Malignant Mesothelioma Cancer

Malignant mesothelioma is a cancer that is unique to those who have been exposed to asbestos. For many years mining companies have known about the connection between mesothelioma and asbestos exposure, but chose not to inform their employees. Moreover, while many employees in asbestos-related industries became sick and suffered lung disease, asbestosis, and mesothelioma, some companies had their doctors falsely diagnose those employees with emphysema and lung cancer caused by smoking. There is no known cure for mesothelioma Common Mesothelioma Cancer Symptoms Persistent coughing Coughing blood Shortness of breath Pain in chest Pain in the abdomen Fatigue Significant weight loss Types of Malignant Mesothelioma Cancer > Pleural Mesothelioma> Peritoneal Mesothelioma There are two common types of malignant mesothelioma: Pleural mesothelioma and Peritoneal mesothelioma. Pleural mesothelioma is cancer of the pleura, a sac that lines the lungs. The pleura is a membrane that lines the pleural cavities surrounding the lungs. When inhaled, asbestos fibers are absorbed into the lungs, eventually making their way to the edges of the lungs and into the pleura, causing lesions and scarring. Eventually, malignant mesothelioma cancer develops as a result of the damage caused by the asbestos fibers. Peritoneal mesothelioma is much more rare than pleural mesothelioma, accounting for roughly 10 percent of all mesothelioma cases. While asbestos is to blame for peritoneal mesothelioma, it is not known exactly how asbestos fibers make their way into the peritoneal mesothelium. Peritoneal mesothelioma cancer affects the lining of the abdomen instead of the lining of the lungs and chest cavity. Most people who suffer from malignant mesothelioma or asbestosis have been exposed to asbestos on a daily basis over a long period of time. Asbestos is used in many tiles, brake pads, and insulation products because of its ability to add strength and heat resistance. However, those who work with products containing asbestos, or factories that produce asbestos products, are most at risk

Five Steps to Selecting the Right Mesothelioma Attorney

1. Ignore the Ads Many asbestos lawyers advertise on television, however, you should not use a TV commercial as the reason to hire an attorney. Actual credentials are what counts. For example, what type of accomplishments has the lawyer achieved? How committed are they to cancer cases? How many other cases have they handled? Many of the best firms do not advertise much because they do not have to. 2. Bigger is Not Better Big law firms with lots of money and lawyers are not always the best choice for a client. At larger firms, a client may be handed-off to paralegals and younger staff attorneys. (The "big guns" are the ones who show up in court if the case ends up going there. But, most asbestos cases are settled out of court.) You don't want a young lawyer to "learn the ropes" at your expense. It's best to find experienced lawyers who will personally handle your case regardless of the size of their offices or staff. In addition, the lawyer or law firm you choose does not have to be in the same state as you. Most lawyers are able to practice in any state for a specific case. 3.Understand Fees Contingency is the term that means that the lawyer gets paid only after they collect money for you. Nearly all asbestos related lawsuits are handled on a contingency basis. The amount of the contingency fee that your lawyer can charge varies by state. It is usually between 33% and 40% of the amount that is awarded to you after expenses are deducted. It is important to discuss fees openly, ask what services they cover, and whether there will be any extra charges. 4. Trusted Partner For something as important as a mesothelioma lawsuit, your attorney should not only be experienced, skilled, and dedicated, but also a trusted partner who keeps you well informed. You have the right to know and understand every step of the legal process and to be included in key decisions about your case. You should ask a potential attorney to explain how they intend to include you in the decision-making. Warning Signs Finally, here are three warning signs that an attorney may not be right for you: The lawyer is hard to reach, does not return calls promptly, or your calls are returned by someone else. The lawyer seems uninterested in your opinions. The lawyer asks you questions that make you doubt their competence or experience.

