National Academies Press: OpenBook

Issues in Risk Assessment (1993)

Chapter: 5.2 Correlation Between q1* and the TD50

« Previous: 5.1 Correlation Between Upper Bounds On the Low Dose Slope and MTD
Suggested Citation:"5.2 Correlation Between q1* and the TD50." National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2078.
×

of the limited range of values q1* can assume once the MTD is established.

This behavior is readily illustrated using model-free upper bounds on low dose risk proposed by Krewski et al. (1991a). The current NTP carcinogenesis screening bioassay generally consists of groups of 50 animals at doses of 0, D/4, D/2 and D = MTD. Using the model-free extrapolation (MFX) procedure with this design, the lowest estimate of potency would occur at the highest possible dose not exhibiting a statistically significant increase in tumor incidence. For carcinogens, there would be a statistically significant increase in the tumor incidence at least at the MTD. Hence, the lowest estimate of potency occurs when there are no tumors at the MTD/2. In this case, the MFX would yield an upper confidence limit on the low dose slope of approximately 0.09/(MTD/2) = 0.18/MTD. The maximum estimate of the low dose slope would occur if the upper confidence limit on the incidence were 1.0 at the lowest dose, i.e., 1.0/(MTD/4) = 4/MTD. Using the MFX procedure, this design can only accommodate a 4/0.18 = 22-fold range in carcinogenic potency estimates. This would be reduced to an 11-fold range if the lowest dose (MTD/4) were omitted.

The strong negative association between the MDT and linearized upper bounds on the slope of the dose-response curve in the low dose region is demonstrated empirically in Figure 4 using the 191 carcinogens considered previously in section 3.1. Upper bounds based on both the multistage model and model-free extrapolation are highly correlated with the MDT, with Pearson correlation coefficients of -0.941 and -0.960 respectively.

5.2 Correlation Between q1* and the TD50

The fact that both the TD50 and q1* are correlated with the MTD implies a correlation between the TD50 and q1*. Krewski et al. (1989) provided empirical confirmation of this. An association between the TD50 and linearized estimates of low dose cancer risks has been previously assumed by other investigators. Rulis (1986) used simple linear extrapolation from TD50 values in the CPDB to estimate the 10-6 risk-specific doses (RSDs) for 343 chemical carcinogens. (The RSD is the dose associated with a specified increase in risk.) Similarly, by defining

Suggested Citation:"5.2 Correlation Between q1* and the TD50." National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2078.
×

FIGURE 4a Association between upper bounds on low dose slope and maximum tolerated dose.

Suggested Citation:"5.2 Correlation Between q1* and the TD50." National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2078.
×

FIGURE 4b Association between upper bounds on low dose slope and maximum tolerated dose.

Suggested Citation:"5.2 Correlation Between q1* and the TD50." National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2078.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"5.2 Correlation Between q1* and the TD50." National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2078.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"5.2 Correlation Between q1* and the TD50." National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2078.
×
Page 138
Next: 5.3. Preliminary Estimate of Risk »
Issues in Risk Assessment Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $65.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

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 »
Stay Connected!