Document 2ROBVEg5YrmzBa8X8K8Q9N9Op

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE 47:458-462 (2005) Brief Report Mesothelioma in Household Members of Asbestos-Exposed Workers: 32 United States Cases Since 1990 Albert Miller, md* Background Mesothelioma is significant as an indicator of asbestos exposure, as a continuing major cause ofdeath in those exposed, and as a riskfollowing lesser exposures. One such exposure is living in the household of an asbestos worker, and coming into contact with fibers brought home on his/her body, clothing, etc. Methods Law firms throughout the US known for their pursuit of asbestos claims were polled for mesothelioma claims brought on behalf of family members of identifiable asbestos-exposed workers. Cases with any occupational, environmental, or other possible exposure were not included. Results This study reports 32 household-exposure mesothelioma cases, diagnosed since 1990. Relationships were wife (15), daughter (11), son (3), sister-in law (1), niece (1), and boarder (1). Occupations of the workers included shipyard (13), insulator (7), and other (12). Of the 27pleural cases, 13 were epithelial, 5fibrous, 3 biphasic, and 6 not specified; ofthe 5 peritoneal cases, 4 were epithelial and 1 fibrous. Latency was greater than 40 years in 27 cases; 6 cases were 40--49 years of age and 17 were 60 or older. Conclusions Recordsfrom law firms were a useful source of information. Mesothelioma resulting from household exposure is a continuing problem. It is more likely to present in the elderly, after latencies of >40 years. Am. J. Ind. Med. 47:458-462, 2005. 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc. KEY WORDS: mesothelioma; household exposure; family members; asbestosexposed workers INTRODUCTION The risk of mesothelioma in the United States from inhalation of asbestos fibers remains high even as new use of asbestos has largely ceased. This is attributable to the long NewYork Medical College,Valhalla, NewYork and Saint Vincent Catholic Medical Center of NewYork-Brooklyn-Queens Division, NewYork Correspondence to: Albert Miller, Research Professor, Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, Queens College of the City University of NewYork, 163-03 Horace Harding Ex pressway, Flushing, NY 11365. E-mail: almiller@svcmcny.org Accepted 1 March 2005 DOI 10.1002/ajim.20167. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) latency for this disease, the wide presence of asbestos in place in buildings and equipment, and the potential for this malignancy to be induced by relatively low levels of exposure. One such exposure, recognized since 1965 [Newhouse and Thompson, 1965] is asbestos brought home to family members on the hair, clothing and personal effects of asbestos workers. Review of the literature on this exposure is difficult. Many of the descriptions are of single or of a few cases; a report of the same four cases appeared in the literature a second time [Joubert et al., 1991] 24 years after the first [Anderson et al., 1976]. Family exposures are com bined with building exposures (asbestos present in offices or schools) or environmental exposures as ``non-occupational'' exposures [Konetzke et al., 1990; Iscovich et al., 1999; 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Mesothelioma in Household Members 459 Magnani et al., 2000]. Many cases described as family members had their own, sometimes less recognized expo sures [Risberg et al., 1980; Lynch et al., 1985; Hammar et al., 1989; Dawson et al., 1992; Bianchi et al., 1993; Ascoli et al., 1998; Hiyama et al., 1998]. The concern of other reports of family cases was with a possible genetic cause, looking at mesothelioma in occupationally exposed blood relatives [Risberg et al., 1980; Martensson et al., 1984; Krousel et al., 1986] who may have lived in the same household [Hammar et al., 1989]. This report of 32 cases of mesothelioma since 1990, attributable only to asbestos brought home