A Meta-analysis of Asbestos and Lung Cancer: Is Better Quality Exposure Assessment Associated with Steeper Slopes of the Exposure–Response Relationships?

Background: Asbestos is a well-recognized cause of lung cancer, but there is considerable between-study heterogeneity in the slope of the exposure–response relationship. Objective: We considered the role of quality of the exposure assessment to potentially explain heterogeneity in exposure–response slope estimates. Data sources: We searched PubMed MEDLINE (1950–2009) for studies with quantitative estimates of cumulative asbestos exposure and lung cancer mortality and identified 19 original epidemiological studies. One was a population-based case–control study, and the others were industry-based cohort studies. Data extraction: Cumulative exposure categories and corresponding risks were abstracted. Exposure–response slopes [K(L) (lung cancer potency factor of asbestos)] were calculated using linear relative risk regression models. Data synthesis: We assessed the quality of five exposure assessment aspects of each study and conducted random effects univariate and multivariate meta-regressions. Heterogeneity in exposure–response relationships was greater than expected by chance (I(2) = 64%). Stratification by exposure assessment characteristics revealed that studies with well-documented exposure assessment, larger contrast in exposure, greater coverage of the exposure history by exposure measurement data, and more complete job histories had higher meta-K(L) values than did studies without these characteristics. The latter two covariates were most strongly associated with the K(L) value. Meta-K(L) values increased when we incrementally restricted analyses to higher-quality studies. Conclusions: This meta-analysis indicates that studies with higher-quality asbestos exposure assessment yield higher meta-estimates of the lung cancer risk per unit of exposure. Potency differences for predominantly chrysotile versus amphibole asbestos-exposed cohorts become difficult to ascertain when meta-analyses are restricted to studies with fewer exposure assessment limitations.