Mesothelioma among Motor Vehicle Mechanics: An Updated Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We published a meta-analysis of the association between work as a motor vehicle mechanic and mesothelioma in 2004. Since then, several relevant studies on this topic have been published. Thus, to update the state-of-the-science on this issue, we conducted a new systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive PubMed literature search through May 2014 was conducted to identify studies that reported relative risk estimates for mesothelioma among motor vehicle mechanics (in general), and those who were engaged in brake repair (specifically). Studies were scored and classified based on study characteristics. Random-effects meta-analyses generated summary relative risk estimates (SRREs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity of results was examined by calculating Q-test P-values (P-H) and I (2) estimates. Sub-group and sensitivity analyses were conducted for relevant study characteristics and quality measures. RESULTS: Ten case-control studies, one cohort study, and five proportionate mortality ratio (PMR)/standardized mortality odds ratio (SMOR) studies were identified and included in the quantitative assessment. Most meta-analysis models produced SRREs below 1.0, and no statistically significant increases in mesothelioma were observed. The SRRE for all studies was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.61-1.05) with significant heterogeneity (P-H <0.001, I (2) = 62.90). A similar SRRE was observed among the five Tier 1 studies with the highest quality ratings (SRRE = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.46-1.25), with no heterogeneity among studies (P-H = 0.912, I (2) = 0.00). Meta-analysis of the Tier 2 (n = 5) and Tier 3 (n = 6) studies resulted in SRREs of 1.09 (95% CI: 0.76-1.58) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.49-1.08), respectively. Restricting the analysis to Tiers 1 and 2 combined resulted in an SRRE of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.72-1.29). The SRRE specific to brake work (n = 4) was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.38-1.09). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of the epidemiologic studies provides evidence that motor vehicle mechanics, including workers who were engaged in brake repair, are not at an increased risk of mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma in vehicle mechanics: is the risk different for Australians?

BACKGROUND: The question of whether vehicle mechanics have an increased risk of mesothelioma has important public health implications. Calculations of relative risk using case reports from the Australian Mesothelioma Registry (AMR) indicate increased risks; however, this contrasts with the results of 19 epidemiologic studies that have found no association. AIM: To evaluate potential explanations for the discrepancy of findings from epidemiologic studies and AMR reports. METHODS: We evaluated three hypotheses as possible explanations for the inconsistency between the AMR-based calculations and the findings from published epidemiologic studies: (i) differences in exposure characteristics of Australian vehicle mechanics versus vehicle mechanics in North America and Europe, (ii) limitations of the AMR data and (iii) errors in the risk calculations based on AMR data. We reviewed available exposure information specific to Australian vehicle mechanics and AMR data, obtained from the Australian National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, for this evaluation. RESULTS: We did not identify differences in workplace exposures, processes or fibre type among Australian vehicle mechanics compared to vehicle mechanics in other countries. Our analysis of primary AMR data identified several errors in exposure classification and in the assumptions used to calculate relative risk. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies between epidemiologic studies and AMR-based calculations cannot be explained by differences in exposure. These discrepancies are most likely attributable to inadequate occupational information and classification in the AMR from 1986 forward and to erroneous assumptions used to derive relative risk estimates for mesothelioma among Australian vehicle mechanics.

Mesothelioma and lung cancer among motor vehicle mechanics: a meta-analysis.

We conducted a systematic review and analysis of the epidemiological literature that examines the risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma among motor vehicle mechanics who may have been engaged in brake repair and, thus, were potentially exposed to asbestos. All relevant studies were classified into three tiers according to their quality. Tier III (lowest quality) studies were cited for completeness, but were not included in the meta-analysis. Meta relative risks (meta-RRs) were calculated for mesothelioma and lung cancer using both fixed and random effects models for Tiers I and II, separately, followed by stratified analyses based on study design or exposure characterization (garage workers versus brake workers) and, for lung cancer studies, based on adequate adjustment for smoking. The meta-analysis for Tier I (higher quality) and Tier II (lower quality) studies of mesothelioma yielded RR estimates of 0.92 (95% CI 0.55-1.56) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.52-1.28), respectively. Further stratification according to exposure characterization did not affect the results. The meta-analysis for lung cancer produced RR estimates of 1.07 (95% CI 0.88-1.31) for Tier I and 1.17 (95% CI 1.01-1.36) for Tier II. When the lung cancer analysis was limited to studies that used adequate control for smoking, the resulting RR estimate was 1.09 (95% CI 0.92-1.28). Based on these findings, we conclude that employment as a motor vehicle mechanic does not increase the risk of developing mesothelioma. Although some studies showed a small increase in risk of lung cancer among motor vehicle mechanics, the data on balance do not support a conclusion that lung cancer risk in this occupational group is related to asbestos exposure.