IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v12y1992i1p115-121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Concordance of Carcinogenic Response between Rodent Species: Potency Dependence and Potential Underestimation

Author

Listed:
  • Walter W. Piegorsch
  • Gregory J. Carr
  • Christopher J. Portier
  • David G. Hoel

Abstract

The use of average qualitative concordance between two bioassay endpoints is considered, with emphasis directed at agreement between rats and mice from results of long‐term carcinogenicity studies. It is noted that concordance varies as a function of the underlying potency or toxicity of the chemicals over which the averaging is performed. Thus, the averaging process dilutes large observed concordances from potent chemicals, and possibly inflates lower observed concordances from weakly active chemicals. Stratification over some measure of potency is suggested as a method for taking these effects into account. Statistical simulations of concordance analyses limited to low‐potency ranges are employed to examine the concordance measure in greater detail. It is seen that at low potencies, observed concordance is consistently underestimated, reaching maximum levels of only about 80%.

Suggested Citation

  • Walter W. Piegorsch & Gregory J. Carr & Christopher J. Portier & David G. Hoel, 1992. "Concordance of Carcinogenic Response between Rodent Species: Potency Dependence and Potential Underestimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 115-121, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:12:y:1992:i:1:p:115-121
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb01314.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb01314.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb01314.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruce C. Allen & Kenny S. Crump & Annette M. Shipp, 1988. "Response to Comments on Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency of Chemicals in Animals and Humans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 559-561, December.
    2. Bruce C. Allen & Kenny S. Crump & Annette M. Shipp, 1988. "Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency of Chemicals in Animals and Humans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 531-544, December.
    3. Lauren Zeise & Richard Wilson & Edmund Crouch, 1984. "Use of Acute Toxicity to Estimate Carcinogenic Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3), pages 187-199, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. D. Krewski & D .W. Gaylor & A. P. Soms & M. Szyszkowicz, 1993. "An Overview of the Report: Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency and the Maximum Tolerated Dose: Implications for Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 383-398, August.
    2. David A. Freedman & Lois Swirsky Gold & Thomas H. Slone, 1993. "How Tautological Are Interspecies Correlations of Carcinogenic Potencies?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 265-272, June.
    3. Alison C. Taylor & John S. Evans & Thomas E. McKone, 1993. "The Value of Animal Test Information in Environmental Control Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 403-412, August.
    4. Michael J. Goddard & Daniel Krewski, 1992. "Interspecies Extrapolation of Toxicity Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 315-317, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Curtis C. Travis & Sheri T. Hester, 1990. "Background Exposure to Chemicals: What Is the Risk?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 463-466, December.
    2. D. Krewski & D .W. Gaylor & A. P. Soms & M. Szyszkowicz, 1993. "An Overview of the Report: Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency and the Maximum Tolerated Dose: Implications for Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 383-398, August.
    3. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2014. "Does EPA Underestimate Cancer Risks by Ignoring Susceptibility Differences?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1780-1784, October.
    4. Michael J. Goddard & Daniel Krewski, 1992. "Interspecies Extrapolation of Toxicity Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 315-317, June.
    5. Karen Watanabe & Frédéric Y. Bois & Lauren Zeise, 1992. "Interspecies Extrapolation: A Reexamination of Acute Toxicity Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 301-310, June.
    6. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2014. "Unveiling Variability and Uncertainty for Better Science and Decisions on Cancer Risks from Environmental Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1795-1806, October.
    7. Daniel Krewski, 1990. "Measuring Carcinogenic Potency," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 615-617, December.
    8. Adam M. Finkel, 2014. "EPA Underestimates, Oversimplifies, Miscommunicates, and Mismanages Cancer Risks by Ignoring Human Susceptibility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1785-1794, October.
    9. Adam M. Finkel, 1994. "Risk Assessment Research: Only the Beginning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 907-911, December.
    10. Robert J. Scheuplein & John C. Bowers, 1995. "Dioxin–An Analysis of the Major Human Studies: Comparison with Animal‐Based Cancer Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 319-333, June.
    11. Christopher J. Portier, 1988. "Species Correlation of Chemical Carcinogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 551-553, December.
    12. Seymour J. Garte, 1990. "Communication of Relative Carcinogenic Risks: A Quantitative Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 467-468, December.
    13. Alison C. Taylor & John S. Evans & Thomas E. McKone, 1993. "The Value of Animal Test Information in Environmental Control Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 403-412, August.
    14. Kenneth T. Bogen, 1995. "Methods to Approximate Joint Uncertainty and Variability in Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 411-419, June.
    15. Mehdi Razzaghi & David W. Gaylor, 1996. "On the Correlation Coefficient Between the TD50 and the MTD," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 107-113, February.
    16. Leslie Bernstein & Lois S. Gold & Bruce N. Ames & Malcolm C. Pike & David G. Hoel, 1985. "Toxicity and Carcinogenic Potency," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(4), pages 263-264, December.
    17. Viay K. Gombar & Kurt Enslein & Jeffrey B. Hart & Benjamin W. Blake & Harold H. Borgstedt, 1991. "Estimation of Maximum Tolerated Dose for Long‐Term Bioassays from Acute Lethal Dose and Structure by QSAR," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(3), pages 509-517, September.
    18. Pierre Crettaz & David Pennington & Lorenz Rhomberg & Kevin Brand & Olivier Jolliet, 2002. "Assessing Human Health Response in Life Cycle Assessment Using ED10s and DALYs: Part 1—Cancer Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 931-946, October.
    19. Gay Goodrnan & Richard Wilson, 1992. "Comparison of the Dependence of the TD50 on Maximum Tolerated Dose for Mutagens and Nonmutagens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 525-533, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:12:y:1992:i:1:p:115-121. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.