National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

PAPERBACK
price:$49.00
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Issues in Risk Assessment (1993)
Commission on Life Sciences (CLS)

Citation Manager

. "1. INTRODUCTION." Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1993.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
111
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Issues in Risk Assessment

Appendix F
Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency and the Maximum Tolerated Dose: Implications for Risk Assessment

D. Krewski,1,2 D.W. Gaylor3, A.P. Soms4,5 & M. Szyszkowicz1

Current practice in carcinogen bioassay calls for exposure of experimental animals at doses up to the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Such studies have been used to compute measures of carcinogenic potency such as the TD50 as well as unit risk factors such as q*/1 for predicting low dose risks. Recent studies have indicated that these measures of carcinogenic potency are highly correlated with the MTD. Carcinogenic potency has also been shown to be correlated with indicators of mutagenicity and toxicity. Correlation of the MTDs for rats and mice implies a corresponding correlation in TD50 values for these two species. The implications of these results for cancer risk assessment are examined in light of the large variation in potency among chemicals known to induce tumors in rodents.

1. Introduction

Carcinogen bioassay is an important source of information on the potential carcinogenic effects of chemicals. Current practice involves the exposure of animals at doses up to the maximum tolerated dose

Page
111
Front Matter (R1-R18)
Executive Summary (1-2)
USE OF THE MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE IN ANIMAL BIOASSAYS FOR CARCINOGENICITY (3-8)
THE TWO-STAGE MODEL OF CARCINOGENESIS (9-9)
A PARADIGM FOR ECOLOGIC RISK ASSESSMENT (10-12)
Issues In Risk Assessment Use Of Maximum Tolerated Dose in Animal Bioassays for Carcinogenicity (13-14)
BACKGROUND (15-17)
SCOPE OF REPORT (18-20)
DEFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND (21-23)
CORRELATIONS (24-32)
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TOXICITY AND CARCINOGENICITY OBSERVED AT MTD (33-42)
QUALITATIVE INFORMATION (43-48)
QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION (49-52)
OPTION 1 (53-53)
OPTION 2 (54-54)
OPTION 3 (55-56)
Option 4A (57-58)
Option 4B (59-60)
5 Conclusions and Recommendations (61-66)
REFERENCES (67-78)
BACKGROUND (79-79)
DEFINING AND DETERMINING THE MTD (80-90)
Appendix B Organizing Subcommittee (91-92)
Appendix C Federal Liaison Group (93-94)
Appendix D Workshop Program (95-96)
Appendix E Workshop Attendees (97-110)
1. INTRODUCTION (111-112)
2.1 Measures of Carcinogenic Potency (113-115)
2.2 Carcinogenic Potency Database (CPDB) (116-116)
2.3 Variation in Carcinogen Potency (117-118)
2.4 Classification of Carcinogens (119-120)
3.1 Empirical Correlations (121-124)
3.2 Range of Possible TD50 Values (125-125)
3.3 Analytical Correlations (126-127)
3.4 Model Dependency (128-129)
3.5 Genotoxic vs. Nongenotoxic Carcinogens (130-130)
4.1 Predictions Based on the MDT (131-131)
4.2 Predictions Based on Mutagenicity and Acute Toxicity (132-134)
5.1 Correlation Between Upper Bounds On the Low Dose Slope and MTD (135-135)
5.2 Correlation Between q1* and the TD50 (136-138)
5.3. Preliminary Estimate of Risk (139-139)
6. INTERSPECIES EXTRAPOLATION (140-140)
6.1 Extrapolation from Rats to Mice (141-143)
6.2 Extrapolation from Rodents to Humans (144-145)
7. CONCLUSIONS (146-148)
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (149-149)
9. REFERENCES (150-159)
ANNEX A: MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHODS FOR FITTING THE WEIBULL MODEL (160-161)
ANNEX B. SHRINKAGE ESTIMATORS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF CARCINOGENIC POTENCY (162-163)
ANNEX C: ADJUSTMENT OF POTENCY VALUES FOR LESS THAN LIFETIME EXPOSURE (164-165)
ANNEX D: CORRELATION BETWEEN TD50 AND MTD (166-168)
ANNEX E: CORRELATION BETWEEN TD50S FOR RATS AND MICE (169-172)
Appendix G Informal Search for ''Supercarcinogens" (173-174)
CRITERIA AND CANDIDATE CHEMICALS (175-176)
DATA (177-180)
RESULTS (181-181)
DISCUSSION (182-184)
Issues in Risk Assessment The Two-Stage Model Of Carcinogenesis (185-186)
