IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v13y1993i4p383-398.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Overview of the Report: Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency and the Maximum Tolerated Dose: Implications for Risk Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • D. Krewski
  • D .W. Gaylor
  • A. P. Soms
  • M. Szyszkowicz

Abstract

Current practice in carcinogen bioassay calls for exposure of experimental animals at doses up to and including the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Such studies have been used to compute measures of carcinogenic potency such as the TD50 as well as unit risk factors such as q1* for predicting low‐dose risks. Recent studies have indicated that these measures of carcinogenic potency are highly correlated with the MTD. Carcinogenic potency has also been shown to be correlated with indicators of mutagenicity and toxicity. Correlation of the MTDs for rats and mice implies a corresponding correlation in TD50 values for these two species. The implications of these results for cancer risk assessment are examined in light of the large variation in potency among chemicals known to induce tumors in rodents.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:13:y:1993:i:4:p:383-398
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00738.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00738.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00738.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. Dianne M. Finkelstein & Louise M. Ryan, 1987. "Estimating Carcinogenic Potency from a Rodent Tumorigenicity Experiment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 36(2), pages 121-133, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Duncan J. Murdoch & Daniel Krewski, 1988. "Carcinogenic Risk Assessment with Time‐Dependent Exposure Patterns," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 521-530, December.
    4. Alexander Shlyakhter & Gay Goodman & Richard Wilson, 1992. "Monte Carlo Simulation of Rodent Carcinogenicity Bioassays," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 73-82, March.
    5. Daniel Wartenberg & Michael A. Gallo, 1990. "The Fallacy of Ranking Possible Carcinogen Hazards Using the TD50," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 609-613, December.
    6. 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.
    7. John H. Farmer & Ralph L. Kodell & David W. Gaylor, 1982. "Estimation and Extrapolation of Tumor Probabilities from a Mouse Bioassay with Survival/Sacrifice Components," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 27-34, March.
    8. Lois Swirsky Gold & Leslie Bernstein & Bruce N. Ames, 1990. "The Importance of Ranking Possible Carcinogenic Hazards Using HERP," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 625-628, December.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    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. Wilson, James D., 1996. "Thresholds for Carcinogens: A Review of the Relevant Science and Its Implications for Regulatory Policy," Discussion Papers 10470, Resources for the Future.
    2. Wilson, James, 1996. "Thresholds for Carcinogens: A Review of the Relevant Science and It's Implications for Regulatory Policy," RFF Working Paper Series dp-96-21, Resources for the Future.
    3. 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.
    4. Fumie Yokota & George Gray & James K. Hammitt & Kimberly M. Thompson, 2004. "Tiered Chemical Testing: A Value of Information Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1625-1639, December.
    5. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Michael J. Goddard & Daniel Krewski, 1992. "Interspecies Extrapolation of Toxicity Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 315-317, June.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Lois Swirsky Gold & Neela B. Manley & Bruce N. Ames, 1992. "Extrapolation of Carcinogenicity Between Species: Qualitative and Quantitative Factors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 579-588, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Peter M. VanDoren, 1996. "The Effects of Exposure to “Synthetic” Chemicals on Human Health: A Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 367-376, June.
    9. Heping Zhang & Daniel Zelterman, 1999. "Binary Regression for Risks in Excess of Subject-Specific Thresholds," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 1247-1251, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Ralph L. Kodell & James J. Chen, 1994. "Reducing Conservatism in Risk Estimation for Mixtures of Carcinogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 327-332, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Wout Slob, 1994. "Uncertainty Analysis in Multiplicative Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 571-576, August.
    14. 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.
    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. Daniel Krewski, 1990. "Measuring Carcinogenic Potency," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 615-617, December.
    17. Gay Goodman, 1990. "The Importance of Being Quantitative When Crying “Fallacy”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 619-621, December.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Adam M. Finkel, 1994. "Risk Assessment Research: Only the Beginning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 907-911, 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:13:y:1993:i:4:p:383-398. 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.