Risk assessment of carcinogens and the threshold range, Part III;Die risikobewertung von kanzerogenen und die wirkungsschwelle, teil III

Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz

Volumn 49, Issue 9, 2006, Pages 911-920

  Neumann, H G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARCINOGEN; MUTAGENIC AGENT;

ANIMAL; APOPTOSIS; CELL DEATH; CHEMICALLY INDUCED DISORDER; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DNA DAMAGE; DOSE RESPONSE; EXPERIMENTAL NEOPLASM; FEMALE; GENETICS; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; MALE; MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATION; METHODOLOGY; MOUSE; MUTATION; NEOPLASM; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; RAT; REGISTER; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEX DIFFERENCE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; WISTAR RAT;

ANIMALS; APOPTOSIS; CARCINOGENS; CELL DEATH; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DNA DAMAGE; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MALE; MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATION; MICE; MUTAGENS; MUTATION; NEOPLASMS; NEOPLASMS, EXPERIMENTAL; RATS; RATS, WISTAR; REGISTRIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEX FACTORS; THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUES;

EID: 33748632904     PISSN: 14369990     EISSN: 14371588     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00103-006-0028-2     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Neumann HG (2006) Die Risikobewertung von Kanzerogenen und die Wirkungsschwelle, Teil I. Bundesgesundheitsblatt 49, S. 665-674
2. Neumann HG (2006) Die Risikobewertung von Kanzerogenen und die Wirkungsschwelle, Teil II. Bundesgesundheitsblatt 49, S. 818-823
3. Hecker E, Rippman F (1988) Quantitative determination of experimental threshold doses (no-effect levels) for environmental promoters in the initiation/promotion protocol on skin of NRMI-mice. Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 338: Suppl R11
4. Kunz HW, Tennekes HA, Port RE et al. (1983) Quantitative aspects of chemical carcinogenesis and tumor promotion in liver. Environ Health Perspect 50: 113-122
5. Williams GM (1987) Definition of a human cancer hazard. In: Butterworth BE, Slaga T (eds) Nongenotoxic mechanisms in carcinogenesis, 25 Banbury Report, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
6. Butterworth BE, Bogdanffy MS (1999) A comprehensive approach for integration of toxicity and cancer risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 29: 23-36
7. Bitsch A, Hadjiolov N, Klöhn PC, et al. (2000) Dose response of early effects related to tumor promotion of 2-acetylaminofluorene.Toxicol Sci 55: 44-51
8. Klöhn PC, Bitsch A, Neumann HG (1998) Mitochondrial permeability transition is altered in early stages of carcinogenesis of 2- acetylaminofluorene. Carcinogenesis 19: 1185-1190
9. Broccardo CJ, Billings RE, Chubb LS et al. (2004) Single cell analysis of switch like-induction of CYP1 AI in liver cell lines.Toxicol Sci 78: 178-180
10. Paynter OE, Burin GJ, Jaeger RB, Gregorio CA (1988) Goitrogens and thyroid follicular cell neoplasia: evidence for a threshold process. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 8: 102-119
11. Schulte-Hermann R, Grassl-Kraupp B, Bursch W (2000) Dose-response and threshold effects in cytotoxicity and apoptosis. Mutat Res 464: 13-18
12. Yamasaki H, Weinstein LB (1982) Cellular and molecular mechanisms of tumor promotion and their implications with respect to risk assessment. SGCMSEC Workshop on quantitative estimation of risk to human health from chemicals, in Rome.
13. Pitot HC, Campbell HA (1988) Quantitative studies on multistage hepatocardnogenesis in the rat. In: Langenbach R et al. (eds) Tumor promoters: biological approsches for mechanistic studies and assay systems. Raven Press, New York, pp 79-95
14. Yamasaki H (1988) Multistage carcinogenesis: implications for risk estimation. Cancer Metastasis Rev 7: 5-18
