Document OeN7vRJD626v1jne6Za8LeBw
The Clinical Diagnosis of Asbestosis in This Century Requires More Than a Chest Radiograph*
Hubert it Boss, MD, TOP
Asbestosiscamcjsmwrigsrifiemstimpairmentsad<*adcalb. Itbd* aweB-rseogrfsed riskfactor ffe&tlmiieimlanpeai oftog esjaesuvHswrer, ubestosb It usnaHj diagnosed ondmletdgrounds wi(bout the afil ofpathology* Mossy pbyifcifflss and aKseanJumi Ufcm that fa suhesteisspused - EodtvUe^wi&o^^mlelatep^dMftCBi&og^o^lofiadBiiecttittiateooinpaliUe^MoAMtotlt oxo niffideat tor (be dagposb, lia order to detennhw whether Afa sggim&tk Is seasonable, the positive pwsdleH** nine of(he dberi: Mdfoaaph far (ho dhgM^ ofpafadogb asbestos** matt bo detestabied. IMi requires tufemssM* dboat (he pcevalettee ofasbestosis, rad to sensitivity of (Ind^^dkignph lefapoSog asbestosis b determined boat a iUeretaro andptoflbe
pressteaee ofa&estosto smmsg ptssest-day cohorts*, sash * construction wsAew and petrochemkal washers, Isassessed based oa the siclalire (Ah oftogcancerIs patients wMt jutestosls ad lbs overall rofaStre sUtoflungeaneertofacto aecnfartondfyadbethu-e^cisedeiihaite.Vu retails fadfesto aposKiva predletEre valoefor aboentul dost mdlogregh Bm&tga atone to bo significantly < SW6. therefore, lbs dsett radiograph it inadequate as thereto (faded too! to be nsedtodlajpooe Mbestosbfafan eahortt.jBhwewar, when nfa and a lewdiffusing eaguKltyof fa"PW** ihptasb of
Keywords mbes&K; sstatosix; sfaat wfeyqib; djigfflgfa; 4iBastog opatity, iung emon; rales
lUmtafaeti Daco dfiastag opacity Of 8ie bog ibr aiW rnoaffidde; HBC? = WgEa-rariuiSm computed teirogiq&ys UX> m USssa^lomuSxxa Qqpolis&m
Asbestosis it a farm of dUBae fnteratiHal gmlmowuy fibrosis. I( b caused by die Inhalation of
die diest radiograph b die most important tod in diagnosis when pathology spedmens are not avail-
excessive amounts ofafestas fibers that are within aUa, Many ^ysHans have lk eondudral that the
OKteia she and aerodynamic shape targes. It ran ftndlUE&fadisstradiogmBlHMinpalihlewithasljeS"
cause sigclfieantlrmiainneat, craven death, and Is a teas fa a pattest with previous asbestos opotuos is
weft-mougnised risk factor for the development of
causer ofthe lung. However, fcaqueody a diagnosis assodatedi rids ofmodbiffifyand moitali^r. Fbrtber-
must be made in a gartfcstlarperson without the aid more, manymifaiido^e strides have abo useddhe
of pathology, that fa, asbestosis roust often be finding ofa chest radiographcompatible with stsbes-
diagnosed oa dinted grounds, the American tho- tosis as a surrogate for asbestosis. In shoit, many
tadc Society, in its 108$ jsosi&tn paper on the people dunk that the presents of a olUIy abnomd
diagnosis ofnomrmllgnant (meases related to asbes chest ladsojpaph finding is oampafAle with aAesto*
tos,*1 reviewed, In a gened! way, die factors to sis (InteraaHonal Labor Orgmizatioa [HO] grade,
consider when trying to (teams asbestosis dini- I/O or ML)1 in asbestoneaqposed ladMAials is, more
csly. fas sunuuasypamgraii, it suggested tka, la likdy dian sot, fadladve of pdhdogic asbestosis.
