Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$49.00



View/Hide Left Panel

This series of analyses provided several interesting results. First, while the use of two or more assays for mutation increases the correlation with the TD50 beyond that obtained using the Ames test alone, the increase was not statistically significant. The use of mutation and acute toxicity data combined did however yield a significantly higher correlation (0.76 = r = 0.85, depending on the chemicals selected) than was obtained with the use of mutation or acute toxicity data alone. When the analysis was restricted to carcinogens affecting specific target organs (lung or liver), correlation coefficients in the neighborhood of r = 0.9 were obtained. Using all of the RTECS assays, the correlation of the composite relative potency index with the minimum TD50 across sites was r = 0.80, 0.87 or 0.79, depending on whether data for rats, mice, or the most sensitive species was used. Although this last index included any data on tumorigenicity available in RTECS, Travis et al. (1990a) noted that exclusion of the tumor data from the index did not appreciably alter the results obtained.

Recently, Goodman & Wilson (1992) calculated the correlation between the TD50 and LD50 for 217 chemicals that they classified as being either genotoxic or nongenotoxic. The correlation coefficient for genotoxic chemicals was approximately r = 0.4 regardless of whether rats or mice were used, whereas the correlation coefficient for nongenotoxic chemicals was approximately r = 0.7.

McGregor (1992) calculated the correlation between the TD50 and LD 50 for different classes of carcinogens considered by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The highest correlations were observed in Group 1 (known human carcinogens) with r = 0.72 for mice and r = 0.91 for rats, based on samples of size 9 and 8 respectively.

5. Low Dose Risk Assessment
5.1 Correlation Between Upper Bounds On the Low Dose Slope and MTD

Krewski et al. (1989) noted that the values of q1* derived from the linearized multi-stage model fitted to 263 data sets were highly correlated on a logarithmic scale with the MDTs in those experiments. As with the TD50, this association between q1* and the MDT occurs as a result



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 135
APPENDIX F 135 original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. This series of analyses provided several interesting results. First, while the use of two or more assays for mutation increases the correlation with the TD50 beyond that obtained using the Ames test alone, the increase was not statistically significant. The use of mutation and acute toxicity data combined did however yield a significantly higher correlation (0.76 ≤ r ≤ 0.85, depending on the chemicals selected) than was obtained with the use of mutation or acute toxicity data alone. When the analysis was restricted to carcinogens affecting specific target organs (lung or liver), correlation coefficients in the neighborhood of r = 0.9 were obtained. Using all of the RTECS assays, the correlation of the composite relative potency index with the minimum TD50 across sites was r = 0.80, 0.87 or 0.79, depending on whether data for rats, mice, or the most sensitive species was used. Although this last index included any data on tumorigenicity available in RTECS, Travis et al. (1990a) noted that exclusion of the tumor data from the index did not appreciably alter the results obtained. Recently, Goodman & Wilson (1992) calculated the correlation between the TD50 and LD50 for 217 chemicals that they classified as being either genotoxic or nongenotoxic. The correlation coefficient for genotoxic chemicals was approximately r = 0.4 regardless of whether rats or mice were used, whereas the correlation coefficient for nongenotoxic chemicals was approximately r = 0.7. McGregor (1992) calculated the correlation between the TD50 and LD50 for different classes of carcinogens considered by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The highest correlations were observed in Group 1 (known human carcinogens) with r = 0.72 for mice and r = 0.91 for rats, based on samples of size 9 and 8 respectively. 5. LOW DOSE RISK ASSESSMENT 5.1 Correlation Between Upper Bounds On the Low Dose Slope and MTD Krewski et al. (1989) noted that the values of q1* derived from the linearized multi-stage model fitted to 263 data sets were highly correlated on a logarithmic scale with the MDTs in those experiments. As with the TD50, this association between q1* and the MDT occurs as a result