On use of the multistage dose-response model for assessing laboratory animal carcinogenicity

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 135-147

  Nitcheva, Daniela K ^a   Piegorsch, Walter W ^b   West, R Webster ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b University of Arizona   (United States)

^c TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bootstrap hypothesis test; Cancer; Dose response modeling; Multistage model

Indexed keywords

CARCINOGEN;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ARTICLE; CANCER MODEL; CANCER RISK; CHEMICAL CARCINOGENESIS; DATA BASE; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG CARCINOGENICITY; FEMALE; HYPOTHESIS; MALE; MOUSE; MULTISTAGE DOSE RESPONSE MODEL; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RAT; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; SYRIAN HAMSTER;

ANIMALS; ANIMALS, LABORATORY; CARCINOGENICITY TESTS; CARCINOGENS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; MODELS, STATISTICAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 34249664988     PISSN: 02732300     EISSN: 10960295     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.03.002     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Ahn H., and Kodell R.L. Analysis of long-term carcinogenicity studies. In: Chow S.-C., and Liu J.-P. (Eds). Design and Analysis of Animal Studies in Pharmaceutical Development (1998), Marcel Dekker, New York 259-289
2. Andersen M.E., and Dennison J.E. Mode of action and tissue dosimetry in current and future risk assessments. Sci. Total Environ. 274 (2001) 3-14
3. Anderson E., and The Carcinogen Assessment Group of the US EPA. Quantitative approaches in use to assess cancer risk. Risk Anal. 3 (1983) 277-295
4. Armitage P., and Doll R. The age distribution of cancer and a multi-stage theory of carcinogenesis. Brit. J. Cancer 8 (1954) 1-12
5. Bailer A.J., and Oris J.T. Modeling reproductive toxicity in Ceriodaphnia tests. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12 (1993) 787-791
6. Bailer A.J., and Portier C.J. An illustration of dangers of ignoring survival differences in carcinogenicity data. J. Appl. Toxicol. 8 (1988) 185-189
7. Bailer A.J., and Smith R.J. Estimating upper confidence limits for extra risk in quantal multistage models. Risk Anal. 14 (1994) 1001-1010
8. Chen J.J., and Gaylor D.W. Dose-response modeling of quantitative response for risk assessment. Commun. Statist.-Theory Meth. 21 (1992) 2367-2381
9. Chiu W.A., Hassenzahl D.M., and Kammen D.M. A comparison of regulatory implications of traditional and exact two-stage dose-response models. Risk Anal. 19 (1999) 15-22
10. Clewell H.J. Use of mode of action in risk assessment: Past, present, and future. Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 42 (2005) 3-14
11. Crump K.S., Hoel D.G., Langley C.H., and Peto R. Fundamental carcinogenic processes and their implications for low dose risk assessment. Cancer Res. 36 (1976) 2973-2979
12. Dinse G.E. A comparison of tumor incidence analyses applicable in single-sacrifice animal experiments. Stat. Med. 13 (1994) 689-708
13. Edler L., and Kopp-Schneider A. Statistical models for low dose exposure. Mutat. Res. 405 (1998) 227-236
14. Edler L., Kopp-Schneider A., and Heinzl H. Dose-response modeling. In: Edler L., and Kitsos C.P. (Eds). Recent Advances in Quantitative Methods in Cancer and Human Health Risk Assessment (2005), John Wiley & Sons, Chichester 5-23
15. French J.L., and Williams P.L. Characterizing dose-response relationships in multiple cancer bioassays. Risk Anal. 21 (2001) 91-102
16. Gaylor D.W., and Slikker W.L. Risk assessment for neurotoxic effects. NeuroToxicol. 11 (1990) 211-218
17. Guess H.A., and Crump K.S. Low-dose extrapolation of data from animal carcinogenicity experiments - Analysis of a new statistical technique. Math. Biosci. 32 (1976) 15-36
