Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFranklin, P.
dc.contributor.authorAlfonso, H.
dc.contributor.authorReid, A.
dc.contributor.authorOlsen, N.
dc.contributor.authorShilkin, K.
dc.contributor.authorBrims, Fraser
dc.contributor.authorde Klerk, N.
dc.contributor.authorMusk, A.
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-30T12:46:37Z
dc.date.available2017-01-30T12:46:37Z
dc.date.created2016-08-22T19:30:17Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationFranklin, P. and Alfonso, H. and Reid, A. and Olsen, N. and Shilkin, K. and Brims, F. and de Klerk, N. et al. 2016. Asbestos exposure and histological subtype of malignant mesothelioma. Occupational & Environmental Medicine. 73: pp. 749-752.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/25069
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/oemed-2016-103721
dc.description.abstract

Background: Malignant mesothelioma (MM) has distinct histological subtypes (epithelioid, sarcomatoid and biphasic) with variable behaviour and prognoses. It is well recognised that survival time varies with the histological subtype of MM. It is not known, however, if asbestos exposure characteristics (type of asbestos, degree of exposure) are associated with different histological subtypes. Aim: To determine if the pathological MM subtype is associated with the type of asbestos or the attributes of asbestos exposure. Methods: Cases of MM for the period 1962 until 2012, their main histological subtype and their most significant source of asbestos exposure were collected from the Western Australian Mesothelioma Registry. Exposure characteristics included, degree of asbestos exposure (including total days exposed, years since first exposure and, for crocidolite only, calculated cumulative exposure), source of exposure (occupational or environmental), form of asbestos handled (raw or processed) and type of asbestos (crocidolite only or mixed fibres). Results: Patients with the biphasic subtype were more likely to have occupational exposure (OR 1.83, 1.12 to 2.85) and exposure to raw fibres (OR 1.58, 1.19 to 2.10). However, differences between subtypes in the proportions with these different exposure characteristics were small and unlikely to be biologically relevant. Other indicators of asbestos exposure were not associated with the histological subtype of mesothelioma. Conclusions: There was no strong evidence of a consistent role of asbestos exposure indicators in determining the histological subtype of MM.

dc.titleAsbestos exposure and histological subtype of malignant mesothelioma
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.titleOccup Environ Med
curtin.departmentCurtin Medical School
curtin.accessStatusFulltext not available


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record