Documents The New England Journal of Medicine 5 results

"Background Heavy industrial exposure to asbestos causes lung cancer and mesothelioma, but it remains unknown whether much lower environmental exposure to asbestos also causes these cancers. Nevertheless, regulatory agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have assessed the risk of lung cancer by extrapolating known risks from past industrial exposure to asbestos to today's much lower environmental asbestos levels (roughly 100,000 times lower). We also tested the EPA's model for predicting the risk of asbestos-induced lung cancer in a population of women with relatively high levels of nonoccupational exposure to asbestos. Methods Mortality among women in 2 chrysotile-asbestos–mining areas of the province of Quebec was compared with mortality among women in 60 control areas, and age-standardized mortality ratios were derived. With the help of an expert panel, we estimated past exposure to asbestos among women in the mining areas and used these data with the EPA's model to predict the relative risk of lung cancer. We then compared this prediction with the observed mortality ratios. Results On the basis of the estimated exposure in the asbestos-mining areas, a relative risk of death due to lung cancer of 2.1 was predicted by the EPA's model, amounting to about 75 excess deaths from lung cancer in this population. By contrast, we calculated a standardized mortality ratio of 1.0 and a standardized proportionate mortality ratio of 1.1 (P>0.05), suggesting that there were between 0 and 6.5 excess deaths from lung cancer among the women with nonoccupational exposure to asbestos. Seven deaths from pleural cancer were observed (relative risk, 7.63; P<0.05). Conclusions We found no measurable excess risk of death due to lung cancer among women in two chrysotile-asbestos–mining regions. The EPA's model overestimated the risk of asbestos-induced lung cancer by at least a factor of 10. "

"BACKGROUND:
In both animal and epidemiologic studies, exposure to dioxin (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, or TCDD) has been associated with an increased risk of cancer.
METHODS:
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of mortality among the 5172 workers at 12 plants in the United States that produced chemicals contaminated with TCDD. Occupational exposure was documented by reviewing job descriptions and by measuring TCDD in serum from a sample of 253 workers. Causes of death were taken from death certificates.
RESULTS:
Mortality from several cancers previously associated with TCDD (stomach, liver, and nasal cancers, Hodgkin's disease, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) was not significantly elevated in this cohort. Mortality from soft-tissue sarcoma was increased, but not significantly (4 deaths; standardized mortality ratio [SMR], 338; 95 percent confidence interval, 92 to 865). In the subcohort of 1520 workers with greater than or equal to 1 year of exposure and greater than or equal to 20 years of latency, however, mortality was significantly increased for soft-tissue sarcoma (3 deaths; SMR, 922; 95 percent confidence interval, 190 to 2695) and for cancers of the respiratory system (SMR, 142; 95 percent confidence interval, 103 to 192). Mortality from all cancers combined was slightly but significantly elevated in the overall cohort (SMR, 115; 95 percent confidence interval, 102 to 130) and was higher in the subcohort with greater than or equal to 1 year of exposure and greater than or equal to 20 years of latency (SMR, 146; 95 percent confidence interval, 121 to 176).
CONCLUSIONS:
This study of mortality among workers with occupational exposure to TCDD does not confirm the high relative risks reported for many cancers in previous studies. Conclusions about an increase in the risk of soft-tissue sarcoma are limited by small numbers and misclassification on death certificates. Excess mortality from all cancers combined, cancers of the respiratory tract, and soft-tissue sarcoma may result from exposure to TCDD, although we cannot exclude the possible contribution of factors such as smoking and occupational exposure to other chemicals."

"Uncertain prognoses, looming severe shortages of resources for testing and treatment and for protecting responders and health care providers from infection, imposition of unfamiliar public health measures that infringe on personal freedoms, large and growing financial losses, and conflicting messages from authorities are among the major stressors that undoubtedly will contribute to widespread emotional distress and increased risk for psychiatric illness associated with Covid-19. Health care providers have an important role in addressing these emotional outcomes as part of the pandemic response. ..."