individuals with appropriate exposure and latency. that Is, in a^estos-eped htdMduals wBb ade
quate esjxwKe and latewy a died nufiognpbic
*Fna die Bqtor QaBega of Mssfetae; Hbtuta, IX,
MsMsatot rearedAugust SO. SOtoj mHoa mold! Novem berlife
BcprontdisnrffttsartWe Bjw<oiwtthoat mitten nenalsitaa Bom tbs Junutem CcUtgp at (fast ftgddau ?estli:
nadteg of I3LO grade 1/0 or 1/1 has a poiive
lua oft test, & b necessaiy to detemnine the prenatenoe
. iteSS y. Boss. S(B.FCCP. SSS6Rmain. ofthe disease in the ppptdatiaaat ride, as wdl ns the
I Hiwstet, TX TTS33; nxmfea!!.taohi
sensitivity and spedSdty of the test In thbastid%
1120 QpMomaUpoSiKto
HWBUI0010272
*
which is bated on on imohris of tin' htcratiuv. tin'
prevalence of pathologic nsbestosis among presentday Nestis American cohosts in the eoistroction and petrodjeisteai industries, the members of which save previaasiy boss exceed to asbestos, ears be
ssdtonajihin
may fitarfie diseases such as esbestngb ihiam be
rtaated. IWog these wtoam, toe gasititw pre-
> valae of die he#t tadtogngdt for dtegnirdug
pewAigh* i^eir byp
The
AswAlitel}eriglfi(jtIj<SO%se^bdMl-
nab in tomeetarts. fcaSm, toe deal radio.
gragto should net be mod m toe sdieiiii^iaostio tool as It wffl be wrong mere often tom It wfi. be rigjht
MoBxaixrr Rtsc Ftaou Urns Cmoth m Vjubsam Assasos-Emtsm Cohobxs
. Occupational atpeage to snbestos hum mx^afedito3tfeatofgrpaaiaaycBoeroftoel However foe d oftoe risk varies quito seat! depending on the cohort and tbe date f toe i
heavier esposme). Fbr eaifb to s stedy of fesu-
latow pitoteM in 1979, lung wwwr martidily ns Increased turn than four times compared to cooing subjects, whereas In a study* ofshipyard wethers in Hawaii, the biddenee of tag cancer was only 40% greater offleng warfew with at least 15 yeses of asbestos esposwe wwqpaiod to control subjects. A. 1888 meta-mrijBls levlswnd 69 asbestoo-ejeeed oacapatttoul eobwts.* these shorts consisted of tototfiisalswhoofien were fcwohsed to toe rsinfegor nsssms&tota of asbestos pnducti ear were mem ber of heady esposed group*. sodh as shipyard wastes er towdato. the awto-steidad mww%
ratio increase for hntg cancer. eenriderfeg latency,
was 63. However, stages ofother cohorts *to as petrototoutedwmbei^aadstealwmtes^itotoam-
ple. often bare found no Increase to lung eanoer, ftBSen%. the majority ofwodbam who haw been
oncnpatfonally esposed to asbestos are not these in toe primary asbestos fedastrfes, ritdb as solafcg or toe saamafootore of mbestos-oontaipStig prodacts, in* are wotoei# who used these nrodads,* Ttole 1 Jste toe stesSty risk ratios for Jang caaoar deaths among eonsfanetton wa&m and petadhemtel wrlCTfalfsstoiteicstalxfedtesMedIlse
search of large cohorts pMtsbsd rises 1980.**-**
V^Sr-tha&BemlmigemeerMmtVet^S&^efSeeiteBqmt&toMmlmi*
flsd^ftiettr m&sm storms so>m (times BsbhnctaMBto Me elMm
Qm>a<mnr
Pwrfflkin 08es$nK&&la&Bfey ftmtesritaMura MMCUpBtel C&fdbe^smfara
eagfayan h a. rUdkbifeewylawaindiiwl wJtpti^
Mate, Ns. nm am
Dei&r,lfo. sum ims arm 8,199 W
Xtt^Oanr DeaMuHo.
' iris a,m m
m
im
ut lto m at n 84
Bud et tram StaaSRaSg-
Staea^mm SKmtUWfflW Dcned etrfWim wB$*&wn
Efe|j a pqa>Bi&esiBis
CbBESAKHOO SQfi WUAUHS wodsii
Orion rfasiywsjtws
swsr
4OT4 1SJM IStot US59 sm
SSI use ijra m m sm
189 m m m m in
Rdeooa ei deatos
ffftimmifasag a^lWnll/ isw
tatfedsMSSOO StasetMriSO SterttfWSi
EfeteUri wwfag fawfceJ S3 &3Q2$QSii$&
(hkn gutf/ftss MwiifiwJiuy AfioBisuinBSBl
vodsu
*8)4BjttarfwS nasoStenlSg; BUB
tofa, MBs m&sti&lfssfe IM
,4*4%
3UKS mm
UUL44 um
am
vr
m im lte>
m
18J
to 139 139
Stafy'fypd nm Fm M sun sm
SMS SMS mm FMB SMS run nm SMR SUB SUB BIB nrn
mmuMiasmlaO
CMBBr/ia4/S/SiP1BM8ERira 2t
HWBUI0010273
j.