INTRODUCTION (187-187)
BIOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS (188-189)
THE TWO-STAGE MODEL (190-195)
APPLICATIONS OF THE TWO-STAGE MODEL TO ANIMAL DATA (196-211)
Data Needs (212-212)
Criteria for Adoption (213-213)
Prospects (214-214)
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (215-216)
REFERENCES (217-222)
BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN TWO-STAGE MODELS (223-225)
TWO-STAGE MODEL OF CLONAL EXPANSION (226-227)
APPLICATION OF THE TWO-STAGE MODEL TO ANIMAL DATA (228-232)
Appendix B Workshop Program (233-234)
Appendix C Workshop Federal Liaison Group (235-236)
TOPIC GROUP MEMBERS (237-238)
Appendix E Workshop Organizing Task Group (239-240)
Isuees In Risk Assessment A Paradigm for Ecological Risk Assessment (241-242)
1 Introduction (243-246)
2 Scope of Ecological Risk Assessment (247-248)
COMPONENTS OF THE 1983 FRAMEWORK (249-250)
CONSISTENCY OF CASE STUDIES WITH THE 1983 FRAMEWORK (251-253)
INTEGRATION OF ECOLOGICAL RISK INTO THE 1983 FRAMEWORK (254-254)
DEFINITION OF FRAMEWORK COMPONENTS FOR ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (255-258)
EXTRAPOLATION ACROSS SCALES (259-260)
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY (261-261)
VALIDATION OF PREDICTIVE TOOLS (262-262)
VALUATION (263-264)
5 Conclusions (265-266)
6 Recommendations (267-268)
REFERENCES (269-272)
Appendix A Workshop Participants (273-278)
Appendix B Workshop Organizing Subcommittee and Federal Liaison Group (279-280)
Appendix C Workshop Introduction (281-282)
TERRY F. YOSIE BUILDING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT AS A POLICY TOOL (283-285)
D. WARNER NORTH: RELATIONSHIP OF WORKSHOP TO NRC'S 1983 RED BOOK REPORT (286-288)
MICHAEL SLIMAK: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACTIVITIES IN ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (289-292)
CASE STUDY 1: TRIBUTYLTIN RISK MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES (293-293)
Discussion (294-294)
CASE STUDY 2: ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE EXPOSED TO AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS (295-296)
CASE STUDY 3A: MODELS OF TOXIC CHEMICALS IN THE GREAT LAKES: STRUCTURE, APPLICATIONS, AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS (297-298)
CASE STUDY 3B: ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF TCDD AND TCDF (299-299)
Discussion (300-300)
CASE STUDY 4: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS IN ANIMAL POPULATIONS: THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL AS AN EXAMPLE (301-301)
Discussion (302-302)
CASE STUDY 5: ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS AND RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF EXOTIC SPECIES FOR BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF A... (303-303)
Discussion (304-304)
CASE STUDY 1: UNCERTAINTY AND RISK IN AN EXPLOITED ECOSYSTEM: A CASE STUDY OF GEORGES BANK (305-306)
Discussion (307-308)
Generic Issues (309-309)
Analysis of Case Studies (310-310)
DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT (311-311)
Selection of End Points (312-312)
Consideration of Nonlinearities And Discontinuities (313-313)
Understanding the Stressor (314-314)
Additions to the 1983 Paradigm Needed for Ecological Risk Assessment (315-315)
Modeling Needs for Stress-Response Relationships (316-316)
Methods of Measuring Stressors for Ecological Exposure Assessment (317-317)
Definition of Risk Characterization (318-318)
Components of Risk Characterization (319-319)
Organization and Presentation (320-320)
Differences from and Similarities To the 1983 Report (321-321)
Application to the Case Studies (322-323)
Agricultural Chemicals (324-324)
Northern Spotted Owl (325-325)
General Discussion: Models and Risk Assessment (326-326)
Uncertainties Identified In the Case Studies (327-327)
Implications of Uncertainty for Ecological Risk Assessment (328-328)
VALUATION (329-330)
Risk Assessment Has Many Uses (331-332)
Different Risk Assessment Methods Are Suited to Different Risk Assessment Needs (333-333)
Risk Assessors and Risk Managers Need to Communicate (334-334)
Credibility is Crucial (335-336)
Appendix G Contemplations on Ecological Risk Assessment (337-342)
Appendix H Workshop Summary (343-346)
Appendix I References for Appendixes (347-350)
Appendix J Workshop Program (351-356)