by another resident of the household, demonstrates the continuing nature of the problem in the United States. It utilizes an under appreciated data source, the files of law firms throughout the United States which are active in the pursuit of asbestos-related claims. METHODS Law firms throughout the United States known for their pursuit of asbestos-disease claims were polled on three occasions over 5 years for mesothelioma claims brought on behalf of family members of identifiable asbestos-exposed workers. Of 25 firms, 15 submitted demographic and exposure information, and medical records on such clai mants. Cases with any occupational, environmental (e.g., wives living in the same community as their Manville, NJ asbestos factory worker husbands), building (other than the dwelling shared with the exposed worker), or other possible exposure (e.g., smokers of Kent cigarettes, whose filters contained crocidolite asbestos) were not included. Cases from nine firms met criteria, including onset after 1990. The diagnosis of mesothelioma was based on the pathology report, confirmed by immunohistochemical staining in 29, autopsy in 2, and surgery in the remaining case. Exposure information from testimony, depositions and employment records and medical data were reviewed. Latency was estimated from year of first exposure until onset of symptoms (or of diagnosis if the former was not available). Differences in latency between wives and offspring were assessed by pooled and Saterthwaite t-Tests. In the final analysis, many of the firms had gone out of existence, split and/or merged. It was not possible to obtain a total member of mesothelioma cases from them, let alone the outcomes. RESULTS From the files of nine plaintiff law firms throughout the United States, 32 cases of mesothelioma were analyzed who had no occupational, environmental, or other exposure to asbestos than as a household member of a worker with a clear occupational exposure. Information on demographics, diag nosis, and exposure are provided in Table I. Patients are ordered by date of onset of symptoms (or of diagnosis if the onset of symptoms is unclear). Age at first exposure was <10 years in 13, 10-19 years in 5,20-29 years in 9, 30-39 years in 2, and unavailable in 3. Mean latency was 49.0 10.7 year. Latency was skewed towards greater length consistent with the requirement that the disease be manifest no earlier than 1990; 20-29 years in 2, 30-39 years in 2,40-49 years in 12, >50 years in 15, and unavailable in 1. Latency for offspring was slightly longer than for wives, 52.9 versus 45.4 years, a difference which approached significance (0.07). Mean age at presentation was 62.3 11.7 year; 17 cases were age 60 or greater. All patients lived in the same household as the exposed worker(s). In the three cases of dual relationship (daughter and sister, daughter and wife, daughter and wife), the earlier exposure is counted. Relationships were: wives (15), daughters (11) (one stepdaughter), sons (3) (one stepson), sister-in-law (1), niece (1), and boarder (1), this last being a woman who lived in a boarding house with several shipyard workers from age 20 to 28. Occupations of the worker who lived with the present cases were: shipyard (13), insulator (other than shipyard) (7), railroad (2), manufacture of asbestos materials (2), boiler maker (2), steel mill (2), refinery (1), pipe fitter (1), refractory bricklayer (1), and construction (1). Histologic classification of the 32 cases is typical of mesothelioma in general: 27 pleural (13 epithelial, 5 fibrous, 3 biphasic, and 6 not specified) and 5 peritoneal (4 epithelial, 1 fibrous). Among the 29 female cases, 24 were pleural and 5 peritoneal; all 3 male cases were pleural. Diagnosis was confirmed by immunohistochemical reactions in 29 and was based on multiple specimens reviewed by pathologists in different institutions in the remaining three. Although information about other asbestos-related disease