-
Them audit's Dud a rtmgr of about 0 to #)% increased riskoflung dinnerin these cohorts wist? tut average of about 10% over unerased central sub jects. However,# should be remembered thatnot aD of this increased ride ra*y before scisly to asbestos. Mta of foam studta mm stacreatrelM for smok ing or other potential eaichregera in foe vmApfees, wfids also.esitM lead to hesmtsed mortality fiwa Itmg cancer.
Btsc.oFdxntB Cmca Assocmzo With kmmtmm
Pathologic adhestosis Is associated with a sigdftoant increasein tag cancer ride. In one study, an appras&Bate fivafisld kw In tag capoer was found among an insulator cohort13 Later, autopsy studies*8 on ids groupoftang cancerpatients found that virtually taS had asbestos**. Hogta# and WeflF foundfoatto a cohort of-wofoewproducingasbestoscontaining cement sod pipe coveting fo with ratfiegrapifc evidence ofasbestosisfad a lungcancer sidclfawaartimtarti3afiistftfsotJil population, and Uddel aid McDosaUP* found a risk of asbestosis that was 35 ttaes that ofcontrol subjects among Quebec asbestos wsnfaas who bad radtoapMc .evidence of adrestosb. In a study19 of peopie wo bad asbesfosta aud were H^oitcd to foe Ftakfo Rej^rttyctfOeeupstedlteares, there was an inetease of more than sfcfeM In foe Jnetdemse of lung cancer. Other state5 of people %dso ww "certified'to have asbestods by various entities also hue foatsd a madisd taneass in misyi^fom !s#g earner. A M90 study8* tf asbestosis pdteafcr found SBOVSBiSMtousfekofSA.
ate awodated'wfflt an increased xifo oflure cancer. For eomple, in a study** of people wltfi diffuse taterstitiafpalmoaasy fibrosis associated with sdere* derma, foe tong cancer risk was five times that of control subjects. Another i ~ ~ ~
TtoeaaidrtfoonengtanaoerfoallsassoditedvBfo
in^nda ex posure arnoual; intensity, dumtta, and host foehns. Tie degree of flbiorfsi, fiber type, and smaHng historyalso plya rignlBcant rbfa.8*3*
'Smnsmss of Asbestosis
He prevalence of pafodogb asbestosis has not been accurately detentad for asbestos-eiposed
list
uxirbfis. This wtmlci mpiinvlbr noniiiiulhai ufhmg tissue from a large number of randomly selected people, whkb is not feastble. Furthermore. the definition of asbestosis has to be detonated- Is it solely based on pathology or doss them haw to be mm physiologic dysfanete? FUrfomnare, what Is foeriilnimaIamotatfp*d3agtol<WMteyfoatls associated wfih an teereased ride of ta^ cancer? These issues have not been resolved. However, the ndateshlp between asbestosis and an increased tide of long cancer has been studied la some detail, as mt discussed in foe gueatas section. Usta fids hsASm, an estimate of foe jnevataoe of fob
fasbestosis w be obtained. Based on foe overall inngcaneerrifoi aswdlasm foe rtsb tatted to afoestosb and to asbestos
tWWd<hn in liMMKid rfdt nf Imng famwa-la foe
popukttca that is at dsh inn be obtained. Based on ha irtidks previously diet), foe ovorall increase in lungcarreerride swing wofoess rads as those in fits ooostaotton fodushy and nefaodbneiloid isfostoy fa about 16%. In **w/m as pravfamly s&cssmvS, file presence of adtifasc feitrot&kl pdnmay fitatio diseasesnfo as asbestos Isassoctoled'wfih aSJ-Wd to mom than skfbid Incxeased risk of Itmg raxstar over foat ofcenteol aubject*. Hsiag an ovesail rycof lung caimer of llf% and a tifo of hag oncer associated with asbestosis of400%, foeo, ftfoe rest of foe asbestoactfoaed populate were at no In creased long cancer tlsk, foot& B% of foe woifcrs wodd bam asbettods (40(Sf +100[1 -X| = 116, uadX*= 0.053). Whether asbestos e^osurainitsdf Is a cause of the increased bug cancer aisle or whether It Is fowt^i foe development ofafoestads Is a current subject of debate,8-5* If foe ride of developiagtag agmgzbk afoestos-esposedurates who do act bm asbestodi H gcoater fote foot for
