Retrospective investigation on diagnostic process for benign asbestos pleural effusion (BAPE) using checklist

OBJECTIVES: In Japan, benign asbestos pleural effusion (BAPE) has been eligible for industrial accident compensation since 2003 as an asbestos‐related disease despite the lack of good criteria. We compiled a criteria into a checklist of essential items and for excluding other diseases inducing pleural effusion as a diagnosis process. METHOD: Thoracentesis was performed in order to confirm the presence of pleural effusion at the initial diagnosis, and 105 suspected BAPE patients were retrospectively examined. We complied a checklist comprising the following diagnostic items: (a) occupational asbestos exposure; (b) confirmation of exudate of pleural effusion; (c) exclusion of pleural effusion with malignant tumors based on negative results of CEA and hyaluronic acid, and cytology of pleural effusion; (d) exclusion of rheumatic, bacterial, and tuberculous pleuritis; (d) radiological findings for exclusion of malignancies; and (e) histopathological findings based on thoracoscopy that exclude malignancies (when thoracoscopy was not performed, there was confirmation that no malignancies were present during 3‐month follow‐up observation). Cases that satisfied all items were defined as BAPE. RESULTS: Among the 105 suspected cases, there were five cases that had no occupational asbestos exposure; six cases in which transudate of on pleural effusion; one case each of rheumatoid pleuritis and tuberculous pleuritis; and five cases of pleural mesothelioma based on chest radiography and histopathological findings within 3 months after initial diagnosis. Therefore, we excluded 18 cases from the 105 candidates and determined 87 cases of BAPE. CONCLUSION: We consider that six items described above are suitable for diagnosing BAPE.