Submicroscopical Asbestos Fibers and Disease \[Correspondence\]

Our plain-English summary of Submicroscopical Asbestos Fibers and Disease [Correspondence] (1975).

The study

• Published: 1975
• Type of article: Letter
• 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 item is not a study. It is a set of letters to the editor in The New England Journal of Medicine (May 29, 1975) about a case report by Miller et al. That report linked 'nonspecific' interstitial pulmonary fibrosis in one patient to asbestos fibers seen by electron microscopy. Gross, Harley and Carrington argued that dust spreads unevenly through the lung and that fibers were counted in only a minute fraction of it, so the estimated asbestos content could be badly wrong. They also noted that no fibers longer than 0.5 µm were found. A letter from Lincoln, MA asked for comparison with established cases of industrial asbestosis. It suggested the case might be a late-stage, burned-out pathological picture of sarcoidosis. In reply, Miller, Teirstein, Langer and Selikoff agreed that fiber distribution is not uniform. They reported that in their laboratory it was more uniform in almost 150 asbestos workers than in several hundred urban residents. They said burnt-out sarcoidosis did not resemble this case. They estimated about 0.45 g of chrysotile in both lungs, if the tissue examined was representative, and concluded that the patient's exposure was probably occupational.

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: Correspondence (letters to the editor) discussing a published case report, with a reply from the case report's authors; not an original study
• Who was studied: The single patient described in the Miller et al. case report. In their reply, Miller et al. referred to their laboratory's electron microscopy of lung tissue from several hundred urban residents and almost 150 asbestos workers
• Exposure: Submicroscopic chrysotile asbestos fibers and fibrils found in lung tissue by electron microscopy. Miller et al. judged the patient's exposure probably occupational. The letters also debated whether short chrysotile fibers cause disease
• Main results:
  • Gross, Harley and Carrington argued that inhaled dust is spread unevenly through the lungs. Because fibers were counted in only a minute fraction of lung tissue, they said the calculated asbestos content could be in error by more than the three to four orders of magnitude claimed.
  • The same letter writers questioned how representative the fibers were, because no fibers longer than 0.5 µm were found in the areas Miller et al. studied
  • The same letter writers cited work from six laboratories that they said showed short-fibered asbestos had reduced or no ability to cause disease in animals
  • The Lincoln, MA letter suggested that small particles detected by electron microscopy may be harmless because of their smaller surface area. It said the fibers acquired by city dwellers suggest they are of no pathogenic importance.
  • The Lincoln, MA letter suggested that this case and the 1971 case reported by Miller et al. may be an end-stage, burned-out pathological picture of sarcoidosis (the passage is OCR-damaged)
  • In reply, Miller et al. reported that in their laboratory fiber distribution was more uniform in asbestos workers than in urban residents
  • Miller et al. reported that their laboratory's study of hammer-milled chrysotile showed altered crystal properties together with decreased biologic activity (lysis of red blood cell membranes)
  • Miller et al. stated that their own and other studies of human asbestosis showed a predominant fiber length of less than 5 µm
  • Miller et al. estimated about 0.45 mg of chrysotile per milliliter of the patient's lung tissue, or 0.45 g in both lungs
  • For comparison, Miller et al. said calculations for the general population give lung burdens of several hundred micrograms
  • Miller et al. said the 'burnt-out' sarcoidosis they had seen does not resemble the findings in this case
• The authors' conclusion: Miller et al. concluded that the patient's exposure was probably occupational. The critics argued that the sampling could not support the claimed fiber burden.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • Miller et al. acknowledged that any evaluation based on tissue from a single biopsy site is limited by uneven fiber distribution
  • Miller et al. stated that the 0.45 g whole-lung estimate holds only if the observed tissue was representative

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Interstitial, Pulmonary Fibrosis, Chrysotile.

Browse return to medical research.