Hessel P A, Gamble J F, McDonald J C
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College School of Medicine, London SW3 6LY, UK.
Thorax. 2005 May;60(5):433-6. doi: 10.1136/thx.2004.037267.
The question of whether lung cancer can be attributed to asbestos exposure in the absence of asbestosis remains controversial. Nine key epidemiological papers are reviewed in a point/counterpoint format, giving the main strengths and limitations of the evidence presented. Of the nine papers, two concluded that asbestosis was necessary and seven that it was not. However, the study design, nature and circumstances of exposure and method of analysis of the studies differed considerably, and none was considered definitive. It is concluded that, because of the relative insensitivity of chest radiography and the uncertain specificity of findings from histological examinations or computed tomography, it is unlikely that epidemiology alone can put either the strict scientific or practical medicolegal questions beyond doubt. It is probable that the issue may depend critically on asbestos fibre type, an aspect not so far addressed.
在没有石棉沉着病的情况下,肺癌是否可归因于石棉暴露这一问题仍存在争议。以观点/反观点的形式对九篇关键的流行病学论文进行了综述,阐述了所呈现证据的主要优势和局限性。在这九篇论文中,两篇得出石棉沉着病是必要条件的结论,七篇则认为不是。然而,这些研究的设计、暴露的性质和情况以及分析方法差异很大,没有一项被认为是决定性的。结论是,由于胸部X光检查相对不敏感,组织学检查或计算机断层扫描结果的特异性不确定,仅靠流行病学不太可能使严格的科学问题或实际法医学问题毫无疑问。这个问题很可能严重取决于石棉纤维类型,而这是目前尚未涉及的一个方面。