of asfaestnds, foe number of asbestosis patients sunt be even lower fons in foe prestos catalation. For example, if foe lung cancer ride were 10% higher than normal for asbestos-egnsed per sons wlfooet afoestesfc foot sraurmimatfor S% of fits! espused popdate wosM ham ashastofo (400X + nop, - S3 = m, andx = 0.02). Ifthe xtfo of developing tag cancer among asbestosis patients wm>4fi0%ofunerasedcoaMnhjisds, foe prewdeace rfasters woiddbe lowerfoaafoat in foe previous example*. Stately, if mne of foe
than asbestos eaposme, sofo as a higherprevalence of smcldng, amoldog more, or emosore to ether potential casninogMag in foe wedqMWB, fi8 peevnknee of afoestosis would also be less. It is well-
HWBUI0010274
rmsgfiSmi that ..canalrurifeu Trarivn snrafcc mow than the general poputaBon.3 If. for example, the prevalence of smoker* in fees colsorts were 5% greater Ann fat the general poputatfon, If the fataearad risk ef hug easeer that was associated with OTotosg wan IWbM compared to that in semmoksn, and ifthe prevaknm afaraidmra in is general pnpulatfon were 30%, Ami, ntihing eaten, Mfoss popoferired fey Ambon,- the rabfee ride of tong cancer far fee grasp wetdd be J13. Therefore.
no >3%-aadftepiOTfenoedtaAefeifewmiMh6 sl%. TsMsg these fetes fob} snaomt, & season, site estimate offee preralratea ofafeestods in these types ofcohorts would he shout 1 to 5%.
SESsramaro Smancnr of ms Chest Badstocsasb or rm Diagnosis of Aebestosis
The feest radtopaBh has long bees osed as an impretaat tod in fee magMsis ofdH&se totesatM
ptffiasftatffilM^sdtosadtasrel>retosSs,&-
tensivedisease cm msdfylm
by
awdj-tatoed xadtofogfatorphysician. Ofsome,itis
neeessaty todate diseases that xadkdogjtea% can
IwOTfes&dwfthdffiMetotersiaialpsIamwffira-
ris, rads as eoqgrettve heart fidaxe tar tyoq&aagitte
mitSliftliiyHn mM. |fc
Aotdd he remembered that sfeestessiposedinefe vifeiabteiiotfeiaitefwmefereferaraofhfea^
h tosfitfal hog dkMffie.'fi." Ifdot&t retfsts and a patient at^5litem% symptoasBe, tbsue biopsy appro priate.
Us chrat radiograph is probtemalfe, however, sAca fayfag to dfagnose minimal or ndM disease. Is arsd%E^Uoisdiagefttst3dteinlnieKHtM luog maAlags {fe, a mfl4 Increase in small, tnegnbr clarifies [IL0 grade, M and 1/LJ) ade-
odicstasts ntnmtg mtvnl (Husomti'l. tkw was a 20fold difference in theprevalence ofparities finding^ (1L0 grade, & WO) between the extreme readers, and the average prevalence was %A%. Wekb et aH reviewed the interabsermr variation to chest radto*
among
AM were
mid by she qiafified rentes, dm nnntber feat were
read os Mm positive for asbestasis 0LO grade,
sa 1/0) varied bom M to 01%. lids problem, of
oonrae, rigalfigirfy affects senritMtyamjpotiik&y.
she Jodtadnal wi J^^Ptt^fe'reete Si% would
edte a very poor tearifetty of,
91
patfests {28%X Coaveisefy, M S4% were fee corn**
fiptn, fee tarihAtoal who diagnosed ft in 01% offee
people weald ashibltvaypoorspecificityeft si besi.