Mesothelioma without asbestos exposure

For a time, mesothelioma was thought to be exclusively related to asbestos, but more recent reviews indicate that a significant number of cases have occurred in the absence of any known asbestos exposure. Although the association between amphibole asbestos and mesothelioma is indisputable, fewer than 10% of the people exposed to asbestos develop mesothelioma, and fiarly large proportions (up to 50% according to some authors) of the reported cases have no documented exposure to asbestos. A comprehensive survey of adult mesothelioma cases in Canada and the U.S. carefully classified patients based on their likelihood of past exposure to asbestos. The researchers found that asbestos exposure had been unlikely in between 1/4 and 1/3 of cases (McDonald & McDonald, 1980). While it is well documented that asbestos-induced mesothelioma has a latency of 20 years or more, a number of studies have highlighted pleural and pericardial mesotheliomas in children as young as 1-1/2 years old (Lemesch et al., 1976). Surveys of reported mesotheliomas in the U.S., Canada and Israel found a combined total of more than 110 cases in persons under the age of 20. In addition to these unexplained cases of mesothelioma, a number of other fibrous and non-fibrous materials have been associated with mesothelioma induction. It is now generally accepted in the scientific community that durable, long and thin fibres have fibrogenic and carcinogenic potential. A number of natural and man-made fibres with these characteristics have been established as the cause of mesothelioma in laboratory animals. These include glass fibres, aluminum oxide, attapulgite, dawsonite, silicon carbide and potassium titanate (Stanton et al., 1977). The reported outbreak of mesothelioma in rural Turkey has been associated with exposure to fibrous zeolite found in these regions. In his 1980 report, Baris had identified 185 cases of erionite/zeolite-related mesothelioma in two areas of Turkey with no local asbestos deposits or industry. Several non-fibrous agents, both organic and inorganic, have also been shown to induce malignant mesothelioma. For example, a causal link between mesothelioma and radiation has been established based on numerous case reports of mesotheliomas developing at the exact sites of radiation therapy. Other suspected causes include biogenic silica fibres, chronic irritation stemming from tuberculosis and other factors, and heavy metals such as beryllium Polio vaccines and the SV40 virusMore recently, it has been reported that a virus (SV40) contaminating some polio vaccine preparations may well be associated with mesothelioma, as some DNA sequences of the virus are sometimes found in cancerous mesothelial cells. These vaccine preparations had been produced in 1954, some eight years before SV40 was first isolated, and had been prepared by growing polio virus in cell cultures from rhesus monkey kidney cells. As a result, millions of people have been injected with SV40-contaminated polio vaccines. Recent findings by Dr. M. Carbone and colleagues of the Dept. of Pathology at the University of Chicago and by co-workers at the National Cancer Institute first indicated that the SV40 virus, which induces mesothelioma in hamsters, is also oncogenic for humans. Later on, they found SV40-like DNA sequences in human mesothelioma cases (Carbone et al., 1994). Similar evidence is now beginning to appear from France and the U.K. Recent evidence of the significance of the SV40 virus and other potential sources of mesothelioma, suggests that factors other than asbestos exposure may have played a role in recently reported mesothelioma cases in Europe in which the victims are reported to have had only casual, low level contact with asbestos-containing products.

Chrysotile, tremolite and mesothelioma

Although it has been demonstrated that there is a very weak association between chrysotile exposure and mesothelioma, the presence of occasional fibrous tremolite, an amphibole mineral, in some chrysotile ore body has been cited as a potential risk factor amongst chrysotile workers. The available evidence, however, shows that mesotheliomas in chrysotile mining populations are extremely rare relative to rates in amphibole-exposed populations. In fact, less than 40 mesothelioma cases over several decades have been reported amongst chrysotile miners and millers (McDonald et al. 1993). In their analysis of the implications of the 37 mesothelioma cases identified up until 1992 in the 11,000 person cohort, McDonald & McDonald (1995) found that they were concentrated in workers from specific areas of the mines. Further post-mortem lung tissue analysis showed that workers in these areas had tremolite lung content four times higher than those workers in other areas of the mines studied, suggesting that the rare cases of mesothelioma among chrysotile miners are mainly, if not wholly, due to tremolite exposure. The authors note that it should be kept in mind that these mesothelioma cases occurred as a result of long, heavy exposures 20 to 70 years ago. They conclude: "The geological distribution of tremolite within the Québec chrysotile ore body may well vary in time and place and, at present levels of environmental controls, any mesothelioma risk from exposure (...) would be far below the limits of epidemiological detection." The previous review by Dr. Andrew Churg, a pathologist at the University of British Colombia in Canada, supports this conclusion. Churg (1988) writes, "whether tremolite or chrysotile be the critical agent, these observations suggest that chrysotile ore, in both crude and processed forms, does cause mesothelioma in man, but that it is an extremely weak carcinogen and that in today's terms, the doses required are extremely high. As a practical matter, the data indicate that chrysotile will not produce mesotheliomas in those exposed to any current or recently regulated number of fibers..."

