Posted on July 6, 2018
By Francisco Báez Baquet
Dedication: To all the victims of asbestos … who never knew they had been.
Faced with a supposed relative deficit, of connection
The relationship between exposure to asbestos and paratesticular mesothelioma is already deduced from the same statement of the titles of several articles in the medical literature: Attanoos & Gibbs (2000), Candura et al. (2008), Chollet (1999), Fligiel & Kaneko (1976), Gisser et al. (1977), Gorini et al. (2005), Hsu et al. (2014), Huncharek et al. (1995), Ikegami et al. (2008), Karunaharan (1986), Meisenkothen & Finkelstein (2013), Mensi et al. (2012), Mirabella (1991), Schneider & Woitowitz (2001), Skammeritz et al. (2011). Exceptionally, that mention of asbestos in the title of the work, will be to deny the relationship, in the case of the specific patient addressed in it: Goel et al. (2008).
In some cases, this relationship is supported by a poly-morbid condition, in which the same patient is simultaneously subjected to malignant mesothelioma settled in gonads, and to other asbestos-related pathologies: Watanabe et al. (1994). However, and unlike what happens with other settlements of malignant mesothelioma, only in a minority of cases is it possible to demonstrate this relationship.
Thus, for example, in Plas et al. (2000), we will be told that: “Reviewing the literature on asbestos exposure and mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis, a positive history was confirmed for 34.2% of patients.”
Continue reading →