was incomplete, pleural plaques were present in at least 10 household mesothelioma cases, 4 of whom also had asbestosis. DISCUSSION Inhalation of asbestos fibers is the predominant cause of mesothelioma. The majority of cases result from occupa tional exposures of the patient, not infrequently far removed in time and memory. Mesothelioma resulting from household exposure to asbestos brought home on the hair, clothing, and effects of workers has been recognized since the report of Newhouse and Thompson [1965] which included seven wives and two sisters of asbestos workers among 83 cases of mesothelioma dating back to 1917. Anderson and coworkers reported four cases of mesothelioma attributable to house hold exposure in 1976 and reviewed the literature totaling 37 cases [Anderson et al., 1976]. Most reports have been of single or a small number of cases [Huncharek, 1986; Maltoni TABLE I. Demographics, Histology, Chronology, and Exposures of Household Member MesotheliomaCases 1990-2004 BM, boilermaker; DOB, date of birth; Dx, diagnosis; Hist, histologic diagnosis; INS, insulator; MF, manufacture asbestos product; PE, peritoneal; PF, pipe fitter; PL, pleural; Refr., refractory; RR, railroad; Sx, symptoms; SY, shipyard. < Ol O O) E^ <t O O O O h- CO Z CM CO (M (M T- O O LO CO cm co o o r-- r-- c\j c\j _ o co co r-- r-- <t lc CD CD CD CD ^ CD ocom ^ n lc in ^ lo S CD CD CD CD $D CD O LO LO _ CD O CO _ LO CO O LO LO NCO'tLOCDCDNCO _ CM ^-COLOh~-<.COCOCO<.h~-COCO^-^- NCO';tCOsl-LO'^N<CD CDCDOOZCDOCDZCDfflCDCDO CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD^CD CD S N S . sC\,J C\J wCO CDCDCDCD^CDCDCD LO ^ 2 CD 2 CD LO CXD LO _LOCMCMCMCM^-LOjrjrOOjrCOCM LO <LO^CO'C^LOCOJJCO^^LOCO CD CD CD ZCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD ^^Q, c>o- c>o- c>o- c>o- >- CO CO CD m ^ CD -Q cc cc >->->CO CO CO ^m w ^^ 00 = Al ^< ^<< CM CO CM ^^ A <CM<>~*<C\J<C<C^<C<C A Al 2s s2 csj XT CO CD CD CD CD Cl CM CO LC LO CO r O) ro o) oi cd o CD CD CD CD CD r-- r-< < CD < CD < CD CD CD CD <CD<C}J<<<< OOO CM CM CM CM ^ CO CO CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD MCO^'t'tl'LOLOCOCDNCO CD2S?$CDCDCDCDCDCD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD O O O O r- w CM CM W CM CM CM O CO CD O CD t-- LO LO Z CO CO CO ^ N CL CL CL LU LU LU Ai __I LU CL CL CL o_ o_ o_ o_ --I CL CL --I CO O N CO CM <30 CD CD CM CM CO TZ CO CD CO CO LO TA O CO i-- i-- CM r\j ro CD ^ CD CD ^ ^ 'ht~h- ^LO Oco CcOo C-sDf Tn7 ^T7 CD CD CD CD CD 2 OCD^LO^CDCD^ONCM ^J-COCOt-- CO-^-CMCMCMLOCO CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD cn ^ CD CD CD 4: 4: </> i 1 & QQ LO CO f^- CO CD o CMCO^LOCDh-COCDO 460 Mesothelioma in Household Members 461 et al., 1995; Schneider et al., 1996]. Two series report more than eight cases. Leigh et al. [2002] list 4,838 cases from the Australian Mesothelioma Register 1986-2000 of whom 42 ``lived with/washed clothes [of an] asbestos/products worker'' and 29 ``lived in [an] asbestos [containing] dwell ing;'' no information on gender, age, relationship, etc. is provided. Roggli et al. [1997] reported that 33 of 59 female mesothelioma cases with an available exposure history were family contact only. Calendar years of exposure, onset of symptoms, or diagnosis were not provided, so that the number of cases since 1990 cannot be determined. These 59 cases were among 770 reviewed by the senior author, an expert pathologist to whom histologic materials are sent for review by other pathologists and by attorneys. The present series is similar to that of Roggli et al. in that both comprise cases from throughout the United States, many or all of which came to legal attention. The 33 household exposure cases in the Roggli series were similar to the present series in the distribution of peritoneal versus pleural cases (4 vs. 29), age, frequency of pleural plaques, (9), distribution of family relationships (22 wives, 6 daughters, 2 mothers, and 6 mul tiple), and occupation of household