Dose-response relationships in chemical carcinogenesis: Superposition of different mechanisms of action, resulting in linear-nonlinear curves, practical thresholds, J-shapes

Mutation Research - Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis

Volumn 405, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 117-124

  Lutz, Werner K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cancer risk assessment; Chemical carcinogenesis; Dose response relationship; Extrapolation

Indexed keywords

CAFFEIC ACID; DIMETHYLNITROSAMINE; FORMALDEHYDE;

CANCER RISK; CELL DIVISION; CHEMICAL CARCINOGENESIS; CONFERENCE PAPER; DNA DAMAGE; DNA REPAIR; DOSE RESPONSE; EXHAUST GAS; GENE MUTATION; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICOKINETICS;

CARCINOGENS; DNA DAMAGE; DNA REPAIR; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; MODELS, GENETIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MUTATION; NEOPLASMS, EXPERIMENTAL;

EID: 0032552522     PISSN: 00275107     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0027-5107(98)00128-6     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. [1] C.C. Harris, Chemical and physical carcinogenesis: advances and perspectives for the 1990s, Cancer Res. 51 (1991) 5023s-5044s, (Suppl).
2. [2] B. Vogelstein, K.W. Kinzler, The multistep nature of cancer, Trends Genet. 9 (1993) 138-141.
3. [3] W.K. Lutz, In vivo covalent binding of organic chemicals to DNA as a quantitative indicator in the process of chemical carcinogenesis, Mutat. Res. 65 (1979) 289-356.
4. [4] B.N. Ames, L.S. Gold, Endogenous mutagens and the causes of aging and cancer, Mutat. Res. 250 (1991) 3-16.
5. [5] L.J. Marnett, P.C. Burcham, Endogenous DNA adducts -potential and paradox, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 6 (1993) 771-785.
6. [6] L.A. Loeb, Endogenous carcinogenesis: molecular oncology into the twenty-first century - presidential address, Cancer Res. 49 (1989) 5489-5496.
7. [7] W.K. Lutz, Endogenous genotoxic agents and processes as a basis of spontaneous carcinogenesis, Mutat. Res. 238 (1990) 287-295.
8. [8] W.K. Lutz, T. Fekete, Endogenous and exogenous factors in carcinogenesis: limits to cancer prevention, Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 68 (1996) 120-125.
9. [9] C.C. Harris, Interindividual variation among humans in carcinogen metabolism, DNA adduct formation and DNA repair, Carcinogenesis 10 (1989) 1563-1566.
10. [10] R.J. Lutz, R.L. Dedrick, Implications of pharmacokinetic modeling in risk assessment analysis, Environ. Health Perspect. 76 (1987) 97-106.
11. [11] W.K. Lutz, Dose response relationship and low dose extrapolation in chemical carcinogenesis, Carcinogenesis 11 (1990) 1243-1247.
12. [12] K.T. Kitchin, J.L. Brown, Dose-response relationship for rat liver DNA damage caused by 49 rodent carcinogens, Toxicology 88 (1994) 31-49.
13. [13] K. Hemminki, A. Dipple, D.E.G. Shuker, F.F. Kadlubar, D. Segerback, H. Bartsch, DNA adducts: identification and biological significance, IARC Sci. Publ. 125 (1994) 478.
14. [14] S.M. Cohen, L.B. Ellwein, Genetic errors, cell proliferation, and carcinogenesis, Cancer Res. 51 (1991) 6493-6505.
15. [15] A. Apostolou, Relevance of maximum tolerated dose to human carcinogenic risk, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 11 (1990) 68-80.
16. [16] P. Buss, M. Caviezel, W.K. Lutz, Linear dose-response relationship for DNA adducts in rat liver from chronic exposure to aflatoxin B1, Carcinogenesis 11 (1990) 2133-2135.
17. [17] T.M. Monticello, J.A. Swenberg, E.A. Gross, J.R. Leininger, J.S. Kimbell, S. Seilkop, T.B. Starr, J.E. Gibson, K.T. Morgan, Correlation of regional and nonlinear formaldehyde-induced nasal cancer with proliferating populations of cells, Cancer Res. 56 (1996) 1012-1022.
