Abstract
One prospective epidemiologic study of asbestos cement workers with radiological small opacities has been cited as a rationale for attributing excess lung cancer to asbestosis. This approach could have considerable practical value for disease attribution in an era of decreasing exposure. However, a recent International Agency for Research on Cancer review concludes that the mechanism of production of asbestos-related lung cancer are unknown. Asbestosis, therefore, cannot be a biologically effective dose marker of lung cancer susceptibility. Asbestosis nonetheless would be useful in identifying asbestos-attributable lung cancer cases if it could be proven an infallible exposure indicator. In this study, we tested this hypothesis in the chrysotile miners and millers of Quebec, Canada. We examined exposure histories, autopsy records, and lung fiber content for 111 Quebec chrysotile miners and millers. If the hypothesis of an asbestosis requirement for lung cancer attribution were accurate, we would expect as asbestosis diagnosis to separate those with lung cancer and high levels of exposure from those with lower levels of exposure in a specific and sensitive manner. This is the first such study in which historical job-based individual estimates based on environmental measurements, lung fiber content, exposure timing, and complete pathology records including autopsies were available for review. We found significant excesses of lung tremolite and chrysotile and estimated cumulative exposure in those with lung cancer and asbestosis compared to those with lung cancer without asbestosis. However, when the latter were directly compared on a case-by-case basis, there was a marked overlap between lung cancer cases with and without asbestosis regardless of the measure of exposure. Smoking habits did not differ between lung cancer cases with and without asbestosis. In regression models, smoking pack-years discriminated between those with the without lung cancer, regardless of asbestosis status. Most seriously, the pathologic diagnosis of asbestosis itself seemed arbitrary in many cases. We conclude that although the presence of pathologically diagnosed asbestosis is a useful marker of exposure, the absence of this disease must be regarded as one of many factors in determining individual exposure status and disease causation.