Biostatistical methodology in carcinogenicity studies

Drug Information Journal

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 401-421

  Fairweather, William R ^a  

^a CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Carcinogenicity; Data analysis; Literature; Study design; Test statistics

Indexed keywords

BIOSTATISTICS; CARCINOGENICITY; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG INDUSTRY; GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE; METHODOLOGY; MORTALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0031802327     PISSN: 00928615     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009286159803200212     Document Type: Review

References (87)

1. Lagakos SW. An evaluation of some two-sample tests used to analyze animal carcinogenicity experiments. Utilitas Mathematica. 1982;21B:239-260.
2. Ryan LM. Efficiency of age-adjusted tests in animal careinogenicity experiments. Biometrics. 1985;41: 525-531.
3. Bailer AJ, Portier CJ. An illustration of dangers of ignoring survival differences in careinogenicity data. J Appl Toxicol. 1988;8:185-189.
4. Sontag JM, Page NP, Saffiotti U. Guidelines for Carcinogen Bioassay in Small Rodents. DHHS Publication (NIH) 76-801. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 1976.
5. Page N. Concept of a bioassay program in environmental carcinogenesis. In: Kraybill HF, Mehlman HA, eds. Advances in Medical Toxicology. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons; 1977:87-171.
6. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Guideline for Industry: Dose Selectionfor Careinogenicity Studies ofPharmaceuticals. 1995.
7. Huff JE, Moore JA. Carcinogenesis studies design and experimental data interpretation/evaluation at the National Toxicology Program. In: Industrial Hazards of Plastics and Synthetic Elastomers. New York, NY: Alan R. Liss Inc.; 1984:43-64.
8. Munro 1C. Considerations in chronic toxicity testing: The chemical, the dose, the design. J Environ Pathol Toxicol. 1977;1:183-197.
9. Ames BN, Gold LS. Too many rodent carcinogens: mitogenesis increases mutagenesis. Science. 1990; 249:970-972.
10. Cohen SM, Ellwein LB. Genetic errors, cell proliferation and carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 1991;51: 6493-6505.
11. Morgan DG, Kelvin AS, Kinter LB, Fish CJ, Kerns. WD, Rhodes G. The application of toxicokinetic data to dosage selection in toxicology studies. Toxicologie Pathology. 1994;22:112-123.
12. Kipling J. Dose Selectionfor Careinogenicity Studies of Pharmaceutical FINAL DRAFTs-lCH Harmonised Tripartite Guidelines, The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry; 1994.
13. Faccini JM, Butler WR, Friedmann JC, Hess R, Reznik GK, Ito N, Hayashi Y, Williams GM. IFSTP Guidelines for the design and interpretation of the chronic rodent carcinogenicity bioassay. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 1992;44(8):443-456.
14. Greenman DL, Bryant P, Kodell RL, Sheldon W. Influence of cage shelf level on retinal atrophy in mice. Lab Animal Sci. 1982;32:353-356.
15. Gart JJ, Krewski D, Lee PN, Tarone RE, Wahrendorf J. Statistical methods in cancer research Volume III. The design and analysis of long-term animal experiments. Lyon; International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1986.
16. McKnight B, Crowley J. Tests for differences in tumor incidence based on animal carcinogenesis experiments. J Am Slat Assoc. 1984;79:639-648.
17. Bross ID. Why proof of safety is much more difficult than proof of hazard. Biometrics. 1985:41:785-793.
18. Millard SP. Proof of safety vs proof of hazard. Biometrics. 1987;43:719-725.
19. Holland B, Ordoukhani NK. Balancing type I and type II error probabilities: Further comments on proof of safety vs proof of hazard. Comm Stat-Theory Meth. 1990;19:3557-3570.
20. Erickson WP, McDonald LL. Tests for bioequivalence of control media and test media in studies of toxicity. Environ Toxicol Chem. 1995;14:12471256.
21. Hauschke D. Statistical proof of safety in toxicological studies. Drug InfJ. 1997;31(2):357-361.
22. Hauschke D, Hothorn L. Safety assessment in toxicology studies: Proof of safety versus proof of hazard. In Chow S-C and Liu J-P eds. Design and Analysis of Animal Studies in Pharmaceutical Development. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 1998.
23. Stallard N, Whitehead A. An alternative approach to the analysis of animal carcinogenicity studies. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1996;23:244-248.
24. Haseman JK, Hajian G, Crump KS, Selwyn MR, Peace KE. Dual control groups in rodent carcinogenicity studies. In Peace ICE, ed. Statistical Issues in Drug Research and Development, New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1990.
