# Issues in Risk Assessment(1993)

## Chapter: 4.2 Predictions Based on Mutagenicity and Acute Toxicity

« Previous: 4.1 Predictions Based on the MDT
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"4.2 Predictions Based on Mutagenicity and Acute Toxicity." National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2078.
×

regressions were performed using the one-stage, multistage, and Weibull models to determine the TD50.

As indicated in Table 3, the estimate of the slope is near unity for all three models. The error variance s2 is greatest for the Weibull model, and least for the one-stage model. An approximate 95% prediction interval for an individual log10(TD50) at a given value of the MTD is given by a+blog10(MTD)+2s. Since b ˜ 1, this corresponds to the interval 10±2s × MTD for the TD50. For the one-stage model, for example, the 95% prediction interval encompasses a range of 7 × 7 = 49-fold about the MDT, comparable to the 32-fold range derived by Bernstein et al. (1985).

###### 4.2Predictions Based on Mutagenicity and Acute Toxicity

The preceding results indicate that the MTD, which is essentially a measure of chronic toxicity, is a fair predictor of the TD50. Determination of the MTD is normally based on the results of subchronic toxicity tests lasting about three-months. This observation raises the question

TABLE 3 Regression of Carcinogenic Potency on the Maximum Tolerated Dose

 Regression Parameter Model One-Stage Multistage Weibull Intercept ± SE - 0.07 ± 0.05 - 0.10 ± 0.04 0.15 ± 0.06 Slope ± SE 1.04 ± 0.02 1.04 ± 0.02 0.99 ± 0.03 Correlation 0.952 0.964 0.903 Root Mean Square (s) 0.423 0.362 0.592 Factor 102s for 95% Prediction Intervalb 7.0 5.3 15.3 aBased on simple linear regression of log TD50 on log MDT bUpper limit is 102s x MDT; lower limit is 10-2s x MDT.
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"4.2 Predictions Based on Mutagenicity and Acute Toxicity." National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2078.
×

as to whether there exist other variables that are highly correlated with cancer potency that may be considered as possible predictors of the TD50, and which may be determined with less effort than through a subchronic study.

The two-stage initiation-promotion-progression model of carcinogenesis described by Moolgavkar & Luebeck (1990) is based on the concept that mutation and cell proliferation are the two most important determinants of neoplastic change. Meselson & Russell (1977) reported a near-perfect linear relationship between the mutagenic potency of 14 chemical carcinogens, as measured by the dose inducing a mutation rate of 100 revertant colonies in the Ames Salmonella/microsome assay, and carcinogenic potency, as measured by the TD50. McCann et al (1988) found a correlation of r = 0.41 between the mutagenic and carcinogenic potencies of 80 chemicals drawn from both the general literature and the U.S. National Toxicology Program. More recently, Piegorsch & Hoel (1988) examined the correlation between mutagenic and carcinogenic potency using 97 chemicals tested in the U.S. National Toxicology Program. In this analysis, mutagenic potency was measured by the slope of the initial linear portion of the dose-response curve (cf. Krewski et al., 1992, 1993). Although a significant positive correlation of r=0.48 between mutagenic and carcinogenic potency was apparent, the overall scatter was considered to be to sufficiently great to preclude the use of Ames test data as a quantitative predictor of carcinogenic potency. Parodi et al. (1990) reviewed studies of the correlation between mutagenic and carcinogenic potency conducted between 1976 and 1988. In addition to using the Salmonella assay to measure mutagenic potency, mutation in L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells, in vivo DNA adducts in rodent liver, and in vitro DNA repair in rodent liver were also considered. This investigation suggests that the correlation between carcinogenic potency and mutagenic potency based on each of these short-term tests is moderate, with correlation coefficients in the neighborhood of r=0.4.