Differences in pathogenic potential of fibre types

The results of human epidemiological studies and lung mineral content analyses demonstrate that amphiboles (crocidolite and amosite) are more strongly associated with mesothelioma than is chrysotile. Comparative analysis of fibre durability and chemical composition are helping to explain the greater toxicity of amphiboles. Of the thousands of asbestos-related mesotheliomas reported, virtually all can be directly attributed to exposure to amphiboles. In his widely cited 1988 review of evidence related to mesothelioma causation, Dr. Andrew Churg found that only 53 cases of chrysotile-related mesothelioma had ever been reported from the tens of thousands of workers studied. Of these, ten cases were observed in secondary industry workers for which there was a strong suspicion of amphibole contamination, and 41 cases have occurred in individuals exposed to chrysotile mine dust, which contained traces of the naturally occurring amphibole; tremolite (Churg, 1988). Other evidence of the extremely weak association between chrysotile exposure and mesothelioma has been revealed through the cohort study of some 11,000 Québec chrysotile miners born between 1891 and 1920. The last follow-up of this cohort found that only 37 mesothelioma deaths had been identified among 8,000 deaths from all causes (McDonald et al., 1993). No cases were detected in workers with less than two years of exposure. In addition, unlike crocidolite mining towns, there has been no indication of environmentally-related mesothelioma in chrysotile mining communities. Also in contrast to amphiboles, the risks to household members of chrysotile workers through non-occupational contact appear to be extremely low, as only 2 or 3 isolated cases allegedly related to this "second hand" exposure have been reported. According to Churg, the research data indicates that although chrysotile asbestos can produce mesothelioma in man, the total number of such cases is small and the required doses extremely large. Another important factor is that while in general, amphiboles have been shown to cause lung disease and cancer after short but intense exposures, chrysotile-related illness is associated with very high, long-term exposures only.

Mesothelioma and asbestos exposure

The discovery that exposure to certain types of asbestos is linked to pleural mesothelioma is a result of the pioneering work of Dr. Christopher Wagner, who documented the high incidence of the disease amongst people working at or living near crocidolite (blue) asbestos mines as well as in household members of workers at these mines. Later research by Newhouse and Thompson (1965) also found elevated mesothelioma risks amongst workers (and their household members) at a manufacturing plant using crocidolite. Generally, once diagnosed, cases of mesothelioma are rapidly fatal, but the very long latency of the disease means that symptoms may only begin to appear 20, 30 or even more than 50 years after initial exposures. From the 1940s through to the 1970s, crocidolite and another amphibole, amosite, were used extensively, either alone or in conjunction with chrysotile, in friable insulation applications in the ship-building and construction industries, primarily in North America and Europe. These sprayed-on applications have been discontinued since the 1970s. To a lesser extent, amphiboles were also used in the manufacture of asbestos-cement pipe. In the past, in most of these industries, workers were exposed to extremely high fibre levels. However, what is particularly disturbing is that a number of cases of mesothelioma have been reported in individuals who have had relatively short but intense exposure to amphiboles. The discovery of mesothelioma and its association with certain types of asbestos exposure prompted new research programmes, regulatory attention and increased public awareness of the health risks of asbestos.

Notable people with mesothelioma

Polio vaccines and the SV40 virusMore recently, it has been reported that a virus (SV40) contaminating some polio vaccine preparations may well be associated with mesothelioma, as some DNA sequences of the virus are sometimes found in cancerous mesothelial cells. These vaccine preparations had been produced in 1954, some eight years before SV40 was first isolated, and had been prepared by growing polio virus in cell cultures from rhesus monkey kidney cells. As a result, millions of people have been injected with SV40-contaminated polio vaccines.
Recent findings by Dr. M. Carbone and colleagues of the Dept. of Pathology at the University of Chicago and by co-workers at the National Cancer Institute first indicated that the SV40 virus, which induces mesothelioma in hamsters, is also oncogenic for humans. Later on, they found SV40-like DNA sequences in human mesothelioma cases (Carbone et al., 1994). Similar evidence is now beginning to appear from France and the U.K.
Recent evidence of the significance of the SV40 virus and other potential sources of mesothelioma, suggests that factors other than asbestos exposure may have played a role in recently reported mesothelioma cases in Europe in which the victims are reported to have had only casual, low level contact with asbestos-containing products.