15. Tritscher AM, Goldstein JA, Portier CJ et al. (1992) Dose response relationships for chronic exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p- dioxininarattumor promotion model: quantification and immunolocalisation of CYP1 AI and CYP1A2 in the liver. Cancer Res 52: 3436-3442
16. Kitano M, Ichihara T, Matsuda T et al. (1998) Presence of a threshold for promoting effects of Phenobarbital on diethylnitrosamine induced hepatic foci in the rat. Carcinogenesis 19: 1475-1480
17. Lutz WK, Beland PE, Candrian R et al. (1996) Dose-time response in mouse skin tumor induction by 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene and 12-0-tetra-decanoyl- phorbol 13-acetat. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 23: 44-48
18. Risikokommission, Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (2003) Abschlussbericht der Risikokommission im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Gesundheit und soziale Sicherung. Eigenverlag, Salzgitter
19. Science and Judgement (1994) National Research Council, National Academy Press
20. Bernheim NJ, Falk H (1983) Chemical, physical and genetic factors interfering with DNA repair - a review. J American College Toxicol. Special Issue: Cancer and Environment Possible mechanisms of threshold for carcinogens and other toxic substances. Vol 2, pp 23-54
21. Lutz WK, Fekete T (1996) Endogenous and exogenous factors in carcinogenesis: limits to cancer prevention. Int. Arch Occup Environ Health 68: 120-125
22. Gupta RC, Lutz WK (1999) Background DNA damage from endogenous and unavoidable exogenous carcinogens: a basis for spontaneous cancer incidence. Mutat Res 424: 1-8
23. Zeise L,Wilson R, Crouch EAC (1987) Dose-response relationships for carcinogens: A review. Environ Health Perspect 73: 259-308
24. Crump KS, Hoel DG, Langley CH, Peto R (1976) Fundamental carcinogenic processes and their implications for low dose risk assessment. Cancer Res 36: 2973-2979
25. Mantel N (1980) Limited usefulness of mathematical models for assessing the carcinogenic risk of minute doses. Arch Toxicol Suppl 3: 305-310
26. Swarts JB, Riddlough CR, Epstein SS (1982) Analysis of carcinogenic dose-response relations with dichotomous data: implications for carcinogenic risk assessment. Teratog Carcinogen Mutagen 2: 179-204
27. Rüdiger HW (1997) Zur Definition von Schwellenwerten in der arbeitsmedizinischen Toxikologie. Arbeitsmed Sozialmed Umweltmed 32: 94-98
28. Neumann HG, Thielmann HW, Gelbke HP et al. (1997) Vorschläge zur Änderung der Einstufung Krebs erzeugender Arbeitsstoffe. Arbeitsmed Sozialmed Umweltmed 32: 298-304
29. Neumann HG, Thielmann HW, Gelbke HP et al. (1998) Changes in the classification of carcinogenic chemicals in the work area. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 71: 566-574
30. Dieter HH, Konietzka R (1995) Which multiple of a safe body dose derived on the basis of default factors would probably be unsafe. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 22: 262-267
31. Schaeffer D (1983) Thresholds for carcinogenesis and their significance to medical practice. Med Hypothesis 10: 175-184
32. Preussmann R (1980) The problem of thresholds in chemical carcinogenesis. Some views on theoretical and practical aspects. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 97: 1-14
33. Lutz WK (1990) Dose response relationship and low dose extrapolation in chemical carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis 11: 1243-1247
34. Bitsch A, Klöhn PC, Hadjiolov N et al. (1999) New insights into carcinogenesis of the classical model arylamine 2-acetylaminofluorene. Cancer Lett 143: 223-227
35. Neumann HG, Ewers U (2003) Die Stellung des biochemischen Effektmonitorings im Konzept des Human-Biomonitorings. Bundesgesundheitsblatt 46: 891-895
36. HBM-Kommission (2003) Stellungnahme: Verwendung von Hä moglobinaddukten als Biomarker für das Monitoring von Belastungen und Beanspruchungen durch gentoxische Stoffe. Bundesgesundheitsblatt 46: 918-922
37. TRGS 170, Technische Regeln für Gefahrstoffe, Biomonitoring, aufgestellt vom Ausschuss für Gefahrstoffe (AGS)