B 7B patients (12%),
"Wfi'iT.hff wtildy rVln"IK,l
among people so have never been reposed to
asbestos and mho do sot hove ary type re diffiise
Inteniliilal pafararoary fibmria. Kpstaln etaH* feaad
fa hospital stndy of SO cwecetfes admission
sbest ra&^qbs fed: were read osootfet^ to fee
188HO.mK U% offee radiographswere read as
no medicalr fee I
3,484 people who were oaliSely to have beret ex
posed to asbestos there was an 1L7% taddenoe of feelr feest radit^gpte hdng ead as hasiagahnorrad findtegt (DUO ende, sW). fe a litotme aaaljsh s joany rivdles peribnned fa fee Slutted States and Europe, vfeere xafeogrephs ware read according to fee JUKI ttO stated fee number at ndtogmpbt Are were read as bdng posUra for asbofeosb (IIO grade, te WO) amoog peo^e vfeo
had sot been reposed to asbestos varied Bom Oil to 1U%. A metsMuudyds* of fee prfeSfeed dMa yielded a popidatioa prevatenoe of &31 These
gr^Watedmtaae. aging, obesity, sntobng,presence ofCOH>, ww spasm to various sAer f
feymsijt cf wMg ekmtmsl has a m&et large interolmervervariation. far emomte, ia.e&e stedyd in vs&db S3 "B-readsH cerfi&ea ter the Katas! festitnte of Occupational Safety and Health mate* ated 105,023 feestiadtagraj&sfer As assessmentof
wtMdKsgmulB
terms Phmeomicoitecme Vmmtemrmms, thk Cm$r
feme Area previous discassions. rauomdfe .esfe mates of asfcestods prevalence among prasant-fey ramatedfanerpeirodjeBskislwmlros.sSwdlastfie rasste^r and typeefiSdty of A Asst rafiege^t diagnosteg sribestosla, can he mad& Rom Ats, As positive prodtefee vstee ofAe dsest rsdtegs^! can
CftT/t24/3rSBTOfflSS,SW 1
HWBUI0010275
'X 1
/
v-wwisw^
Ill- iilHnlm-tL Hh* provoking* of aria-studs In tilts at-risk population eoufel beesptwtal to fanbout 1 to
S%. b addition, from tbs previous dtaasta, at bast 5 to 10% of die time die chest radiograph fading maybe abnormal (UUO grade, fc UO)without
' presence ofasbestosb. Uta tepnesenta a ^ped__Etytfsppmtaafc!*' 00 to 95%. Etethssrooa% the romltiritycrfdiMtroills^i^is&rsdsgstoisbskwt
85 to80%. Hnsas these values,#e posiftpretobe value of a'posMwe`chest radfograph can be deter mined with die Mowing formula:
PPV
7ESTLZ1 V *#n* / \prao /
where J?FV b the positive predictive value, spec is spedftdtp, sens b sensittvitgr, and prevfe tfa prevaIsaeeiatfaat-ridcpopukfaa,
Udngaptevatance<&G%,atena&lyitpafBO%,and
i*rs. linin' with Immchitb anil airfhnv utistroctkiu au nt a higher fang cantor risk than on* comparable smokers without these fading*,1 In otherwords, the inlldh' abnormal chest radiograph tends to select people who am at higher ride lor bag cancer even ht^ controlled ibr smoking, Therefore, many peo ple with mSdfyahsoamlAstt^!off^t fie, SJO grads, MJ and 1/1) may have an increased risk of hug cancer but not because of asbestos or even became rf&fettaris. This adds caaltMton to state that attempt to assess the bug cancer ride from asbestosb thatfas been AagBOsedsab^on Aefasb ofa cfast ladbfpniib.
fa ooaebsion, tricking die dbsst vaifagnpb for the detoetton of asbestosb rnm&g esberim-roptwed raktrts sttdi as eonstrucHm and re&nerv wodoers fas too low a bnerooridve rate to be relied On as the sofa AagmsHo tool In obtaining a rsasonaUp aocurate diagiMis.