18. [18] J.A. Swenberg, C.S. Barrow, C.J. Boreiko, H.A. Heck, R.J. Levine, K.T. Morgan, T.B. Starr, Non-linear biological responses to formaldehyde and their implications for carcinogenic risk assessment, Carcinogenesis 4 (1983) 945-952.
19. [19] M.A. Schneiderman, P. Decouflé, C.C. Brown, Thresholds for environmental cancer: biologic and statistical considerations, Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 329 (1979) 92-130.
20. [20] K.S. Crump, D.G. Hoel, C.H. Langley, R. Peto, Fundamental carcinogenic processes and their implications for low dose risk assessment, Cancer Res. 36 (1976) 2973-2979.
21. [21] M. Crawford, R. Wilson, Low dose linearity: the rule or the exception?, Hum. Ecol. Risk Assessment 2 (1996) 305-330.
22. [22] L. Zeise, R. Wilson, E.A.C. Crouch, Dose-response relationships for carcinogens: a review, Environ. Health Perspect. 73 (1987) 259-308.
23. [23] E.J. Calabrese, M.E. McCarthy, E. Kenyon, The occurrence of chemically induced hormesis, Health Phys. 52 (1987) 531-541.
24. [24] E.J. Calabrese, Expanding the reference dose concept to incorporate and optimize beneficial effects while preventing toxic responses from nonessential toxicants, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 24 (1996) S68-S75.
25. [25] T.D. Luckey, Physiological benefits from low levels of ionizing radiation, Health Phys. 43 (1982) 771-789.
26. [26] S. Wolff, G. Olivieri, The adaptive response to very low doses of ionizing radiation, Mutat. Res. 358 (1996) 125-243, Special Issue (no. 2).
27. [27] HEI-Diesel-Working-Group, Diesel Exhaust: a Critical Analysis of Emissions, Exposure, and Health Effects, Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA 02139, 1995.
28. [28] K.G. Brown, D.G. Hoel, Modeling time-to-tumor data: analysis of the ED01 study, Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 3 (1983) 458-469.
29. [29] R. Kociba, Rodent bioassays for assessing chronic toxicity and carcinogenic potential of TCDD, in: M.A. Gallo, R.J. Scheuplein, K. Van der Heijden (Eds.), Biological Basis for Risk Assessment of Dioxins and Related Compounds, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, 1991, pp. 3-11.
30. [30] K.T. Kitchin, J.L. Brown, R.W. Setzer, Dose-response relationship in multistage carcinogenesis: promoters, Environ. Health Perspect. 102 (1994) 255-264.
31. [31] U. Lutz, S. Lugli, A. Bitsch, J. Schlatter, W.K. Lutz, Dose response for the stimulation of cell division by caffeic acid in forestomach and kidney of the male F344 rat, Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 39 (1997) 131-137.
32. [32] M. Nishi, S. Ohba, K. Hirata, H. Miyake, Dose-response relationship between coffee and the risk of pancreas cancer, Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 26 (1996) 42-48.
33. [33] L.B. Ellwein, S.M. Cohen, Simulation modeling of carcino-genesis, Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 113 (1992) 98-108.
34. [34] S.H. Moolgavkar, E.G. Luebeck, A. Buchmann, K.W. Bock, Quantitative analysis of enzyme-altered liver foci in rats initiated with diethylnitrosamine and promoted with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 138 (1996) 31-42.
35. [35] C.J. Portier, C.D. Sherman, M. Kohn, L. Edler, A. Kopp-Schneider, R.M. Maronpot, G. Lucier, Modeling the number and size of hepatic focal lesions following exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 138 (1996) 20-30.
36. [36] Q. Zheng, W.K. Lutz, D.W. Gaylor, A carcinogenesis model describing mutational events at the DNA adduct level, Math. Biosci. 144 (1997) 23-44.