PURPOSE: To characterize asbestosis today and to clarify the indications for high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) in the surveillance of heavily exposed workers. METHODS: Six hundred and twenty-seven workers were screened and HRCT findings were classified and divided in two groups: pulmonary fibrosis (n = 86) and no fibrosis (n = 541). RESULTS: Most (65/86 = 76%) of the detected fibrosis cases were mild. The magnitude of asbestos exposure showed an unexpected inverse relation with fibrosis. In multivariate analyses, age, forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio, and poor diffusing capacity were associated with HRCT fibrosis, but asbestos exposure was not. CONCLUSIONS: Asbestosis seems to be characterized by mild fibrosis today even in heavily exposed workers. To avoid radiation exposure in HRCT, age and lung function data may be used only to a limited extent to select imaging candidates. Selection and recollection biases may distort the relation between asbestos exposure and fibrosis.
PURPOSE: To characterize asbestosis today and to clarify the indications for high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) in the surveillance of heavily exposed workers. METHODS: Six hundred and twenty-seven workers were screened and HRCT findings were classified and divided in two groups: pulmonary fibrosis (n = 86) and no fibrosis (n = 541). RESULTS: Most (65/86 = 76%) of the detected fibrosis cases were mild. The magnitude of asbestos exposure showed an unexpected inverse relation with fibrosis. In multivariate analyses, age, forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio, and poor diffusing capacity were associated with HRCT fibrosis, but asbestos exposure was not. CONCLUSIONS:Asbestosis seems to be characterized by mild fibrosis today even in heavily exposed workers. To avoid radiation exposure in HRCT, age and lung function data may be used only to a limited extent to select imaging candidates. Selection and recollection biases may distort the relation between asbestos exposure and fibrosis.
Authors: Kari Koskinen; Eero Pukkala; Rami Martikainen; Kari Reijula; Antti Karjalainen Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Päivi Piirilä; Marja Lindqvist; Olli Huuskonen; Simo Kaleva; Heikki Koskinen; Hannu Lehtola; Tapio Vehmas; Leena Kivisaari; Anssi R A Sovijärvi Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Giuseppe Mastrangelo; Maria N Ballarin; Ernesto Bellini; Fabio Bicciato; Federica Zannol; Francesco Gioffrè; Antonio Zedde; Gianna Tessadri; Ugo Fedeli; Flavio Valentini; Luca Scoizzato; Gianluca Marangi; John H Lange Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: C Paris; S Thierry; P Brochard; M Letourneux; E Schorle; A Stoufflet; J Ameille; F Conso; J C Pairon Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2009-01-07 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Manuela Valenzuela; Margarita Giraldo; Sonia Gallo-Murcia; Juliana Pineda; Laura Santos; Juan Pablo Ramos-Bonilla Journal: Curr Environ Health Rep Date: 2016-12
Authors: Mario Terra-Filho; Ericson Bagatin; Luiz Eduardo Nery; Lara Maris Nápolis; José Alberto Neder; Gustavo de Souza Portes Meirelles; C Isabela Silva; Nestor L Muller Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Dipti Gothi; Tanushree Gahlot; Ram B Sah; Mayank Saxena; U C Ojha; Anand K Verma; Sonam Spalgais Journal: Indian J Occup Environ Med Date: 2016 May-Aug
Authors: Ferdinando Cerciello; Meena Choi; Sara L Sinicropi-Yao; Katie Lomeo; Joseph M Amann; Emanuela Felley-Bosco; Rolf A Stahel; Bruce W S Robinson; Jenette Creaney; Harvey I Pass; Olga Vitek; David P Carbone Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 4.254