i dbest radiograph dmieCfiLO grades, 1/0 mid M)b about40%, Ifthepreralenoe0 fadseriasb b 3%, tbs peeiiise pre&ctive vdu of the chest
i Is onlp 28%, It should be man tle cohorts with legs aroosura toasbestos,
prevalence ofnsbesifafe wffl to even fewer, and roS&psetawM&^vsIsaefiaalssoOTalihest radfagrafbwflfafco botower. On die otherband, for
cohorts with y^jpjwvdeneftofasbestosb, S a* die Insulates studied bp SeUWf and cowriters, a rstdtegragA with art HQ loading of 1/0 or 1/1 may faro a nosBtro pradtsthw vake >SQ%. Howsror, odi^gaestms^thas&ssc&dMesildetsmsi-
aml of asbestos!* Ha, most present-dap asbestoseaposed cohosts stall os consttitctton or xdBaeqr workers b inaccurate at best, with weB over halfthis
people grobsHp not aciniillp faring die disease, Ftarmemos^adiaffiofaofffisbestebiBadessleb'
on tfa basts of a aapuafjr dmsmwl chest radiograph may baw (drone ooosegnenoes. FafienU may be labeled with apotentbSyseriont disease that theydo not faro, whim leads to sameees^stq'concern.these people dso may ascribe symptoms to this .incorrect dbgwsls and row not seek medical assistance far potentially beatdde problems msek m OQPD. asthma, or fedhaaria'faari disease.-
He jb0i% abnormal chest radiograph also adds oBftsriea to the m&sOmAg of asbestos-ra&ted diseases. It Is weffl-Kwgisfeed that smokers have a h%hertaSdeac8ofdtK3tliogran!iashowisgixiH increases Inlung Barili^i or so-called dirty fengt.*'
Tib, at least ia part, molts ton the presence of chronic broncbftb and 009*0. These are the people who are at highest ride fbr lung cancer, not only
OtsmbsMsmaTBcam^mt s H^h-wactotoa CTCBBCIJscaasoflfaithestaic better than thest ndtogo^dis &r jObe'evahra&n of asbestoris. Ibnraie xm searifiro and more ^pedfio. However HRCTaoamdso fan rotes pafeoiake asbestos?, IMhemore, efataiglchanges on BRCT scans are jscsspedflo end often do not indicate fibroSs.** Even Sf die smrfKwtp and snedftcSp jfnatieasidjag%, ^patMmpm&&mYwm6m HBCT$eanala&ewcrodberadpSO%ifi}ieprevalenee of asbestosis wens S%, and 37% If die preva lence wens 3%. Ahhoagh HBCT SMnaing bolds somepiontfi^ adequate In&naatte it notyet avail'able to detenorine fts posiBva prefieftre vabe In die . dfafflofa of asbestosfe-
Usetowbss oFjmHisismf, Imysicm. ExwmunoH. and Other Phtsiolocic Tests
in Diagnosing Askbstosis
fa tte peritSon statement regarding noamalignatit disease rdfaed to asbestos1 die American Jbmec&s Sodbto also menttonedIhst ft is iimmrtast to obtsin a good eeeunatfenail hbtn^ and At rales, lestrieKoa, and a tfiHbsiag pat% oftfw fang fer carbon
monoride (nw) m the limit: of boots! are of
Tiaidag a gxsd occnpaHopal hbtorp is iu^ortant because tt feete to ptes die patient in certain risk groups. Bp obtaining an adequate work fariorp, a
1124
HWBUI0010276
ivcuwiiibk' MtlmuU' T king am rtels and. tlnw* fore, a prwak'sux'ftowtosis for flwt pctsou ran lx obtained from epidemiologic studies of similar co horts.
Bob*
tSwacteistta natesmraddss of"Velcro" or"dr/1 quality toe been fwmd tn appradmalely 70 to 90% _ rfpatotsw&patWo^edffitofotsssHMMpBlTOe-' nary fttrods disease* au3t ftS8rbBtoste.Ejslaret d.<* smfytetgpa$&e \rtdi Interstitial lung disease, even tibia*with relatively normal chert ndifaignqiii find ing, found (ales tat 71% of cases. T^afoen et P* found sate in 84% ofpeopls wtalb dbffnse interstitial pulmonary fibrosis. Bourns et df found sales ta 85% of Ills groap of pstieats add! fibrosing atosfitis associated wldt Atomic sderais. Biorater et aF* found sties In 80% of duds group of patients with Idiopathic pubnonsuy fibrosis, and Bantil et r? found xafos in 87% of patients. Murphy and Sor~ eases#* found nibs tat 83% of pipe Cwerm whb 95%^dftl>e asbestos wedw* wfih (barnl chest
radfogynohic findingi that they studied. Etarthermtm, me$areaneadyfindingarad rafoora wopresent Ibe&ie the chest JwScigQqAlMeemes rigulftfuntk atroormaL1**' Bales are not wade? volition ana, wto found bjr a weD-trained phyrfnbn. sue quite spedSc.** It to dbtincdy ancomman to toe pffiu-
M&tstcttoH
With sljpiffirant diffusa interstitial jadtamaaiy fi brosis, the bags sbrfoh, leading to reduced vital capacity sad long volumes, such as total ham capac ity(restriction). However, thenormal range torthese parameters to quite large, so small changes may not
lx* dfUTtwl ou crass-R'ctUttuii testing, FuriUmwiv. the vital enwity test is volunbuy; tmd results eats far abnormal due to effort or undentandtag. Also, many other (mfdknl disorder* other don diffuse intoretitfei pulmonary fibrosto lead to restriction. Therefore, although the flnrKng of restriction on pulmonary function tetfng is sesn in approximate^ SB to 80%
teases, auchnambBstosb, Bis too aaaspedflctohe used as a solo diagnostic tool and Is relatively insamUve for die detection of mild fibioris.
