Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO)


Print Feedback Export to File
1005282 
Journal Article 
Review 
A meta-analysis of asbestos and lung cancer: is better quality exposure assessment associated with steeper slopes of the exposure-response relationships? 
Lenters, V; Vermeulen, R; Dogger, S; Stayner, L; Portengen, L; Burdorf, A; Heederik, D 
2011 
Yes 
Environmental Health Perspectives
ISSN: 0091-6765
EISSN: 1552-9924 
119 
11 
1547-1555 
English 
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. 
amphiboles; asbestos; chrysotile; lung cancer; meta-analysis