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 111
Issues in Risk Assessment Appendix F Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency and the Maximum Tolerated Dose: Implications for Risk Assessment D. Krewski,1,2 D.W. Gaylor3, A.P. Soms4,5 & M. Szyszkowicz1 Current practice in carcinogen bioassay calls for exposure of experimental animals at doses up to the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Such studies have been used to compute measures of carcinogenic potency such as the TD50 as well as unit risk factors such as q*/1 for predicting low dose risks. Recent studies have indicated that these measures of carcinogenic potency are highly correlated with the MTD. Carcinogenic potency has also been shown to be correlated with indicators of mutagenicity and toxicity. Correlation of the MTDs for rats and mice implies a corresponding correlation in TD50 values for these two species. The implications of these results for cancer risk assessment are examined in light of the large variation in potency among chemicals known to induce tumors in rodents. 1. Introduction Carcinogen bioassay is an important source of information on the potential carcinogenic effects of chemicals. Current practice involves the exposure of animals at doses up to the maximum tolerated dose

OCR for page 112
Issues in Risk Assessment (MTD), defined as that dose which can be administered to rodents over the course of a lifetime without appreciably altering body weight or survival other than as a result of tumor occurrence (Munro, 1977). High doses such as the MTD are used to enhance tumor response rates, thereby increasing the likelihood of observing elevated tumor occurrence rates in a small sample of experimental animals. In this regard, Haseman (1985) has shown that more than two-thirds of the carcinogenic effects detected in feeding studies conducted under the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) would have been missed if the highest dose had been restricted to one-half of the MTD. The use of such high doses in animal cancer tests has been the subject of considerable debate (cf. McConnell, 1989). In particular, it has been argued that biochemical and physiological distortions occurring at high doses may lead to toxicity-induced carcinogenic effects that might not be expected to occur at lower doses (Carr & Kolbye, 1991; Clayson et al., 1992). Ames & Gold (1990) have suggested that high dose stimulation of mitogenesis will enhance mutagenesis, leading to the identification of rodent carcinogens that may not present a human health risk. Apostolou (1990) questioned the necessity of using the MTD in animal cancer tests on the grounds that many human carcinogens can be identified in animal tests at doses of one-half of the MTD or less. Suggestions for redefining the high dose to be used in animal cancer tests to circumvent these issues have been made (Apostolou, 1990; Carr & Kolbye, 1991). Clayson et al. (1992) considered such proposals, but recommended retaining the MTD, while recognizing that nongenotoxic carcinogens that appear to be effective in animals only at high doses may not present a risk to humans exposed to much lower doses (cf. Butter-worth, 1990). Since the definition of the maximum dose to be used in animal cancer tests is of secondary importance for our present purposes, we make no attempt to resolve this issue here. Instead, the reader is referred to the recent report by the National Research Council (1992), which considers the definition of the maximum dose to be used in detail. The completion of several hundred bioassays over the past two decades has resulted in the availability of a large data base that may be used in global analyses of bioassay data. Recent analyses have revealed that the MTD is highly correlated with quantitative measures of carcinogenic potency such as the TD50 (Bernstein et al., 1985; Reith and Starr, 1989a), defined as the dose that reduces the proportion of tumor-free animals by 50% (Peto et al., 1984).