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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |