Dose-response relationships for cancer incidence reflect susceptibility distributions

Chemical Research in Toxicology

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 971-972

  Lutz, Werner K ^a   Gaylor, David W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

^b Gaylor and Associates LLC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER INCIDENCE; CARCINOGENESIS; DOSE RESPONSE; GENE MUTATION; GENETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; LETTER; RISK FACTOR; RISK REDUCTION; ANIMAL; CHEMICALLY INDUCED DISORDER; DISEASE PREDISPOSITION; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; NEOPLASM; NOTE;

CARCINOGEN;

ANIMALS; CARCINOGENS; DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; NEOPLASMS;

EID: 47549087742     PISSN: 0893228X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/tx800090a     Document Type: Letter

References (15)

1. Swenberg, J. A., Fryar-Tita, E., Jeong, Y., Boysen, G., Starr, T., Walker, V. E., and Albertini, R. J. (2008) Biomarkers in toxicology and risk assessment: Informing critical dose-response relationships. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 21, 253-265.
2. Lutz, W. K. (1990) Dose response relationship and low dose extrapolation in chemical carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis 11, 1243-1247.
3. Lutz, W. K. (1998) Dose-response relationships in chemical carcinogenesis: Superposition of different mechanisms of action, resulting in linear-sublinear curves, practical thresholds, J-shapes. Mutat. Res. 405, 117-124.
4. Lutz, W. K. (2002) Differences in individual susceptibility to toxic effects of chemicals determine the dose-response relationship and consequences of setting exposure standards. Toxicol. Lett. 126, 155-158.
5. Lutz, W. K., Lutz, R. W., and Andersen, M. E. (2006) Dose-incidence relationships derived from superposition of distributions of individual susceptibility on mechanism-based dose responses for biological effects. Toxicol. Sci. 90, 33-38.
6. Lutz, W. K. (2001) Susceptibility differences in chemical carcinogenesis linearize the dose-response relationship: Threshold doses can be defined only for individuals. Mutat. Res. 482, 71-76.
7. Limpert, E., Stahel, W. A., and Abbt, M. (2001) Log-normal distributions across the sciences: Keys and clues. Bioscience 51, 341-352.
8. Mantel, N., and Bryan, W. R. (1961) "Safety" testing of carcinogenic agents. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 27, 455-470.
9. Hattis, D. (1996) Human interindividual variability in susceptibility to toxic effects: From annoying detail to a central determinant of risk. Toxicology 111, 5-14.
10. Lutz, W. K. (1999) Dose-response relationships in chemical carcinogenesis reflect differences in individual susceptibility. Consequences for cancer risk assessment, extrapolation, and prevention. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 18, 707-712.
11. Gaylor, D. W., and Kodell, R. L. (2002) A procedure for developing risk-based reference doses. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 35, 137-141.
12. Lutz, W. K. (1990) Endogenous genotoxic agents and processes as a basis of spontaneous carcinogenesis. Mutat. Res. 238, 287-295.
13. Gupta, R. C., and Lutz, W. K. (1999) Background DNA damage from endogenous and unavoidable exogenous carcinogens: A basis for spontaneous cancer incidence? Mutat. Res. 424, 1-8.
14. Lutz, W. K., and Gaylor, D. (1996) Significance of DNA adducts at low dose: shortening the time to spontaneous tumor occurrence. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 23, 29-34.
15. Conolly, R. B., Gaylor, D. W., and Lutz, W. K. (2005) Population variability in biological adaptive responses to DNA damage and the shapes of carcinogen dose-response curves. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 207, S570-S575.