Clinical and laboratory factors contributing to uninterpretable beryllium lymphocyte proliferation tests (BeLPT)

Background

The beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test (BeLPT), has become the principal clinical test for detecting beryllium sensitization and chronic beryllium disease. Uninterpretable BeLPT results can occur in a small but significant proportion of tests from poor lymphocyte growth (PG) or over proliferation of lymphocytes (OP). The clinical and laboratory causes of uninterpretable results are not known.

Methods

BeLPT data from the US Department of Energy‐supported Former Worker Screening Program were analyzed for a 10‐year period. Drivers of uninterpretable BeLPTs were investigated using multivariable models and classification techniques.

Results

Three participant attributes were significantly associated with PG, while OP showed no significant associations. Serum lot for the lymphocyte growth medium accounted for 21% of the variation in PG and 16% in OP.

Conclusion

Serum lots influence the likelihood of having uninterpretable BeLPT. To better understand uninterpretable results and possibly reduce their occurrence, additional laboratory‐related factors should be addressed.

     

Commentary: IARC Monographs Program and public health under siege by corporate interests

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluates causes of cancer with help from independent international experts in an open and transparent manner. Countries, research and regulatory agencies, and other organizations adopt IARC evaluations for communication of human cancer hazards, and for strategies to prevent cancer. Scientists worldwide endorse IARC cancer evaluations and process. Those with economic interests, however, challenge IARC's cancer evaluations, most recently for glyphosate and red and processed meats, and are conducting a campaign including intervention from US Congressional Representatives to discredit IARC's review process and to undermine financial support—a campaign intimidating to IARC and Working Group members. Challenges to scientific interpretations serve to advance science and should be resolved by scientific experts who do not have conflicts of interest. Such interference does not bode well for the free flow of scientific information that informs and protects the public from risks of cancer.