Towards a theory of tiered testing

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 35-44

  Hansson, Sven Ove ^a   Rudén, Christina ^a  

^a ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Cost efficiency; Expected utility; REACH; Reliability; Sensitivity; Test strategies; Tiered testing; Validity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; COST; DECISION THEORY; EXPECTED UTILITY; HYPOTHESIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; RISK MANAGEMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TIERED TESTING; TOXICITY TESTING; TOXICOLOGY; VALIDITY;

DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; HUMANS; RISK MANAGEMENT; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 34249065905     PISSN: 02732300     EISSN: 10960295     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2006.12.003     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Albert R.E., and Magee P.S. The tumorigenicity of mutagenic contact-sensitizing chemicals. Risk. Anal. 20 3 (2000) 317-325
2. Baker V.A. Endocrine disrupters-testing strategies to assess human hazard. Toxicol. In Vitro 15 (2001) 413-419
3. Benigni R., Andreoli C., and Giuliani A. Interrelationships among carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, acute toxicity, and chemical structure in a genotoxic data base. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 27 (1989) 1-20
4. Bukowski J.A., Schnatter A.R., and Korn L. Using epidemiological studies to check the consistency of the cancer risks predicted by high-dose animal experiments: a methodological review. Risk Anal. 21 4 (2001) 601-611
5. Carney E.W., Hoberman A.M., Farmer D.R., et al. Estrogen modulation: tiered testing for human hazard evaluation. Reprod. Toxicol. 11 (1997) 879-892
6. Combes R., and Balls M. Intelligent testing strategies for chemicals testing-A case of more haste, less speed?. ATLA-Altern. Lab. Anim. 33 (2005) 289-297
7. Ennever F.K., and Rosenkranz H.S. Short term test results for NTP non-carcinogens: an alternate, more predictive battery. Environ. Mutagen. 8 (1986) 849-865
8. Forbes V.E., and Calow P. Extrapolation in ecological risk assessment: balancing pragmatism and precaution in chemical controls legislation. Bioscience 52 3 (2002) 249-257
9. Gaylor D.W., and Gold L.S. Regulatory cancer risk assessment based on a quick estimate of a benchmark dose derived from the maximum tolerated dose. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 28 (1998) 222-225
10. Gelbke H.P., Kayser M., and Poole A. OECD test strategies and methods for endocrine disruptors. Toxicology 205 (2004) 17-25
11. Gray G.M., Li P., Shlyakhter I., and Wilson R. An empirical examination of factors influencing prediction of carcinogenic hazard across species. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 22 (1995) 283-291
12. Green N., and Bergman Å. Chemical reactivity as a tool for estimating persistence. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (2005) 480A-486A
13. Green S., Goldberg A.M., and Zurlo J. The TestSmart-HPV Program-Development of an integrated approach for testing high production volume chemicals. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 33 (2001) 105-109
14. Hansson S.O. The detection level. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 22 (1995) 103-109
15. Hansson S.O., and Rudén C. Improving the incentives for toxicity testing. J. Risk Res. 6 (2003) 3-21
16. Hansson S.O., and Rudén C. A science-based strategy for chemicals control. UNEP Ind. Environ. 27 2-3 (2004) 12-18
17. Hushon J.M., Clerman R.J., and Wagner B.O. Tiered testing for chemical hazard assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 13 (1979) 1202-1207
18. IARC, 1999. The use of short- and medium-term tests for carcinogens and data on genetic effects in carcinogenic hazard evaluation. McGregor, Rice, Venitt, (Eds.), IARC scientific publications No. 146. International Agency for Research on Cancer.
19. Kramer H.J., Van den Ham W.A., Slob W., and Pieters M.N. Conversion factors estimating indicative chronic no-observed-adverse effect levels from short-term toxicity data. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 23 (1996) 249-255
20. Kuhn A., Munns Jr. W.R., Champlin D., Mckinney R., Tagliabue M., Serbst J., and Gleason T. Evaluation of the efficacy of extrapolation population modeling to predict the dynamics of Americamysis bahia populations in the laboratory. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20 1 (2001) 213-221
21. Kuhn A., Munns Jr. W.R., Poucher S., Champlin D., and Lussier S. Prediction of population-level response from mysid toxicity test data using population modelling techniques. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19 9 (2000) 2364-2371
22. McCann J., Gold L.S., Horn L., McGill R., Graedel T.E., and Kaldor J. Statistical analysis of Salmonella test data and comparison to results of animal cancer tests. Mutat. Res. 205 (1988) 183-195
23. Nordberg A., and Rudén C. The usefulness of the bioconcentration factor as a tool for priority setting in chemicals control. Toxicol. Lett. 168 2 (2007) 113-120
24. Parodi S., Malacarne D., Romano P., and Taningher M. Are genotoxic carcinogens more potent that nongenotoxic carcinogens?. Environ. Health Perspect. 95 (1991) 199-204
25. Piegorsch W.W., and Hoel D.G. Exploring relationships between mutagenic and carcinogenic potencies. Mutat. Res. 96 (1988) 161-175
26. Pieters M.N., Kramer H.J., and Slob W. Evaluation of the uncertainty factor for subchronic-to-chronic extrapolation: statistical analysis of toxicity data. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 27 (1998) 108-111
27. Travis C.C., Saulsbury A.W., and Pack S.A.R. Prediction of cancer potency using a battery of mutation and toxicity data. Mutagenesis 5 3 (1990) 213-219
28. Travis C.C., Wang L.A., and Waehner M.J. Quantitative correlation of carcinogenic potency with four different classes of short-term test data. Mutagenesis 6 5 (1991) 353-360
29. Van Haelst A.G., and Hansen B.G. Priority setting for existing chemicals: automated data selection routine. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19 9 (2000) 2372-2377
30. Van Leeuwen C.J., and Hermens J.L.M. Risk Assessment of Chemicals: An Introduction (1995), Kluwer Academic Publishers., Dordrecht, NL ISBN: 0-7923-3740-9
31. Weil C.S., and McCollister D.D. Relationship between short- and long-term feeding studies in designing an effective toxicity test. J. Agric. Food Chem. 11 (1963) 486-491
32. Zeise L., Crouch E.A., and Wilson R. A possible relationship between toxicity and carcinogenicity. J. Am. Coll. Toxicol. 5 2 (1986) 137-151