Literature DB >> 22296526

Ratcheting up cancer potency estimates.

Edmund A C Crouch1, Gilbert S Omenn.   

Abstract

The current paradigm for cancer risk assessment in the United States (U.S.) typically requires selection of representative rodent bioassay dose-response data for extrapolation to a single cancer potency estimate for humans. In the absence of extensive further information, the chosen bioassay result generally is taken to be that which gives the highest extrapolated result from the "most sensitive" species or strain. The estimated human cancer potency is thus derived from an upper-bound value on animal cancer potency that is technically similar to an extreme value statistic. Thus additional information from further bioassays can only lead to equal or larger cancer potency estimates. We here calculate the size of this effect using the collected results of a large number of bioassays. Since many standards are predicated on the value of the cancer potency, this effect is undesirable in producing a strong counter-incentive to performing further bioassays.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22296526      PMCID: PMC4869984          DOI: 10.1021/es204310j

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Technol        ISSN: 0013-936X            Impact factor:   9.028


  13 in total

Review 1.  Concordance between rats and mice in bioassays for carcinogenesis.

Authors:  D A Freedman; L S Gold; T H Lin
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 3.271

2.  Cost-effectiveness of short-term tests for carcinogenicity.

Authors:  L B Lave; G S Omenn
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1986 Nov 6-12       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Choice of dose measure for extrapolating carcinogenic risk from animals to humans: an empirical investigation of 23 chemicals.

Authors:  K Crump; B Allen; A Shipp
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 1.316

4.  Correlation between carcinogenic potency of chemicals in animals and humans.

Authors:  B C Allen; K S Crump; A M Shipp
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 4.000

5.  Interspecies comparison of carcionogenic potency.

Authors:  E Crouch; R Wilson
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health       Date:  1979-11

6.  Relative potency of chemical carcinogens in rodents.

Authors:  D W Gaylor; J J Chen
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 4.000

7.  Carcinogenic risk assessment: comparison of estimated safe doses for rats and mice.

Authors:  J J Chen; D W Gaylor
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Uncertainties in interspecies extrapolations of carcinogenicity.

Authors:  E A Crouch
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1983-04       Impact factor: 9.031

9.  Interspecies extrapolation in carcinogenesis: prediction between rats and mice.

Authors:  L S Gold; L Bernstein; R Magaw; T H Slone
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  Inter-species comparisons of carcinogenicity.

Authors:  I F Purchase
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1980-03       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.