Document dDQ9xg21R3mpGoEDRgO9weV9

*. of all concompares with 'ith a range of >cs) (Table 3). Jistribution of in the groups nd by other :lioma in men .* pathologists that for all ilory system difference in is thought In oking habits nown to play rma. If it is I to asbestos ratal (11-950 <IM50 <12-250 r ; 2 males ' (Scotiand) MUSA) . Mesothelioma register 1967-68 95 exposure it would be necessary to know the numbers of men and women at risk over the past 50 years in order to assess the relative susceptibility of the sexes to mesothelioma. TABLE 4 Notifications to Mesothelioma Register ANALYSED BY ASBESTOS'EXPOSURE Age at death The distribution of age at death of confirmed cases is presented in Fig. 1: there is no significant dif ference between cases diagnosed by the two groups of pathologists (mean age: UICC, 59-4 0-9; other pathologists, 60-2 1-3). For comparison the age distributions for all malignant neoplasms and for carcinoma of the bronchus and lung (Registrar General, 1970) are also shown. The mean age at death from mesothelioma is significantly younger (p < 0-05) than that for bronchial carcinoma and `all neoplasms'. This may be due in part or in whole either to the greater chance of identifying occupa tional cancers within the working age compared with the retired or to earlier death from mesothe lioma associated with occupational exposure to a carcinogen. Exposure to asbestos In Table 4 it can be seen that of246 confirmed cases 167 (68%) had definite occupational exposure to asbestos and a further 29 were possibly exposed, either at work or at home. There were, however. Asbestos exposure history Definite occupational exposure Possible occupational exposure Neighbourhood, domestic or bobby.. None............................. Not obtained .. No. of definite mesotheliomas No. tmdttfded, inadequate material, or definite alternative diagnose* 167 63 16 17 13 10 31 37 12 20 still 38 (15%) for whom careful enquiry failed to elicit any exposure whatever. In the remaining notifications (`undecided', `inadequate matcriaf, `definite alternative diagnosis') nearly one third were without apparent exposure, and those with definite occupation^ history formed only 38% of the total. The differences between these groups are significant (p < 0-001) but may be affected by bias towards 30-1 Definite meiolkefiomot (UICCpanel) Heen otjee 59-4 lean 0.9 ' 32 20 h 23 DL10-1 1C 11 ,, ts 11 w <1 II it tn it n ,1 leaf,