ArticleIndustrial health2025
Mesothelioma carcinogenesis of chrysotile and forsterite compared and validated by intraperitoneal injection in rat.
Article in Industrial health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of respiratory toxicity and peritoneal mesothelioma induced by heat-treated and milled amosite following intratracheal and intraperitoneal injection in rats.Industrial health · 2026Article
- Dose-Response Relationships for Lung Tumor and Pleural Mesothelioma Induction by Repetitive Intratracheal Instillation of a Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube, MWCNT-7, in Rats: Comparison with Inhalation Carcinogenicity Based on Lung Burden.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Asbestos, especially chrysotile, continues to be exposed to humans globally. Hence, it should be disposed properly to prevent asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma and lung cancer. This study aimed to verify whether forsterite, a heating product of chrysotile, can cause carcinogenicity, particularly mesothelioma. Forsterite (FO-1000) and enstatite (EN-1500) produced by heating chrysotile at 1,000°C and 1,500°C, respectively, were subjected. We injected 10 mg of chrysotile, FO-1000, or EN-1500 in rats intraperitoneally and observed the development of peritoneal mesothelioma until 24 months. The incidence of peritoneal mesothelioma in the chrysotile group was 91.2%, whereas in the FO-1000 and EN-1500 groups, peritoneal mesothelioma did not develop. Urinary 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine and serum N-ERC/mesothelin concentrations significantly increased in the chrysotile group that developed peritoneal mesothelioma, while they only temporarily changed in the FO-1000 or EN-1500 groups during early treatment. Furthermore, there was a significant homozygous deletion of the CDKN2A/p16 gene in the chrysotile group compared to the control group, in contrast to no significant difference in the FO-1000 and EN-1500 groups. Therefore, this study provides clear evidence that forsterite is a nonmesothelioma carcinogen and suggests that forsterite and enstatite are sufficient substances for chrysotile detoxification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.