excerpts interesting, please read the studies in their entirety.

Monty Wrobleski is the author of this article. For more information please click on the following links

Depuy Hip Recall

Asbestos Disease

Depuy Hip Recall Attorney

There are no posts related to Mesothelioma and Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

A second study is called, “Lung function consequences of dust exposure in asbestos cement manufacturing plants.” By Weill H, Ziskind MM, Waggenspack C, Rossiter CE -
Arch Environ Health. 1975 Feb;30(2):88-97 – Here is an excerpt: “Abstract – A comprehensive study of health effects associated with the mixed dust exposure in this industry has included the collection of clinical, radiographic, lung function, and dust exposure data on 859 workers in two plants. Evidence is presented supporting a dose-response relationship between indexes of dust exposure and lung function, similar to the previously reported relationship with extent of x-ray film changes using the ILO U/C classification. Lung volumes and maximum expiratory flow rates decrease in relation to increasing cumulative dust exposure while pulmonary diffusing capacity (DL) is not dust-dose related. Worders who had crocidolite exposure had smaller lung volumes, lower expiratory flow rates, and reduced DL when compared with those having only chrysotile exposure. When the study population is divided into exposure groups, data thus far analyzed suggest that the chest x-ray film will reveal small opacities as early as significant functional changes can be detected, but individuals may have functional reduction prior to the appearance of x-ray film changes.”

A third study is called, “Asbestos-related mesothelioma: factors discriminating between pleural and peritoneal sites.” By K Browne, W J Smither – British Journal of Industrial Medicine 1983;40:145-152.  Here is an excerpt: “Up to the end of 1980, 144 confirmed cases of mesothelioma were identified among employees of an organisation using asbestos in manufacturing and insulation. The primary site was peritoneal in 74 cases, pleural in 66, and undetermined in four. All employees had been exposed to amphibole asbestos, and evidence from different factories confirmed the predominant role of crocidolite in the production of mesothelioma. The ratio of pleural to peritoneal sites showed a continuous change when related to the year of first exposure, varying from 5:1 pleural to peritoneal before 1921 to 1:3 after 1950. The strong temporal relationship appeared to reflect progressive dust suppression, including the non-fibrous dusts present in insulation materials and perhaps also the degree to which the fibres had been opened. Other predisposing factors were related to the degree of individual exposure, the peritoneal site being associated preferentially with longer and heavier exposures.”

If you found any of these excerpts, please read them in their entirety.  We all owe a debt of gratitude to these researchers.

About the Author

Monty Wrobleski is the author of this article. For more information please click on the following links Mesothelioma Lawyer, Mesothelioma Lawsuit Settlements, BP Oil Spill Class Action Lawsuit

There are no posts related to Asbestos Exposure in the Water Supply and Excess Cancer Mortality.