Posts Tagged ‘Masses’

Evaluating Benign and Malignant Lung and Pleural Masses in Asbestosis and Mesothelioma

Evaluating Benign and Malignant Lung and Pleural Masses in Asbestosis and Mesothelioma

Exposure to asbestos in the workplace is the most common cause of Mesothelioma disease.  Continued research is necessary if we are ever to find a cure.  One interesting study is called, “Exposure to Asbestos and Human Disease.” By Becklake, MR – New England Journal of Medicine Vol. 306, no. 24, pp. 1480-1482. 1982.  Here is an excerpt: “During the past two decades, ill health resulting from exposure to asbestos has been the subject of extensive observation and research — probably more intensive than research on any other environmental agent. In the most direct target organ, the lung, in its pleural coverings, there is a wide spectrum of response after exposure; not only acute and chronic inflammatory diseases but also cancer of these organs may occur. Research has been stimulated by the belief that the more complete our understanding of the mechanisms of pathogenesis, the better will be the ability to control the continued use of this mineral in today’s complex technologic world.”

Another interesting study is called, “Analysis of amphibole asbestos in chrysotile and other minerals.” By Addison, J, Davies, LST – Annals of Occupational Hygiene [ANN. OCCUP. HYG.]. Vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 159-175. 1990.  Here is an excerpt: “Chrysotile asbestos and many other mineral raw materials contain amphibole minerals which may be asbestiform. There is currently no analytical method which will detect the presence of amphibole at sufficiently low limits to preclude the possibility of inadvertent exposure of persons handling these materials to hazardous airborne fibre concentrations. A method of chemical digestion of chrysotiles has been tested with regard to the determination of their tremolite contaminant content and this has been applied to a range of chrysotile and other minerals. The method improves the sensitivity of the amphibole analysis at least 10-fold giving detection limits of 0.01-0.05% in chrysotile by X-ray diffractometry.”

Another interesting study is called, “Computed tomography in the diagnosis of asbestos-related thoracic disease” by Gamsu, Gordon MD; Aberle, Denise R. MD; Lynch, David MD, BCh – Journal of Thoracic Imaging – January 1989 – Volume 4 – Issue 1.  Here is an excerpt: “Abstract – High-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) has improved the radiologist’s ability to detect and potentially quantify the abnormalities of asbestos exposure. It has proved to be more sensitive than chest radiography for detecting pleural plaques and for discriminating between pleural fibrosis and extrapleural fat. HRCT is also more sensitive than chest radiography or conventional CT for detecting parenchymal abnormalities in asbestos-exposed persons. The HRCT findings that correlate with other parameters of asbestosis include (1) septal and centrilobular thickening, (2) parenchymal fibrous bands, (3) honeycomb patterns, (4) subpleural density persisting in the prone position, and (5) subpleural curvilinear lines that persist in the prone position. CT has an important role in evaluating benign and malignant lung and pleural masses in asbestosis.”

Another study is called, “Effect of Long-Term Removal of Iron from Asbestos by Desferrioxamine B on Subsequent Mobilization by Other Chelators and Induction of DNA Single-Strand Breaks” by Chao C. C. and Aust A. E. – Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics – Volume 308, Issue 1, January 1994, Pages 64-69.  Here is an excerpt: “
Abstract – The long-term removal of iron from crocidolite or amosite by desferrioxamine B (DF) at pH 7.5 or 5.0 was studied. Crocidolite or amosite (1 mg/ml) was suspended in 50 mM NaCl at pH 7.5 or 5.0 with the addition of 1 mM DF for up to 90 days. Although the rate of iron mobilization decreased with time, iron was continuously mobilized from both forms of asbestos at pH 5.0 or 7.5. The amount of iron mobilized from crocidolite was at least twice that mobilized from amosite at either pH. Iron was mobilized more rapidly from crocidolite at pH 5.0 than at 7.5 for the first 15 days, but at later times the amount being mobilized at pH 7.5 became equal to or slightly greater than that at 5.0. For amosite, the mobilization at pH 5.0 was always greater than that at pH 7.5. Next, the effect of iron removal from asbestos by DF on subsequent iron mobilization by a second chelator (EDTA or citrate) and on induction of DNA single-strand breaks (SSBs) was studied. Asbestos, treated for up to 15 days with DF at pH 7.5, was washed to remove ferrioxamine and excess DF, then incubated with EDTA or citrate (1 mM). The rates of iron mobilization from both forms of asbestos by a second chelator decreased as more and more iron was removed by DF. Induction of DNA SSBs also decreased, reflecting the unavailability of iron to catalyze the damage. The results suggest three things. First, if long-term mobilization of iron from asbestos occurs in vivo as has been observed in vitro, it may play a role in the long-term biological effects of asbestos. Second, more rapid mobilization of iron from asbestos fibers may occur when the fibers are phagocytized by cells and maintained in phagosomes where the pH is 4.0-5.0. Third, treatment of asbestos by iron chelators, such as DF, prior to exposure to cultured cells or whole animals, may reduce the biological effects of asbestos resulting from iron, but may not completely eliminate them.”

We all owe a debt of gratitude to these fine researchers for their hard work and dedication.  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 visit the following links

Depuy Hip Recall

Depuy Hip Lawsuit

Depuy Hip Recall

Article from