25. Armitage P. Tests for linear trends in proportions and frequencies Biometrics. 1955;ll:375-386.
26. Portier CJ, Hoel D. Type 1 error of trend tests in proportions and the design of cancer screens. Comm StatA. 1984:13:1-14
27. Neuhaeuser M, Hothom LA. Trend tests for dichotomous endpoints with application to carcinogenicity studies. Drug InfJ, 1997;31(2):463-469.
28. Little, RJA. Testing the equality of two independent binomial proportions. Am Statis. 1989;43(4):283288.
29. Storer BE, Kim C. Exact properties of some exact test statistics for comparing two binominal distributions. J Am StatAssoc. 1990;85:146-155.
30. Lancaster HO. Significance tests in discrete distributions. J Am StatAssoc. 1961;56:223-234.
31. Chen JJ, Kodell RL, Pearce BA. Significance levels of randomization trend tests in the event of rare occurrences. Biom J. 1998.
32. Lin KK, Ali, MW. Statistical review and evaluation of animal tumorigenicity studies. In: Buncher CR and Tsay JY eds. Statistics in the Pharmaceutical Industry. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1994.
33. Peto R, Pike MC, Day NE, Gray RG, Lee PN, Parish S, Peto J, Richards S, Wahrendorf J. Guidelines for simple sensitive significance tests for carcinogenic effects in long-term animal experiments. In: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, supplement 2: Longterm and Short-term Screening Assays for Carcinogens: A Critical Appraisal. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1980:311-346.
34. Peto R, Peto J. Asymptotically efficient rank invariant test procedures (with discussion). J R Stat Soc A. 1972; 135(2): 185-206.
35. Hoel DG, Walburg HE. Statistical analysis of survival experiments. J Nat Cancer Inst. 1972;49:361372.
36. Lagakos SW, Louis TA. Use of tumor lethality to interpret tumorigenicity experiments lacking causeof-death data. App Stat. 1988:37:169-179.
37. McKnight B, Wahrendorf J. Tumor incidence rate alternatives and the cause-of-death test for carcinogenicity. Biometrika. 1992;79:131-138.
38. Kodell RL, Chen JJ, Moore GE. Comparing distributions of time to onset of disease in animal tumorigenicity experiments. Comm Stat-Theory Meth. 1994; 23:959-980.
39. Boldebuck DH, Neuhaus G, Heimann G. Analyzing carcinogenicity assays without cause of death information. Drug InfJ. 1997;31(2):489-507.
40. Dinse GE. A comparison of tumor incidence analyses applicable in single-sacrifice animal experiments. Stat Med. 1994;13:689-708.
41. Lindsey JC, Ryan LM. A comparison of continuousand discrete-time three-state models for rodent tumorigenicity experiments. Environ Health Perspect. 1994:102 (Suppl. 1):9-17.
42. Kodell RL, Pearce BA, Turturro A, Ahn H. An ageadjusted trend test for the tumor incidence rate for single sacrifice experiments. Drug InfJ. 1997;31(2): 471-487.
43. Gehan E. A generalized Wilcoxon test for comparing arbitrarily singly censored data. Biometrika. 1965; 52:650-654.
44. Prentice RL, Marek P. A qualitative discrepancy between censored data rank tests. Biometrics. 1979; 35:861-867.
45. Breslow N. A generalized Kruskal Wallis test for comparing K samples subject to unequal patterns of censorship. Biometrika. 1970;57:579-594.
46. Koziol JA, Reid N. On multiple comparisons among K samples subject to unequal patterns of censorship. Comm Statist A. 1977:12:1149-1164.
47. Tarone RE, Ware J. On distribution free tests for equality of survival distributions. Biometrika. 1977; 64:156-160.
48. Chen JJ, Gaylor D. The upper percentiles of the distribution of the logrank statistic for small sample sizes. Comm Stat-Simul. 1986;15(4):991-1002.
49. Heimann G, Neuhaus G. The permutational distribution of the logrank statistic under random censorship with applications to carcinogenicity assays. University of Hamburg; 1996.
50. Ali MW. Exact versus asymptotic tests of trend of tumor prevalence in tumorigenicity experiments: A comparison of P-values for small frequency of tumors. Drug InfJ. 1990;24:727-737.
51. Neuhaus G. Conditional rank tests for the two sample problem under random censorship. Ann Stat. 1993:21:1760-1779.
52. Gilbert JP. Random Censorship. A dissertation submitted to the Department of Statistics, University of Chicago; 1962;34-73.
53. Miller RG, Jr. Survival Analysis. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1981;85-103.
54. Mantel N. Assessing laboratory evidence for neoplastic activity. Biometrics. 1980;36:381-399.
55. Soper KA, Tonkonoh N. The discrete distribution used for the log-rank test can be inaccurate. Biom J. 1993;35:291-298.
56. Edgington E. Randomization Tests. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1995.
57. Heyse JF, Rom D. Adjusting for multiplicity of statistical tests in the analysis of carcinogenicity studies. Biom J. 1988;30(8):883-896.
