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

. "DEFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND." Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1993.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
21
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

2
Correlations Between Carcinogenic Potency and Other Measures of Toxicity

DEFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND

McConnell (1989) has provided a definition of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and explained how it is determined as follows:

Sontag et al. (1976) had defined the MTD as "the highest dose of the test agent during the chronic study that can be predicted not to alter the animals' longevity [through] effects other than carcinogenicity" and stated that it should cause "no more than a 10% weight decrement, as compared to the appropriate control groups, and … not produce mortality, clinical signs of toxicity, or pathologic lesions (other than those that may be related to a neoplastic response) that would be predicted to shorten an animal's natural lifespan." That definition has been modified, but is still essentially the same. However, the main characteristic now used in selecting the MTD is histopathologic appearance; weight is a secondary consideration.

The estimated maximum tolerated dose (EMTD) is based on a 90 day or other subchronic test, and its determination involves scientific judgment applied to the information available at the end of the test period. How well the EMTD approximates the true MTD can be evaluated only after the bioassay. The highest dose tested HDT in a long-term rodent bioassay is usually used as the EMTD. However, that was not always the

Page
21
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 21
Issues in Risk Assessment 2 Correlations Between Carcinogenic Potency and Other Measures of Toxicity DEFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND McConnell (1989) has provided a definition of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and explained how it is determined as follows: Sontag et al. (1976) had defined the MTD as "the highest dose of the test agent during the chronic study that can be predicted not to alter the animals' longevity [through] effects other than carcinogenicity" and stated that it should cause "no more than a 10% weight decrement, as compared to the appropriate control groups, and … not produce mortality, clinical signs of toxicity, or pathologic lesions (other than those that may be related to a neoplastic response) that would be predicted to shorten an animal's natural lifespan." That definition has been modified, but is still essentially the same. However, the main characteristic now used in selecting the MTD is histopathologic appearance; weight is a secondary consideration. The estimated maximum tolerated dose (EMTD) is based on a 90 day or other subchronic test, and its determination involves scientific judgment applied to the information available at the end of the test period. How well the EMTD approximates the true MTD can be evaluated only after the bioassay. The highest dose tested HDT in a long-term rodent bioassay is usually used as the EMTD. However, that was not always the

OCR for page 22
Issues in Risk Assessment case, especially in bioassays conducted before testing at the EMTD became the standard practice. The MTD, by definition, is an inverse measure of the potency of an agent in causing chronic toxic effects, specifically those manifested as premature death, weight loss, or histopathologic changes after near-lifetime exposure. Potency refers to the range of doses over which a chemical produces increasing responses. Chemical A is considered more potent than chemical B if more of B than of A is required to elicit an identical response. The LD50 (dose that is lethal to 50% of animals tested) is an inverse measure of the acute toxicity of an agent. It is defined as the dose (in milligrams per kilogram of body weight) that is expected to kill half a set of animals after a single administration. The TD50 is an inverse measure of the carcinogenic potency of an agent and was defined by Peto et al. (1984) as follows: For any particular sex, strain, species and set of experimental conditions, the TD50 is the dose rate (in mg/kg body weight/day) that, if administered chronically for a standard period—the "standard lifespan" of the species—will halve the mortality-corrected estimate of the probability of remaining tumorless throughout that period. Gold et al. (1984, 1986a,b,c, 1987a, 1989a,b, 1990) have tabulated estimates of the TD50 for individual tumor sites and (in some cases) total tumors from more than 4,000 sets of tumor data on 1,050 chemicals. The criteria used by Gold et al. (1984) in deciding what chemicals to include in their Cancer Potency Data Base (CPDB) were as follows: National Cancer Institute (NCI)/NTP bioassay, or Bioassay in the published literature meeting all the following criteria: Animals tested were mammals, Administration was begun early in life (100 days of age or less for rats, mice, and hamsters), Route of administration was diet, water, gavage, inhalation, or intravenous or intraperitoneal injection (i.e., where the whole body was

OCR for page 23
Issues in Risk Assessment more likely to have been exposed than only a specific site, as with subcutaneous injection or skin painting), Test agent was administered alone, rather than in combination with other chemicals, Exposure was chronic, with not more than 7 days between administrations, Duration of exposure was at least one-fourth the standard lifespan of the test species, Duration of experiment was at least half the standard lifespan of the test species, Research design included a control group, Research design included at least five animals per group, Surgical intervention was not performed, Pathology data were reported as the number of animals with tumors, rather than the total number of tumors, Results reported were original data, rather than secondary analyses of experiments already reported by other authors. Bioassays of particulate or fibrous matter and of mixtures of chemicals were not included (except some commercial preparations to which humans are often exposed). The CPDB or the computerized National Toxicology Program/National Cancer Institute (NTP/NCI) database served as the data sources for the statistical analyses of correlations between carcinogenic potency and other measures of toxicity conducted by a number of investigators (Zeise et al., 1984, 1985, 1986; Bernstein et al., 1985; Crouch et al., 1987, and Rieth and Starr, 1989a,b). In particular, in a paper specifically prepared for the present committee's workshop on the MTD, Krewski et al. (Appendix F) calculated estimates of the TD50 for a subset of 191 chemicals listed in the CPDB; they used three models of the dose-response relationship: the single-stage models used by Peto et al. (1984), a multistage model, and a Weibull (in dose) model. In addition to the TD50, carcinogenic potency can be measured on the basis of the slope of the dose-response curve in the low dose region, expressed by the parameter q1. The parameter q1 is the coefficient of the linear term in the multistage model of Armitage and Doll (1961) as adapted for risk assessment by Crump (1984). When the model is applied to experimental data on tumor frequencies, q1 is an estimate of the