Distribution of incident cases among women and men according to asbestos exposure status*; (1998–2008)
| Women, n (%) | Men, n (%) | Total | |
| Occupational exposure | |||
| Exposed | 59 (22.3) | 784 (81.3) | 843 |
| Not exposed | 205 (77.7) | 180 (18.7) | 385 |
| Exposure not specified | 147 | 562 | 709 |
| Total | 411 | 1526 | 1937 |
| Domestic exposure among cases with no identified occupational exposure | |||
| Exposed | 28 (18.7) | 14 (16.5) | 42 |
| Not exposed | 122 (81.3) | 71 (83.5) | 193 |
| Exposure not specified (or occupational) | 261 | 1441 | 1702 |
| Total | 411 | 1526 | 1937 |
| Combined exposure | |||
| Exposed† | 92 (34.8) | 810 (84.0) | 902 |
| Not exposed | 172 (65.2) | 154 (16.0) | 326 |
| Exposure not specified | 147 | 562 | 709 |
| Total | 411 (21.2) | 1526 (78.8) | 1937 |
↵* Source: the French National Mesothelioma Surveillance Program (PNSM).10
↵† Occupational and domestic exposure to asbestos are constructed variables where ‘very probable’ and ‘probable’ are classified as exposed, and ‘possible’ and ‘not identified’ are classified as not exposed. However, domestic exposure is assessed only among cases with no identified occupational exposure. Hence note that the total of combined exposed cases is greater than the sum of occupational and domestic cases (59+28<92 and 784+14<810). The difference is due to cases with ‘possible’ occupational exposure (classified as not exposed) and no domestic exposure.