Jump to main content
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Search
Search
Main menu
Environmental Topics
Laws & Regulations
About EPA
Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO)
Contact Us
Print
Feedback
Export to File
Search:
This record has one attached file:
Add More Files
Attach File(s):
Display Name for File*:
Save
Citation
Tags
HERO ID
1005282
Reference Type
Journal Article
Subtype
Review
Title
A meta-analysis of asbestos and lung cancer: is better quality exposure assessment associated with steeper slopes of the exposure-response relationships?
Author(s)
Lenters, V; Vermeulen, R; Dogger, S; Stayner, L; Portengen, L; Burdorf, A; Heederik, D
Year
2011
Is Peer Reviewed?
Yes
Journal
Environmental Health Perspectives
ISSN:
0091-6765
EISSN:
1552-9924
Volume
119
Issue
11
Page Numbers
1547-1555
Language
English
PMID
21708512
DOI
10.1289/ehp.1002879
Web of Science Id
WOS:000296785900020
URL
https://search.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/meta-analysis-asbestos-lung-cancer-is-better/docview/906127713/se-2?accountid=171501
Exit
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Asbestos is a well-recognized cause of lung cancer, but there is considerable between-study heterogeneity in the slope of the exposure-response relationship.
OBJECTIVE:
We considered the role of quality of the exposure assessment to potentially explain heterogeneity in exposure-response slope estimates.
DATA SOURCES:
We searched PubMed MEDLINE (1950-2009) for studies with quantitative estimates of cumulative asbestos exposure and lung cancer mortality and identified 19 original epidemiological studies. One was a population-based case-control study, and the others were industry-based cohort studies.
DATA EXTRACTION:
Cumulative exposure categories and corresponding risks were abstracted. Exposure-response slopes [KL (lung cancer potency factor of asbestos)] were calculated using linear relative risk regression models.
DATA SYNTHESIS:
We assessed the quality of five exposure assessment aspects of each study and conducted random effects univariate and multivariate meta-regressions. Heterogeneity in exposure-response relationships was greater than expected by chance (I2 = 64%). Stratification by exposure assessment characteristics revealed that studies with well-documented exposure assessment, larger contrast in exposure, greater coverage of the exposure history by exposure measurement data, and more complete job histories had higher meta-KL values than did studies without these characteristics. The latter two covariates were most strongly associated with the KL value. Meta-KL values increased when we incrementally restricted analyses to higher-quality studies.
CONCLUSIONS:
This meta-analysis indicates that studies with higher-quality asbestos exposure assessment yield higher meta-estimates of the lung cancer risk per unit of exposure. Potency differences for predominantly chrysotile versus amphibole asbestos-exposed cohorts become difficult to ascertain when meta-analyses are restricted to studies with fewer exposure assessment limitations.
Keywords
amphiboles; asbestos; chrysotile; lung cancer; meta-analysis
Tags
IRIS
•
Asbestos
•
Libby Amphibole Asbestos (Draft, 2011)
OPPT REs
•
OPPT_Asbestos, Part I: Chrysotile_A. Summary
Suggested Literature: Public Comments
•
OPPT_Asbestos, Part I: Chrysotile_C. Engineering
Total – title/abstract screening
On topic
Peer review
Secondary source/Review
•
OPPT_Asbestos, Part I: Chrysotile_D. Exposure
Total – title/abstract screening
On topic
Peer review
Secondary source/Review
•
OPPT_Asbestos, Part I: Chrysotile_E. Fate
Total – title/abstract screening
Off topic
•
OPPT_Asbestos, Part I: Chrysotile_F. Human Health
Total – title/abstract screening
On topic
Peer review
Secondary source/ Review
•
OPPT_Asbestos, Part I: Chrysotile_Supplemental Search
LitSearch: Sept 2020 (Undated)
ProQuest
PubMed
Toxline
WoS
Legacy Uses
Health Outcomes
Home
Learn about HERO
Using HERO
Search HERO
Projects in HERO
Risk Assessment
Transparency & Integrity