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

. "SCOPE OF REPORT." Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1993.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
18
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

induce cancer through mechanisms that do not occur at lower doses, thereby generating false-positive inferences of hazard and risk for humans who are exposed at lower doses. The committee was given pharmacokinetic and other mechanistic arguments, such as induced cell proliferation, that support this hypothesis.

  • Even in cases where effects might occur as a result of low dose exposure, the results of an MTD test might have little utility in defining the dose-response relationship. Some agents could have nonlinear dose-response relationships that reflect pharmacokinetics, induced cell proliferation, or other mechanisms. The result of the nonlinearity could be overestimation (or, in some cases, underestimation) of low dose risks. Overestimation could occur where the dose-response curve has a shallow slope at low doses and becomes markedly steeper at higher doses. Underestimation could occur where the dose-response curve flattens out or curves downward at high doses.

  • Statistical analysis of bioassay results for many agents has shown strong correlations between estimates of carcinogenic potency and measures of toxicity (including the MTD) that suggest that carcinogenicity is inherently related in some way to other toxic effects produced by a chemical. However, some investigators have concluded that those correlations, and possibly estimates of carcinogenic potency, are determined in some way by the bioassay design or the mathematical and statistical methods used to estimate potency and investigate the correlations, rather than by inherent biologic properties of the agents.

SCOPE OF REPORT

The above points are all addressed in various degrees in this report. Particular attention is focused (in Chapter 2) on the fourth point—questions concerning the observed correlations between measures of carcinogenic potency and the MTD. The report explores the extent to which the correlations appear to reflect some underlying biologic reality, as opposed to being determined solely by experimental design or statistical methods. It further considers the relationship of the correlations to possible biologic mechanisms of carcinogenesis and the implications of the correlations for risk assessment.

The report discusses both what bioassays conducted at the MTD can

Page
18
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 18
Issues in Risk Assessment induce cancer through mechanisms that do not occur at lower doses, thereby generating false-positive inferences of hazard and risk for humans who are exposed at lower doses. The committee was given pharmacokinetic and other mechanistic arguments, such as induced cell proliferation, that support this hypothesis. Even in cases where effects might occur as a result of low dose exposure, the results of an MTD test might have little utility in defining the dose-response relationship. Some agents could have nonlinear dose-response relationships that reflect pharmacokinetics, induced cell proliferation, or other mechanisms. The result of the nonlinearity could be overestimation (or, in some cases, underestimation) of low dose risks. Overestimation could occur where the dose-response curve has a shallow slope at low doses and becomes markedly steeper at higher doses. Underestimation could occur where the dose-response curve flattens out or curves downward at high doses. Statistical analysis of bioassay results for many agents has shown strong correlations between estimates of carcinogenic potency and measures of toxicity (including the MTD) that suggest that carcinogenicity is inherently related in some way to other toxic effects produced by a chemical. However, some investigators have concluded that those correlations, and possibly estimates of carcinogenic potency, are determined in some way by the bioassay design or the mathematical and statistical methods used to estimate potency and investigate the correlations, rather than by inherent biologic properties of the agents. SCOPE OF REPORT The above points are all addressed in various degrees in this report. Particular attention is focused (in Chapter 2) on the fourth point—questions concerning the observed correlations between measures of carcinogenic potency and the MTD. The report explores the extent to which the correlations appear to reflect some underlying biologic reality, as opposed to being determined solely by experimental design or statistical methods. It further considers the relationship of the correlations to possible biologic mechanisms of carcinogenesis and the implications of the correlations for risk assessment. The report discusses both what bioassays conducted at the MTD can

OCR for page 19
Issues in Risk Assessment tell us and what they cannot tell us, qualitatively and quantitatively, regarding carcinogenic hazard in humans (Chapter 3). Several proposals are discussed (Chapter 4) for modifying the design of the bioassay, for modifying the process of selecting chemicals for testing, and for augmenting the results of the bioassay with additional testing to improve risk assessments. The committee's conclusions are presented in Chapter 5 with the recommendations of the majority of the committee concerning the better use of bioassays, specific results from bioassays, and other types of data to assess carcinogenic hazards in human populations. The dissenting recommendations of a minority of the committee are also described. An active discussion is in progress in the scientific community concerning the extent to which high doses produce increased mitogenesis (cell division) and how much the increase contributes to the incidence of cancer at the MTD and lower doses. That was the subject of a presentation given at the MTD workshop conducted by the committee (see the summary of the workshop at the end of the report). This report reviews and evaluates the recent research related to the issue. Although the MTD concept is used in other contexts (e.g., tests for reproductive toxicity and teratogenicity), the committee essentially limited its investigation to the use of the MTD in bioassays for carcinogenicity associated with exposure to chemicals.

OCR for page 20
Issues in Risk Assessment This page in the original is blank.