contact (10 insulators, 6 shipyard workers, 4 pipe fitters/steam fitters, 2 oil refinery, 7 miscellaneous, and 7 not available. (Family relationships and occupations of these household contacts total 36 since 3 cases had their own occupational exposures). The identification of household exposure as the mechanism for family mesothelioma has been complicated by reporting family cases with their own occupational [Bianchi et al., 1993; Hiyama et al., 1998] or other nonoccupational exposures such as neighborhood proximity to an industrial source, asbestos present in buildings of employment, or asbestos in cigarette filters. Family cases resulting from household exposure have been confounded with possible genetic predisposition to mesothelioma report ed in consanguineous family members who have been occupationally exposed [Risberg et al., 1980.; Martensson et al., 1984; Lynch et al., 1985; Krousel et al., 1986; Hammar et al., 1989]. Similar to wives, daughters, and boarders, household pets are at risk from asbestos brought home by exposed workers. An asbestos related occupation of a household member was associated with mesothelioma in dogs diag nosed with mesothelioma at the Veterinary Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania [Glickman et al., 1983]. Wives predominated in the present and in Roggli's series. Anderson reported a far higher frequency of benign radiographic abnormalities in wives (48%) compared with daughters (21%), despite similar durations of exposure [Anderson et al., 1979]. This is consistent with a greater burden of asbestos in wives. Household exposure has been suggested as the source for mesothelioma presenting at an earlier age. This was identified in 5 of 10 cases of mesothelioma presenting in patients <40 years of age at one medical center [Kane et al., 1990]. None of our patients presented <40 years of age; only 6 cases presented in the age decade 40-49 (4 offspring, 2 wives). That more than half the cases were 60 years of age or greater demonstrates that household exposure should not be ruled out when mesothelioma is detected in an older patient. Although household exposure is generally thought to be low level, and is often classified with other low level exposures (building, neighborhood), fiber content of lung tissue from such exposure was found to be similar to that of shipyard and most asbestos-exposed trades other than insulators, and far greater than that of building occupants [Roggli and Longo, 1991]. In contrast to men, in whom 90% of mesotheliomas are attributable to asbestos and 90% are pleural [Spirtas et al., 1986], only 20% of mesotheliomas in women are said to be attributable to asbestos and two-thirds are pleural [Spirtas et al., 1994]. The higher proportion (83%) of pleural to peritoneal mesotheliomas in the present series tends to confirm asbestos as the source. The incidence of mesothelioma in the United States is likely declining since the early 1990s, attributable to the decreased use of asbestos [Weill et al., 2004]. Nevertheless, that these 32 (and undoubtedly other) cases of mesothelioma caused by household contact with asbestos have come to legal attention since 1990 confirms the ongoing risk of this exposure. This is consistent with the persistence of asbestos in the homes of contacts, the greater intensity of this exposure than is generally recognized, and the very long latency for mesothelioma. The predominance of women in these house hold contact cases suggests that such exposure may have taken place in the large percentage of women whose mesotheliomas have not been attributed to asbestos (see above). REFERENCES Anderson HA, Lilis R, Daum SM, Fischbein AS, Selikoff IJ. 1976. Household contact asbestos neoplastic risk. Ann NYAcad Sci 271:311 -- 323. Anderson HA, Lilis R, Daum SM, Selikoff IJ. 1979. Asbestosis among household contacts of asbestos factory workers. Ann NY Acad Sci 330:387-399. Ascoli V, Scalzo CC, Bruno C, Facciolo F, Lopergolo