Progress in Pathology - Experimental Pathology

Our plain-English summary of Progress in Pathology - Experimental Pathology, by J.C. Wagner (1973).

The study

• Author: J.C. Wagner
• Published: BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS (J.C. WAGNER, EDITOR), LYON: IARC SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS, VOLUME 8, PP. 11-12 (1973)
• Type of article: Conference paper
• Our copy: from Johns-Manville's own medical library. The article is still under copyright, so we describe it here rather than post it.

In plain English

This short article was a progress report, not a research study. It outlined work by the Pathology sub-committee on recommendations of a 1964 Working Group, most of it presented in more detail at the same conference. The 1964 method for grading the severity of asbestosis had been found unsatisfactory, and a new scheme was drawn up. Counting asbestos bodies and fibres in sputum was still not considered useful. A 12-centre investigation covering the United Kingdom, Kuopio in Finland and Dresden examined methods for finding asbestos bodies and fibres in lung tissue. Maceration methods had been considered for relating the number of bodies and fibres in lung tissue to asbestosis severity. The report said these methods could not distinguish fibre types and that many fibres could not be seen under the light microscope, so electron microscopy was needed. National panels for diagnosing diffuse mesotheliomas were formed in the UK, USA, South Africa and Canada. The British Panel used a questionnaire on the diagnostic criteria to study a series of cases. Joint experimental studies involved British, American, South African and Russian workers. The report gave no case numbers and no numerical results.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Progress report outlining the activities of the Pathology sub-committee; not an original study
• Who was studied: No study subjects are described in detail. The report describes committee work, including a 12-centre investigation covering the United Kingdom, Kuopio in Finland, and Dresden (DDR). It also mentions that the British Panel studied a series of cases, without giving the number of cases
• Main results:
  • The method for assessing the severity of asbestosis suggested in 1964 was found to be unsatisfactory, and a new scheme was drawn up
  • Doubt had been raised about the origin of 'asbestos bodies', and some workers felt they should be called 'ferruginous bodies'
  • Quantitative assessment of asbestos bodies and fibres in sputum was still not considered a useful procedure
  • In lung tissue, the 12-centre investigation chose the thick, unstained section method developed by Meurman. A later study compared various histological preparations with the maceration method developed by Gold
  • The maceration methods had been considered as a way of correlating the number of bodies and fibres in lung tissue with the severity of asbestosis. Their major disadvantages were that fibre type could not be distinguished and that many fibres could not be seen under the light microscope. Electron microscopy was described as required to overcome both problems
  • For diagnosis of diffuse mesotheliomas, an International Panel was organised and national panels were formed in the UK, USA, South Africa and Canada
  • The British Panel used an Observer Variation Trial questionnaire on the histological diagnostic criteria to study a series of cases (number not given). The results were analysed by Dr Oldham
  • Histochemical methods for diagnosing mesotheliomas were considered by all panels but were not used by the British or South African Panels
  • A start was made on using tissue culture in mesothelioma diagnosis, with organ culture methods for growing adult human pleura and foetal lung
  • Experimental collaborative studies were carried out among British, American, South African and Russian workers. Results were standardised using reference dust samples
• The authors' conclusion: The author stated that most of the outlined studies were presented in more detail at the conference. The report draws no scientific conclusions of its own

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Pathology, Asbestos Bodies, Sputum, Mesothelioma.

Browse return to medical research.