BWO
The OldO test, however, is very sensitive for the presence of dUfose Interstitial pulmonary fibrosis. This is became this disorder fist and most extenrindy affects the smallest airways, alveolar ducts, ahem, and mtoodnailatiop where gps eufonme occurs, The disease abets dm anatomy so that the matchingofvestiktiwwith puktonary tdood fowls less ia optimal. `die ovemD result b veattem-
Itfa.'wMdr&eDMOtesttoemabWysendtom KS8sg.AMiOTgbttls sotIri^i^apedmomidmay facto inay lead to ft being low, ft aotmd diffijsSag ?a^^ralogfo dSfifotoWtistitial fihmtie^^^
ndh at afo^ods. In foot, tibe Dm b reduced far 7M6 to > 89% of ernes.
In ThUe 2 0te findii^ fiom seven! stnfito se> gudtag mles and Du ia paScets vrffo diffijss teterstaMpuhttesary fibrosis are levtewed*8M can be seen that reles and reduced Duo are vesy frequently seen in patients wid> diffose hitersHtbl pdmoaajy fihrotie Ssesses, sndb as sribetiwis. Ea toct. some stadias have found them mare sensitive than titoi: ixannfag,88 and Martowitz et d8* &and that aboonnal findings of pidmimaiy fonetton teste
Table SMbOter
Epk*Stamm
TJ&pzmiAtgWm
BJoaboraiMSSS
Dsm*&>nm
atadrtsPWSSl Xb^etamW.
BstUBttdnzKK
fih SMtetqfMMa*TOh foteMUbl ftdmanoryBBmk*
Mesb^Ho. CUttfeg* toW* IdMVG.( u 83
VttSmUDt
438
Tit St
m
108 04
to
m?QmtwPm&
m
a 80
13
mmmsm
Atixstoti tWWqpgf^mwaOTPi ttPtewtotetiatf)
39 t SS 74
St 03 OS BS
Most 70-75 SI
71 B0-8S BO-K 8045 8045
OT
URtm^dpaemnnsIt. mMtfmmmzieig
CHESrr 124/3/6S>m(BSt,Sm 1K5
HWBUI0010277
./i.
........
..% * * V*
.% ^tfsy
y-. ^ ts
i
mid plivskul rxaiitfnatkxu stgiiHtemitiy raised far rtA of thing ofasbestmts in a cohort ofinsuteors,
THE CUNtCM* DIAGNOSIS OF AgBSSXOStS
be used faorder to diagnose afaestasis wiihfa a
reasonable^ degree- .of sertsliiSy without too sway
Cdafrfotritiwe ffiagosees or too many fabemegaiive
diagnoses when
tale if not ssaMds? Hie
casea.^F^^OTioiB,
often
present in patients wBfi afaestosis.18 Bales occur in apprmlmataly 70 fa 80% of eases, and a reduced Dlco occurs in about 00 to 00% of eases. Convwesdy, many chest radiographs will bo Interpreted
as inftlb(dcmnd(IIO gwe, Maud 1/1} bat wffl natbsdaatoMtetosisordifeieWestttfalimlmo.
iatcatitisl pahnoamyf%resStut whs from mucus fa dm efrwajis, congestfei heart fcftare, or even ndtd basilar atofafflaaft oocxstonally can be
eonfbsedwilii die rsfaofAbrosfa.TheDlcomaybe reduced secwdaiy to technical facta ear other medical prehlams aud is by so means upedfic far diffuse fataratWd pubmaaiy fibrosis. Too goal fa isms of dUcal dbpiodiii to find whether these testa together fame a hteheoongh specificity with adequate ceasShfijTm mat fas psstfiv predtettve
value whenall these testresultssre abnormalwill be
too mmypeopfe who hare the disease.