M, Granone P, Nardi F. 1998. Familial pleural malignant mesothelioma: Clustering in three sisters and one cousin. Cancer Lett 130:203--207. Bianchi C, Brollo A, Zuch C. 1993. Asbestos-related familial mesothelioma. Eur J Cancer Prev 2:247--250. Dawson A, Gibbs A, Browne K, Pooley F, Griffiths M. 1992. Familial mesothelioma. Details of 17 cases with histopathologic findings and mineral analysis. Cancer 70:1183 -- 1187. Epler GR, Fitz-Gerald MX, Gaensler EA, Carrington CB. 1980. Asbestos-related disease from household exposure. Respiration 39: 229--240. Glickman LT, Domanski LM, Maguire TG, Dubielzig RR, Churg A. 1983. Mesothelioma in pet dogs associated with exposure of their owners to asbestos. Environ Res 32:305--313. 462 Miller Hammar SP, Bockus D, Remington F, Freidman S, LaZerte G. 1989. Familial mesothelioma: A report of two families. Hum Pathol 20: 107-112. Hiyama J, Marukawa M, Shiota Y, Ono T, Imai S, Motohiro K, Aoki J, Sasaki N, Taniyama K, Mashiba H. 1998. Two familial mesothelioma cases with high concentration of soluble cytokeratin 19 fragment in pleural fluid. Intern Med 37:407-410. Huncharek M. 1986. Asbestos-related mesothelioma risk among railroad workers. Am Rev Respir Dis 134:983-984. Iscovich J, Fischbein A, Witt-Kushner J, Ginsberg G, Richter E, TulchinskyT. 1999. Malignant mesothelioma in Israel, 1961-1992. Int J Occup Environ Health 5:157-163. JoubertL, Seidman H, Selikoff IJ. 1991. Mortality experience of family contacts of asbestos factory workers. Ann NY Acad Sci 643:416-418. Kane MJ, Chahinian AP, Holland JF. 1990. Malignant mesothelioma in young adults. Cancer 65:1449-1455. Konetzke GW, Beck B, Mehnert WH. 1990. Remarks on occupational and non-occupational effects of asbestos (in German). Pneumologie 44:858-861. Krousel T, Garcas N, Rothschild H. 1986. Familial clustering of mesothelioma: A report on three affected persons in one family. Am J Prev Med 2:186-188. Leigh J, Davidson P, Hendrie L, Berry D. 2002. Malignant mesothe lioma in Australia, 1945-2000. Am J Ind Med 41:188-201. Lynch HT, Katz D, Markvicka SE. 1985. Familial mesothelioma: Review and family study. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 15:25-35. Magnani C, Agudo A, Gonzalez CA, Andrion A, Calleja A, Chellini E, Dalmasso P, Escolar A, Hernandez S, Ivaldi C, Mirabelli D, Ramirez J, Turuguet D, Usel M, Terracini B. 2000. Multicentric study of malignant pleural mesothelioma and non-occupational exposure to asbestos. Br J Cancer 83:104-111. Maltoni C, Pinto C, Valenti D, Carnuccio R, Amaducci E, Minardi F. 1995. Mesotheliomas following exposure to asbestos in sugar refineries. Med Lav 86:478-483. Martensson G, Larsson S, Zettergren L. 1984. Malignant mesothelioma in two pairs of siblings: Is there a hereditary predisposing factor? Eur J Respir Dis 65:179-184. Newhouse ML, Thompson H. 1965. Mesothelioma of pleura and peritoneum following exposure to asbestos in the London area. Br J Ind Med 22:261-269. Risberg B, Nickels J, Wagermark J. 1980. Familial clustering of malignant mesothelioma. Cancer 45:2422-2427. Roggli VL, Longo WE. 1991. Mineral fiber content of lung tissue in patients with environmental exposures: Household contacts vs. building occupants. Ann NY Acad Sci 643:511-518. Roggli VL, Oury TD, Moffatt EJ. 1997. Malignant mesothelioma in women. Anat Pathol 2:147 -163. Schneider J, Straif K, Woitowitz HJ. 1996. Pleural mesothelioma and household exposure. Rev Environ Health 11:65-70. Spirtas R, Beebe GW, Connelly RR, Wright WE, Peters JM, Sherwin RP, Henderson BE, Stark A, Koroasznay BM, Davis JNP, Vianna NJ, KeehuRJ, OrteqaLG, HochholzerL, Wagner JC. 1986. Recent trends in mesothelioma incidence in the United States. Am J Ind Med 9:397-407. Spirtas R, Heineman EF, Bernstein L, 1994. Malignant mesothelioma: Attributable risk of asbestos exposure. Occup Environ Med 51:804 811. Weill H, Hughes JM, Churg AM. 2004. Changing trends in U.S. mesothelioma incidence. Occup Environ Med 61:438-441.