Literature DB >> 1480802

Extrapolation of carcinogenicity between species: qualitative and quantitative factors.

L S Gold1, N B Manley, B N Ames.   

Abstract

Prediction of human cancer risk from the results of rodent bioassays requires two types of extrapolation: a qualitative extrapolation from short-lived rodent species to long-lived humans, and a quantitative extrapolation from near-toxic doses in the bioassay to low-level human exposures. Experimental evidence on the accuracy of prediction between closely related species tested under similar experimental conditions (rats, mice, and hamsters) indicates that: (1) if a chemical is positive in one species, it will be positive in the second species about 75% of the time; however, since about 50% of test chemicals are positive in each species, by chance alone one would expect a predictive value between species of about 50%. (2) If a chemical induces tumors in a particular target organ in one species, it will induce tumors in the same organ in the second species about 50% of the time. Similar predictive values are obtained in an analysis of prediction from humans to rats or from humans to mice for known human carcinogens. Limitations of bioassay data for use in quantitative extrapolation are discussed, including constraints on both estimates of carcinogenic potency and of the dose-response in experiments with only two doses and a control. Quantitative extrapolation should be based on an understanding of mechanisms of carcinogenesis, particularly mitogenic effects that are present at high and not low doses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1480802     DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00714.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  8 in total

1.  Of mice and men.

Authors:  Thomas C Erren; J Valérie Gross; Melissa S Koch; V Benno Meyer-Rochow
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 8.807

2.  Comment: integrating epidemiologic data into risk assessment.

Authors:  D Wartenberg; R Simon
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Is exposure to silica associated with lung cancer in the absence of silicosis? A meta-analytical approach to an important public health question.

Authors:  Thomas C Erren; Christine B Glende; Peter Morfeld; Claus Piekarski
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2008-12-06       Impact factor: 3.015

Review 4.  An alternative approach for investigating the carcinogenicity of indoor air pollution: pets as sentinels of environmental cancer risk.

Authors:  J A Bukowski; D Wartenberg
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 9.031

5.  Translational toxicology in setting occupational exposure limits for dusts and hazard classification - a critical evaluation of a recent approach to translate dust overload findings from rats to humans.

Authors:  Peter Morfeld; Joachim Bruch; Len Levy; Yufanyi Ngiewih; Ishrat Chaudhuri; Henry J Muranko; Ross Myerson; Robert J McCunney
Journal:  Part Fibre Toxicol       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 9.400

Review 6.  Lung cancer biomarkers for the assessment of modified risk tobacco products: an oxidative stress perspective.

Authors:  Frazer J Lowe; Karsta Luettich; Evan O Gregg
Journal:  Biomarkers       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 2.658

7.  Biological networks for predicting chemical hepatocarcinogenicity using gene expression data from treated mice and relevance across human and rat species.

Authors:  Reuben Thomas; Russell S Thomas; Scott S Auerbach; Christopher J Portier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Cancer risk assessment of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields: a critical review of methodology.

Authors:  J McCann
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 9.031

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.