Cargando…

A response to the letter to the editor by Driscoll et al.

In response to the Letter to the Editor by Kevin Driscoll et al., we certainly agree that particle clearance halftimes are increased with increasing lung burden in rats, hamsters and mice, whereas complete inhibition of particle clearance has only been observed in rats, and only at high particle con...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Saber, Anne T., Poulsen, Sarah S., Hadrup, Niels, Jacobsen, Nicklas R., Vogel, Ulla
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7367251/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32677973
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12989-020-00364-0
_version_ 1783560386010677248
author Saber, Anne T.
Poulsen, Sarah S.
Hadrup, Niels
Jacobsen, Nicklas R.
Vogel, Ulla
author_facet Saber, Anne T.
Poulsen, Sarah S.
Hadrup, Niels
Jacobsen, Nicklas R.
Vogel, Ulla
author_sort Saber, Anne T.
collection PubMed
description In response to the Letter to the Editor by Kevin Driscoll et al., we certainly agree that particle clearance halftimes are increased with increasing lung burden in rats, hamsters and mice, whereas complete inhibition of particle clearance has only been observed in rats, and only at high particle concentrations (50 mg/m(3)). Where we disagree with Kevin Driscoll and colleagues, is on the implications of the increased clearance halftimes observed at higher lung burden. We argue that it does not hamper the extrapolations from relatively high dose levels to lower dose levels. Furthermore, we highlight, again, the challenges of detecting particle-induced lung cancer in epidemiological studies where occupational, particle-induced lung cancer has to be detected on top of the background lung cancer incidence. Almost all available epidemiological studies on carbon black and titanium dioxide suffer from a number of limitations, including lack of control for smoking, the use of background population cancer rates as reference in the US studies, lack of information regarding particle size of the exposure, and incomplete follow-up for cause of death of the study population.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7367251
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73672512020-07-20 A response to the letter to the editor by Driscoll et al. Saber, Anne T. Poulsen, Sarah S. Hadrup, Niels Jacobsen, Nicklas R. Vogel, Ulla Part Fibre Toxicol Letter to the Editor In response to the Letter to the Editor by Kevin Driscoll et al., we certainly agree that particle clearance halftimes are increased with increasing lung burden in rats, hamsters and mice, whereas complete inhibition of particle clearance has only been observed in rats, and only at high particle concentrations (50 mg/m(3)). Where we disagree with Kevin Driscoll and colleagues, is on the implications of the increased clearance halftimes observed at higher lung burden. We argue that it does not hamper the extrapolations from relatively high dose levels to lower dose levels. Furthermore, we highlight, again, the challenges of detecting particle-induced lung cancer in epidemiological studies where occupational, particle-induced lung cancer has to be detected on top of the background lung cancer incidence. Almost all available epidemiological studies on carbon black and titanium dioxide suffer from a number of limitations, including lack of control for smoking, the use of background population cancer rates as reference in the US studies, lack of information regarding particle size of the exposure, and incomplete follow-up for cause of death of the study population. BioMed Central 2020-07-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7367251/ /pubmed/32677973 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12989-020-00364-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Letter to the Editor
Saber, Anne T.
Poulsen, Sarah S.
Hadrup, Niels
Jacobsen, Nicklas R.
Vogel, Ulla
A response to the letter to the editor by Driscoll et al.
title A response to the letter to the editor by Driscoll et al.
title_full A response to the letter to the editor by Driscoll et al.
title_fullStr A response to the letter to the editor by Driscoll et al.
title_full_unstemmed A response to the letter to the editor by Driscoll et al.
title_short A response to the letter to the editor by Driscoll et al.
title_sort response to the letter to the editor by driscoll et al.
topic Letter to the Editor
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7367251/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32677973
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12989-020-00364-0
work_keys_str_mv AT saberannet aresponsetothelettertotheeditorbydriscolletal
AT poulsensarahs aresponsetothelettertotheeditorbydriscolletal
AT hadrupniels aresponsetothelettertotheeditorbydriscolletal
AT jacobsennicklasr aresponsetothelettertotheeditorbydriscolletal
AT vogelulla aresponsetothelettertotheeditorbydriscolletal
AT saberannet responsetothelettertotheeditorbydriscolletal
AT poulsensarahs responsetothelettertotheeditorbydriscolletal
AT hadrupniels responsetothelettertotheeditorbydriscolletal
AT jacobsennicklasr responsetothelettertotheeditorbydriscolletal
AT vogelulla responsetothelettertotheeditorbydriscolletal