HOMEPRODUCTSCOMPANYCONTACTFAQResearchDictionaryPharmaSign Up FREE or Login

Apples to apples: the origin and magnitude of differences in asbestos cancer risk estimates derived using varying protocols.

Abstract
Given that new protocols for assessing asbestos-related cancer risk have recently been published, questions arise concerning how they compare to the "IRIS" protocol currently used by regulators. The newest protocols incorporate findings from 20 additional years of literature. Thus, differences between the IRIS and newer Berman and Crump protocols are examined to evaluate whether these protocols can be reconciled. Risks estimated by applying these protocols to real exposure data from both laboratory and field studies are also compared to assess the relative health protectiveness of each protocol. The reliability of risks estimated using the two protocols are compared by evaluating the degree with which each potentially reproduces the known epidemiology study risks. Results indicate that the IRIS and Berman and Crump protocols can be reconciled; while environment-specific variation within fiber type is apparently due primarily to size effects (not addressed by IRIS), the 10-fold (average) difference between amphibole asbestos risks estimated using each protocol is attributable to an arbitrary selection of the lowest of available mesothelioma potency factors in the IRIS protocol. Thus, the IRIS protocol may substantially underestimate risk when exposure is primarily to amphibole asbestos. Moreover, while the Berman and Crump protocol is more reliable than the IRIS protocol overall (especially for predicting amphibole risk), evidence is presented suggesting a new fiber-size-related adjustment to the Berman and Crump protocol may ultimately succeed in reconciling the entire epidemiology database. However, additional data need to be developed before the performance of the adjusted protocol can be fully validated.
AuthorsD Wayne Berman
JournalRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis (Risk Anal) Vol. 31 Issue 8 Pg. 1308-26 (Aug 2011) ISSN: 1539-6924 [Electronic] United States
PMID21306408 (Publication Type: Comparative Study, Evaluation Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't)
Copyright© 2011 Society for Risk Analysis.
Chemical References
  • Dust
  • Asbestos
Topics
  • Asbestos (administration & dosage, adverse effects, chemistry)
  • Dust
  • Humans
  • Inhalation Exposure
  • Lung Neoplasms (etiology)
  • Mesothelioma (etiology)
  • Neoplasms (etiology)
  • Particle Size
  • Risk Assessment (methods, statistics & numerical data)
  • Risk Factors

Join CureHunter, for free Research Interface BASIC access!

Take advantage of free CureHunter research engine access to explore the best drug and treatment options for any disease. Find out why thousands of doctors, pharma researchers and patient activists around the world use CureHunter every day.
Realize the full power of the drug-disease research graph!


Choose Username:
Email:
Password:
Verify Password:
Enter Code Shown: