Literature DB >> 16267338

A Weight-of-evidence analysis of the cancer dose-response characteristics of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD).

James A Popp1, Edmund Crouch, Ernest E McConnell.   

Abstract

Cancer risk assessment for TCDD and other compounds must focus on the cancer dose-response relationship and corresponding potency for the range of human doses before it can have relevance to the human exposure environment. Major differences of opinion exist over whether the dose-response curve for TCDD and other dioxin congeners is non-linear (incorporating a threshold dose region below which tumors are unlikely to be elicited) or linear (implying that any exposure has a statistical likelihood of causing cancer). The World Health Organization and others strongly support a non-linear dose-response relationship for TCDD and cancer, whereas USEPA characterizes the dose-response function as linear. This review critically summarizes the available information on TCDD dose-response relationship for cancer utilizing a weight-of-evidence approach. This assessment concludes that the available data support a non-linear dose-response relationship as being most likely and appropriate for human cancer risk assessment, i.e., the evidence suggests that a biological threshold exists in the dose-response. While proof of a threshold is not absolute, and never can be, the level of certainty for TCDD is substantial because of the concordance of many lines of evidence and the consistency of repeated observations pointing to non-linearity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16267338     DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfj016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicol Sci        ISSN: 1096-0929            Impact factor:   4.849


  3 in total

Review 1.  Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses.

Authors:  Laura N Vandenberg; Theo Colborn; Tyrone B Hayes; Jerrold J Heindel; David R Jacobs; Duk-Hee Lee; Toshi Shioda; Ana M Soto; Frederick S vom Saal; Wade V Welshons; R Thomas Zoeller; John Peterson Myers
Journal:  Endocr Rev       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 19.871

2.  Adverse Outcome Pathways can drive non-animal approaches for safety assessment.

Authors:  Natalie Burden; Fiona Sewell; Melvin E Andersen; Alan Boobis; J Kevin Chipman; Mark T D Cronin; Thomas H Hutchinson; Ian Kimber; Maurice Whelan
Journal:  J Appl Toxicol       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 3.446

3.  Ranking cancer risks of organic hazardous air pollutants in the United States.

Authors:  Miranda M Loh; Jonathan I Levy; John D Spengler; E Andres Houseman; Deborah H Bennett
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 9.031

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.