Moline, Jacqueline MD, MSc; Bevilacqua, Kristin MPH; Alexandri, Maya JD; Gordon, Ronald E. PhD
Northwell Health Department of Occupational Medicine Epidemiology and Prevention (Dr Moline, Ms Bevilacqua); Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead (Ms Alexandri); Department of Pathology, The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (Dr Gordon), New York, New York.
Address correspondence to: Jacqueline Moline, MD, Northwell Health, Great Neck, NY ([email protected]).
Funding: No funds or external assistance were obtained by any outside source in the development, writing, analysis, or conclusions of this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: Authors J.M. and R.G. have served as expert witnesses in asbestos litigation, including talc litigation for plaintiffs.
Supplemental digital contents are available for this article. Direct URL citation appears in the printed text and is provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Web site (www.joem.org).
Clinical Significance: This manuscript is the first to describe mesothelioma among talcum powder consumers. Our case study suggest that cosmetic talcum powder use may help explain the high prevalence of idiopathic mesothelioma cases, particularly among women, and stresses the need for improved exposure history elicitation among physicians.
Erratum
Regarding the article entitled “Mesothelioma Associated With the Use of Cosmetic Talc,” published in the January 2020 issue of Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, the first author, Jacqueline Moline, has provided the following statement:
“I have reviewed the cases included in the paper and reviewed medical expert reports by physicians hired by the talc manufacturers in the same cases to identify whether they found additional asbestos exposure. In doing so, I identified one individual with an alternate exposure. This single case (out of the 33) should not have been included in the manuscript because the individual was exposed to asbestos both from talcum powder and from asbestos contaminated cigarette filters. Interestingly, not one of the five physicians who consulted on this single case for the talc manufacturers stated that this asbestos exposure was a contributing factor. I disagree with these physicians. This single case should be considered as having two sources of asbestos exposure: talcum powder and crocidolite asbestos-laden cigarette filters. Thus, the sample size should be 32 individuals, rather than 33. This error does not negate the other 32 cases, in which no other source of asbestos was present apart from cosmetic talcum powder.”
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
65(5):e362,
May 2023.
