Literature DB >> 18648620

Hormesis: implications for cancer risk assessment.

Jonathan Borak1, Greg Sirianni.   

Abstract

Current guidelines for cancer risk assessment emphasize a toxicant's "mode of action", rather than its empirically derived dose-response relationship, for determining whether linear low-dose extrapolation is appropriate. Thus, for reasons of policy, demonstration of hormesis is generally insufficient to justify a non-linear approach, although it may provide important insights into the actions of toxicants. We evaluated dose-response characteristics of four carcinogens reported to have hormetic dose-response curves: cadmium chloride; ionizing radiation; PAHs; and, 2,3,7,8-TCDD. For each, the study that documented hormesis in one organ also provided evidence of non-hormetic dose-responses in other organs or non-hormetic responses for seemingly similar carcinogens in the same species and organs. Such inconsistency suggests toxicologic reasons that the finding of hormesis alone is not sufficient to justify use of non-linear low-dose extrapolations. Moreover, available data in those examples are not sufficient to know whether hormesis is a property of the toxicants, the target organ, or the exposed species. From the perspectives of cancer risk assessment, the greatest informational value of hormesis may be that it provokes mechanistic studies intended to explain why hormesis occurs.

Entities:  

Year:  2006        PMID: 18648620      PMCID: PMC2475950          DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.003.03.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dose Response        ISSN: 1559-3258            Impact factor:   2.658


  11 in total

Review 1.  Hormesis: from marginalization to mainstream: a case for hormesis as the default dose-response model in risk assessment.

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2004-06-01       Impact factor: 4.219

2.  Re: Hengstler, J.G., Bolm-Auorff, U., Faldum, A., Janssen, K., Reifenrath, M., Gotte, W., Jung, D., Mayer-Popken, O., Fuchs, J., Gebhard, S., Bienfait, H.G., Schlink, K., Dietrich, C., Faust, D., Epe, B. and Oesch, F. Occupational exposure to heavy metals: DNA damage induction and DNA repair inhibition prove co-exposures to cadmium, cobalt and lead as more dangerous than hitherto expected. Carcinogenesis, 2003, 24, 63-73.

Authors:  M Kirsch-Volders; D Lison
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  2003-09-11       Impact factor: 4.944

3.  Carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of some metals and their compounds.

Authors:  F W Sunderman
Journal:  IARC Sci Publ       Date:  1986

4.  Induction of tumors in mice given a minute single dose of dibenz[a,h]anthracene or 3-methylcholanthrene as newborns. A dose-response study.

Authors:  R W O'Gara; M G Kelly; J Brown; N Mantel
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1965-12       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Results of a two-year chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in rats.

Authors:  R J Kociba; D G Keyes; J E Beyer; R M Carreon; C E Wade; D A Dittenber; R P Kalnins; L E Frauson; C N Park; S D Barnard; R A Hummel; C G Humiston
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  1978-11       Impact factor: 4.219

6.  Influence of gamma irradiation on the development of neoplastic disease in mice. II. Solid tumors.

Authors:  R L Ullrich; J B Storer
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  1979-11       Impact factor: 2.841

Review 7.  Toxicological principles of metal carcinogenesis with special emphasis on cadmium.

Authors:  M P Waalkes; T P Coogan; R A Barter
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 5.635

8.  In vitro cadmium-DNA interactions: cooperativity of cadmium binding and competitive antagonism by calcium, magnesium, and zinc.

Authors:  M P Waalkes; L A Poirier
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  1984-09-30       Impact factor: 4.219

9.  Cadmium carcinogenesis in male Wistar [Crl:(WI)BR] rats: dose-response analysis of tumor induction in the prostate and testes and at the injection site.

Authors:  M P Waalkes; S Rehm; C W Riggs; R M Bare; D E Devor; L A Poirier; M L Wenk; J R Henneman; M S Balaschak
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1988-08-15       Impact factor: 12.701

Review 10.  Current aspects in metal genotoxicity.

Authors:  A Hartwig
Journal:  Biometals       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 2.949

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Cellular stress responses, the hormesis paradigm, and vitagenes: novel targets for therapeutic intervention in neurodegenerative disorders.

Authors:  Vittorio Calabrese; Carolin Cornelius; Albena T Dinkova-Kostova; Edward J Calabrese; Mark P Mattson
Journal:  Antioxid Redox Signal       Date:  2010-08-28       Impact factor: 8.401

2.  Ethical issues in nanomedicine: Tempest in a teapot?

Authors:  Irit Allon; Ahmi Ben-Yehudah; Raz Dekel; Jan-Helge Solbakk; Klaus-Michael Weltring; Gil Siegal
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2017-03

3.  Assessment of Industry-Induced Urban Human Health Risks Related to Benzo[a]pyrenebased on a Multimedia Fugacity Model: Case Study of Nanjing, China.

Authors:  Linyu Xu; Huimin Song; Yan Wang; Hao Yin
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  Turning natural adaptations to oncogenic factors into an ally in the war against cancer.

Authors:  Marion Vittecoq; Mathieu Giraudeau; Tuul Sepp; David J Marcogliese; Marcel Klaassen; François Renaud; Beata Ujvari; Frédéric Thomas
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2018-03-14       Impact factor: 5.183

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.