Tbe
estimated. For chest m&gyajfa, die sensHMiy & gpprmtaieljr8096,Mo tS sgedfldtyIsSO to85%
(therefore, 83% specificity ml be chosen), For Dm dm sensMbr b appnndmately 85%.' By &ftnStfeas fae tome limit elnormal far fae test is
suchtfat 05% offaeaMqrpee^ fame Kiesidt equal to, or higher than, that vibe (to, a specificity of 95%). Howver, twdmleri factor* and other dfew ders also lead to a. seduoed Duxs. Thera am only a
few disorders fast lead to an femease fa Dmo, so the test Is rarely fiMy high. Tha actual specificity fer Dim fa dtegytmlog sfaestosteb net jbwsm tt certainty. Bowwer, even if] laiios Bad flier dfeoidres leading to a Du, flm jroecSfidty of Ae test would be about, 85%. For mss, based m values from fas studies pretets4aroesabayf80%wosddhe appropriate. Tsfeag fate account tales dee to mucus fa the sJrw^eoagssftvelaEtMme,mitedmteslfi-
ters, dm specificity should be net mush lower (ban 75 to 811%. So, a specificity of 75% will be doses, '
as
Tile inU'nlcpnKlw of the vuriaiu tests has not
been carefully examined. If ettcli test were inde
pendent of the others, the overall specificity of
these tests together would be > 89%. For exam
ple, from the prevjteut discussion the chest radio
graph could be expected to be normal fa about
93% ofpeopfawiib do not ham asbestos!*. If fae tests were completely independent, Dlco would
be ejected to be wS&ta normal limits fa about
85% of fae rwnataiag 7%, leaving only about
1,05%. Hales would be absent in about 75% of
facsevlenvfaig only Mfi% ofpeople with afaestosto
wbe wooM be missed by aft fame fasts (ft, om+mxom* 0.75 x mm- mm). it
fa reasonable to assume that fae fasts am relatively
tndqymfent of each other became one fa a visual
anafatufa assessment (ft, fas
eaofaer fa
wssuSfatety(is, mte). and fae fastis jbystdSage fie,
DUJO). However, even itfae apadfieffiy ofrales and
D&60famedto59% fapatfastsinffaom faeibest
ndteecma ftidb^s wens passive, fae qwdftdty WMfll *UH be >88% ffe, ft83+0)lXWM5 X
OH55= 88S5). HierrfbiOi, m omsSi qjed8(% of88 to 83% tf dl fasee test resoSs m nqraal fa qoSe
sendBvity vwxdd be about G2% (fe, 0FXIM5X
OS ~&S^. M&ets wsxs mm
It
would be bfcdxx; hwib toward fae 80% Bjdty of
ranaetee
fihsssis leads to sdl fame abaormalte, Hmrefore, a
Ufaif ms cabuMms, fae podfae predtefive value a uQ fame tost sesidfa are abnorawl can be detamfafei. UMr^asenfiHvtty of79% and spedfie* lly of 885% far afi fame fasts together If fas
prev&nes of asbestods were 5%i, faepodttvepresficirw mine wbea sH three test sesidto sreabumial wouU be about 70%. Ufae^^prewfcnce wwe3%^ fae
Allhaa^s two tea* could bo used, fae martenm 5Bsittv% emM not be greater than fae lower tort
result vaueebtatoed (or about 80 to 85%). If tbs ir,fae
pe^so psedteSve dne rf 80% can be i For a prendenoe of 5%, fae qiedildiy of fae two cosfahied tetos mustbe at least 86%, and88% iffas pmvdenes fa 3%. IfAims h somsintedrosadguse, faea two teds may not provide (bis degme of
uMe all fame testewouHpronods it,with cmlya smillloss ofseoddv&y.
fiefufatag fae results of nil fares tests to be posBive provides a reasonable confafaation of ade quate seasBivi^' white assnring that, in the proper
OpKsw'Hjpe&ssss
HWBUI0010278