The relationship between acute toxicity, which may provide some indication of the ability of a chemical to induce cellular proliferation, and carcinogenic potency has been the subject of several investigations. Parodi et al. (1982a) found a significant correlation (r = 0.49) between carcinogenic potency and acute toxicity. Parodi et al. (1990) suggested that this association may be due in large part to the fact that acute and chronic toxicity are correlated, with chronic toxicity (as measured by the

Page 134
Suggested Citation:"4.2 Predictions Based on Mutagenicity and Acute Toxicity." National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2078.
×

MTD) in turn being highly correlated with carcinogenic potency.

Zeise et al. (1986) reported a high correlation between acute toxicity as measured by the LD50, and carcinogenic potency, as measured by the parameter ß in the one-hit model. Although correlation coefficients as high as r=-0.93 were found with both variables expressed on a logarithmic scale, some exceptions were noted. For example, the carcinogenic potency of 7,12-dimethyl benz(a)anthracene (DMBA) is about 5,000-fold greater than would be predicted on the basis of its LD50. Nonetheless, Zeise et al. (1984) suggested that this relationship between acute toxicity and carcinogenicity could be used to substantially narrow the uncertainty in the TD50 values of untested carcinogens, which, as shown previously, vary over some seven orders of magnitude. More recently, Metzger et al. (1987) reported somewhat lower correlations (r = 0.6) between the LD50 and TD50 for 264 carcinogens selected from the CPDB, with an average TD50/LD50 ratio of 0.06.

Travis et al. (1990a) argued that since both mutation and cell proliferation are important determinants of carcinogenesis, attempts to correlate carcinogenic potency with mutagenicity or acute toxicity alone are inadequate. Thus, Travis et al. (1990ab, 1991) investigated the correlation between the TD50 and composite indices based on mutation, toxicity, reproductive anomalies, and tumorigenicity data derived from the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS) (Sweet, 1987). In general, this analysis confirmed the previously reported correlation of r = 0.4 between mutagenic potency in the Ames assay and the minimum TD50 observed in rodent carcinogenicity studies (McCann et al., 1988; Piegorsch & Hoel, 1988); the correlation of r = 0.7 between LD50 and TD50 was also somewhat greater than that reported by Metzger et al. (1987).

In addition to confirming previous findings, Travis et al. (1990ab, 1991) investigated the correlation between composite predictors of carcinogenic potency based on results from two or more of 870 different assays for mutagenicity or toxicity, including 20 assays for mutation reported in RTECS. For each assay, a relative potency index was established in terms of weighted average of the potency relative to 20 reference compounds; a geometric mean of all available assays was then used to obtain an overall predictor of carcinogenicity. For some chemicals, the relative potency values based on different assays varied by as much as five orders of magnitude.

Page 132
Suggested Citation:"4.2 Predictions Based on Mutagenicity and Acute Toxicity." National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2078.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"4.2 Predictions Based on Mutagenicity and Acute Toxicity." National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2078.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"4.2 Predictions Based on Mutagenicity and Acute Toxicity." National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2078.
×
Next: 5.1 Correlation Between Upper Bounds On the Low Dose Slope and MTD »
Issues in Risk Assessment Get This Book
×

The scientific basis, inference assumptions, regulatory uses, and research needs in risk assessment are considered in this two-part volume.

The first part, Use of Maximum Tolerated Dose in Animal Bioassays for Carcinogenicity, focuses on whether the maximum tolerated dose should continue to be used in carcinogenesis bioassays. The committee considers several options for modifying current bioassay procedures.

The second part, Two-Stage Models of Carcinogenesis, stems from efforts to identify improved means of cancer risk assessment that have resulted in the development of a mathematical dose-response model based on a paradigm for the biologic phenomena thought to be associated with carcinogenesis.

1. ×

## Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

No Thanks Take a Tour »
2. ×

Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

« Back Next »
3. ×

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

« Back Next »
4. ×

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

« Back Next »
5. ×

Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

« Back Next »
6. ×

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

« Back Next »
7. ×

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

« Back Next »
8. ×

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

« Back Next »
9. ×

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

« Back Next »