18. Haseman J.K. Use of statistical decision rules for evaluating laboratory animal carcinogenicity studies. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 14 (1990) 637-648
19. Hoel D.G., and Portier C.J. Nonlinearity of dose-response functions for carcinogenicity. Environ. Health Persp. 102 Suppl. 1 (1994) 109-113
20. Kitsos C.P. Optimal designs for estimating the percentiles of the risk in multistage models of carcinogenesis. Biometrical J. 41 (1999) 33-43
21. Kodell R.L., and Park C.N. Linear extrapolation in cancer risk assessment. In: Olin S., Farland W., Park C., Rhomberg L., Scheuplein R., Starr T., and Wilson J. (Eds). Low-Dose Extrapolation of Cancer Risks: Issues and Perspectives (1995), ILSI Press, Washington, DC 87-104
22. Kodell R.L., and West R.W. Upper confidence intervals on excess risk for quantitative responses. Risk Anal. 13 (1993) 177-182
23. Krewski D., and van Ryzin J. Dose-response models for quantal response toxicity data. In: Cörgö M., Dawson D.A., Rao J.N.K., and Saleh A.K.M.E. (Eds). Stat. Related Topics (1981), Amsterdam, North-Holland 201-231
24. Lehmann E.L., and Casella G. Theory of Point Estimation. 2nd Ed. (1998), Springer-Verlag, New York
25. Lovell D.P., and Thomas G. Quantitative risk assessment and the limitations of the linearized multistage model. Human & Exp. Toxicol. 15 (1996) 87-110
26. Luebeck E.G., and Moolgavkar S.H. Biologically based cancer modeling. In: Fan A.M., and Chang L.W. (Eds). Toxicology and Risk Assessment. Principles, Methods, and Applications (1996), Marcel Dekker, New York 533-555
27. Mills A. IRIS from the inside. Risk Anal. 26 (2006) 1409-1410
28. Moolgavkar S.H. Stochastic models for estimation and prediction of cancer risk. In: Barnett V., Stein A., and Turkman K.F. (Eds). Statistics for the Environment 4: Statistical Aspects of Health and the Environment (1999), John Wiley & Sons, Chichester 237-257
29. Moolgavkar S.H. Commentary: Fifty years of the multistage model: remarks on a landmark paper. Int. J. Epidemiol. 33 (2004) 1182-1183
30. Nitcheva D.K., Piegorsch W.W., West R.W., and Kodell R.L. Multiplicity-adjusted inferences in risk assessment: Benchmark analysis with quantal response data. Biometrics 61 (2005) 277-286
31. Piegorsch W.W., and Bailer A.J. Statistics for Environmental Biology and Toxicology (1997), Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL
32. Piegorsch W.W., Nitcheva D.K., and West R.W. Excess risk estimation under multistage model misspecification. J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 76 (2006) 423-430
33. Portier C.J., and Edler L. Two-stage models of carcinogenesis, classification of agents, and design of experiments. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 14 (1990) 444-460
34. Portier C.J., and Hoel D.G. Design of animal carcinogenicity studies for goodness-of-fit of multistage models. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 4 (1984) 949-959
35. Ritter G., Wilson R., Pompei F., and Burmistrov D. The multistage model of cancer development: some implications. Toxicol. Ind. Health 19 (2003) 125-145
36. Sand S., Filipsson A.F., and Victorin K. Evaluation of the benchmark dose method for dichotomous data: Model dependence and model selection. Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 36 (2002) 184-197
37. Sherman C., and Portier C.J. Multistage carcinogenesis models. In: Armitage P., and Colton T. (Eds). Encycl. Biostat. vol. 4 (1998), John Wiley & Sons, New York 2808-2814
38. Subramaniam R.P., White P., and Cogliano V.J. Comparison of cancer slope factors using different statistical approaches. Risk Anal. 26 (2006) 825-830
39. US EPA (1997). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) www.epa.gov/iris/. National Center for Environmental Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, www.epa.gov/iris.