58. Dinse GE, Haseman JK. Logistic regression analysis of incidental tumor data from animal carcinogenicity experiments. FundApp Toxicol. 1986;6:44-52.
59. Chen JJ, Moore GE. Impact of surviving time on tests for carcinogenicity Comm Stat-Theory Meth. 1994;23(5):1375-1386.
60. Mantel N, TWcey JW, Ciminera JL, Heyse JF. Tumorigenicity assays including us_e of the jackknife. Biom J. 1982;24:579-596.
61. Park CN, Kociba RJ. Statistical evaluation of longterm animal bioassays for carcinogenicity. In: Milman HA, Weisburger EK, eds. Handbook of Carcinogen Testing, Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Publications; 1985:358-371.
62. Marcus R, Peritz E, Gabriel KR. On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika. 1976;63:655-660.
63. Kodell RL, Chen JJ. Characterization of dose-response relationships inferred by statistically significant trend tests. Biometrics. 1991;47:139-146.
64. Koch GG. One-sided and two-sided tests and pvalues. J Biopharm Stat. 1991:1:161-170.
65. Kodell RL, Nelson CJ. An illness-death model for the study of the carcinogenic process using survival/ sacrifice data. Biometrics. 1980;36:267-277.
66. Dewanji A, Krewski D, Goddard MJ. A Weibull model for the estimation of tumorigenic potency. Biometrics. 1993;49:367-377.
67. Omar RZ, Stallard N, Whitehead J. A parametric multistate model for the analysis of carcinogenicity experiments.Ii/eftwDara/lnafyiw. 1995;l:327-346.
68. Dinse GE. Constant risk differences in the analysis of animal tumorigenicity data. Biometrics. 1991;47: 681-700.
69. Dinse GE. Evaluating constraints that allow survival-adjusted incidence analyses in single-sacrifice experiments. Biometrics. 1993;49:399-407.
70. Portier CJ. Estimating the tumor onset distribution in animal carcinogenesis experiments. Biometrika. 1986;73:371-378.
71. Finkelstein DM, Schoenfeld DA. Analysis of multiple tumor data from a rodent carcinogenicity experiment. Biometrics. 1989;45:219-230.
72. Chen JJ. Global tests for analysis of multiple tumor data from animal carcinogenicity experiments. Stat Med. 1996:15:1217-1225.
73. Haseman JK. A reexamination of false-positive rates for carcinogenesis studies. FundApp Toxicol. 1983; 3:334-339.
74. Lin KK, Rahman MA. Overall false positive rates in tests for linear trend in tumor incidence in animal carcinogenicity studies of new drugs. J Biopharm Stat. 1998;8(1):1-15.
75. Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat. 1979;6:65-70.
76. Westfall PH, Young SS. Resampling-Based Multiple Testing: Examples and Methods for P-value Adjustment. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 1993.
77. Haseman JK, Huff J, Doorman GA. Use of historical control data in carcinogenicity studies in rodents. Toxicol Pathol. 1984;12:126-135.
78. Board of Scientific Counselors, National Toxicology Program, US Department of Health and Human Services. Report of the NTP ad hoc panel on chemical carcinogenesis testing and evaluation', 1984.
79. VanZwieten MJ, Majka JA, Peter CP, Burek JD. The value of historical control data. In: Grice HC, Ciminera JL, eds. Carcinogenicity: The Design Analysis and Interpretation of Long-Term Animal Studies. New York, NY: ILSI Monograph Series Springer-Verlag; 1988:39-52.
80. Tarone RE. The use of historical control information in testing for a trend in proportions. Biometrics. 1982;38:215-220.
81. Hoel DG, Yanagawa T. Incorporating historical controls in testing for a trend in proportions. J Am Stat Assoc. 1986;81:1095-1099.
82. Krewski D, Smythe RT, Dewanji A, Colin D. Tests for trend in carcinogen bioassay with historical controls. In: Proceedings of the Biopharmaceiitical Section ASA. Washington, DC; American Statistical Association; 1986:248-253.
83. Smythe RT. The use of historical controls in bioassay for carcinogens. In: Krewski D Franklin C, eds. Statistics in Toxicology. New York, NY: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers; 1991:593-609.
84. Tamura R, Young SS. The incorporation of historical control information in tests of proportions: Simulation study of Tarone's procedure. Biometrics. 1986; 42:343-349.
85. Tamura R. Discussion to the paper by Krewski D, Smythe RT, Bumett RT. The use of historical control information in testing for trend in quantal response carcinogenicity data. Symposium on Long-Term Animal Carcinogenicity Studies: A Statistical Persepctive. Bethesda, MD, March 4-6, 1985.
86. Whitehead A, Whitehead J. A general parametric approach to the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Slat Med. 1991:10:1665-1677.
87. Environmental Protection Agency. STUDIES/ Chronic: Data formats for chronic/oncogenicity rodent bioassays. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service (PB90-213885); 1990.