What role for biologically based dose-response models in estimating low-dose risk?

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 118, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 585-588

  Crump, Kenny S ^a   Chen, Chao ^b   Chiu, Weihsueh A ^b   Louis, Thomas A ^c   Portier, Christopher J ^d   Subramaniam, Ravi P ^b   White, Paul D ^b  

^a LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

Biologically based dose response; Dose response model; Low dose risk; Risk assessment; Two stage model

Indexed keywords

FORMALDEHYDE;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOLOGICALLY BASED DOSE RESPONSE MODEL; CARCINOGENICITY; CELL PROLIFERATION; EXPOSURE; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; MUTATION; NONHUMAN; NOSE CANCER; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TOXICITY TESTING;

ANIMALS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 77951702256     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: 15529924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.0901249     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Chen C, Farland W. 1991. Incorporating cell proliferation in quantitative cancer risk assessment: approaches, issues, and uncertainties. In: Chemically Induced Cell Proliferation: Implication for Risk Assessment (Butterworth BE, Slaga TJ, Farland W, McClain M, eds). New York:Wiley-Liss, 481-499.
2. Chen C, Oberdorster G. 1996. Selection of models for assessing dose-response relationships for particle-induced lung cancer. Inhal Toxicol 8(suppl):259-278.
3. Chen CW. 2000. Biologically based dose-response model for liver tumors induced by trichloroethylene. Environ Health Perspect 108(suppl 2):335-342.
4. Collins FS, Gray GM, Bucher JR. 2008. Transforming environmental health protection. Science 319:906-907.
5. Conolly RB. 2008. Commentary on "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: Implications for Human Health Risk Assessment" by Krewski et al. Risk Anal 29(4):480-481.
6. Conolly RB, Andersen ME. 1997. Hepatic foci in rats after diethylnitrosamine initiation and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin promotion: evaluation of a quantitative two-cell model and of CYP 1A1/1A2 as a dosimeter. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 146(2):281-293.
7. Conolly RB, Kimbell JS, Janszen D, Schlosser PM, Kalisak D, Preston J, et al. 2003. Biologically motivated computational modeling of formaldehyde carcinogenicity in the 344 rat. Toxicol Sci 75:432-447.
8. Conolly RB, Kimbell JS, Janszen D, Schlosser PM, Kalisak D, Preston J, et al. 2004. Human respiratory tract cancer risks of inhaled formaldehyde: dose-response predictions derived from biologically motivated computational modeling of a combined rodent and human dataset. Toxicol Sci 82:279-296.
9. Conolly RB, Miller FJ, Kimbell JS, Janszen D. 2009. Formaldehyde risk assessment [Letter]. Ann Occup Hyg 53:181-184.
10. Crump KS. 1994a. Use of mechanistic models to estimate low-dose cancer risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1033-1038.
11. Crump KS. 1994b. Limitations of biological models of carcinogenesis for low-dose extrapolation. Risk Anal 14(6):883-886.
12. Crump KS, Chen C, Fox JF, Van Landingham C, Subramaniam R. 2008. Sensitivity analysis of biologically motivated model for formaldehyde-induced respiratory cancer in humans. Ann Occup Hyg 52(6):481-495.
13. Crump KS, Chen C, Fox JF, Van Landingham C, Subramaniam R. 2009. Author reply [Letter]. Ann Occup Hyg 53:184-189.
14. Gohlke JM, Griffith WC, Faustman EM. 2005. A systems-based computational model for dose-response comparisons of two mode of action hypotheses for ethanol-induced neurodevelopmental toxicity. Toxicol Sci 86(2):470-484.
15. Gsteiger S, Morgenthaler S. 2008. Heterogeneity in multistage carcinogenesis and mixture modeling. Theor Biol Med Model 21:5-13.
16. Kenyon EM, Klimecki WT, El-Masri H, Conolly RB, Clewell HJ, Beck BD. 2008. How can biologically-based modeling of arsenic kinetics and dynamics inform the risk assessment process? A workshop review. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 232(3):359-368.
17. Kopp-Schneider A, Burkholder I, Groos J. 2005. Stochastic carcinogenesis models. In: Recent Advances in Quantitative Methods in Cancer and Human Health Risk Assessment (Edler L, Kitsos C, eds). New York:John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., 125-136.
18. Kopp-Schneider A, Portier C, Bannasch P. 1998. A model for hepatocarcinogenesis treating phenotypical changes in focal hepatocellular lesions as epigenetic events. Math Biosci 148:181-204.
19. Luebeck EG, Buchmann A, Stinchcombe S, Moolgavkar SH, Schwarz M. 2000. Effects of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin on initiation and promotion of GST-P-positive foci in rat liver: a quantitative analysis of experimental data using a stochastic model. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 167(1):63-73.
20. Luebeck EG, Grasl-Kraupp B, Timmermann-Trosiener I, Bursch W, Schulte-Hermann R, Moolgavkar SH. 1995. Growth kinetics of enzyme altered liver foci in rats treated with phenobarbital or a-hexachlorocyclohexane. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 130:304-315.
21. McLanahan ED, Andersen ME, Campbell JL, Fisher JW. 2009. Competitive inhibition of thyroidal uptake of dietary iodide by perchlorate does not describe perturbations in rat serum total T4 and TSH. Environ Health Perspect 117:731-738.
22. Moolgavkar SH, Dewanji A, Luebeck G. 1989. Cigarette smoking and lung cancer: reanalysis of the British doctors' data. J Natl Cancer Inst 81(6):415-421.
23. Moolgavkar SH, Dewanji A, Venzon DJ. 1988a. A stochastic 2-stage model for cancer risk assessment. I. The hazard function and the probability of tumor. Risk Anal 8:383-392.
24. Moolgavkar SH, Luebeck EG, Anderson EL. 1988b. Estimation of unit risk for coke oven emissions. Risk Anal 18(6):813-825.
25. Moolgavkar SH, Luebeck EG, Buchmann A, Bock KW. 1996. 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 138:31-42.
26. Moolgavkar SH, Luebeck EG, Krewski D, Zielinski JM. 1993. Radon, cigarette smoke, and lung cancer: a re-analysis of the Colorado Plateau uranium miners' data. Epidemiology 4(3):204-217.
27. Moolgavkar SH, Luebeck EG, Turin J, Hanna L. 1999. Quantitative assessment of the risk of lung cancer associated with occupational exposure to refractory ceramic fibers. Risk Anal 19(4):599-611.
28. NRC (National Research Council). 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
29. NRC (National Research Council). 1994. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
30. NRC (National Research Council). 2007. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington DC:National Academies Press.
31. NRC (National Research Council). 2008. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington DC:National Academies Press.
32. NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2004. A National Toxicology Program for the 21st Century: Roadmap to Achieve the NTP Vision. Research Triangle Park, NC:NTP.
33. Portier C, Kohn M. 1996. A biologically based model for the carcinogenic effects of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in female Sprague-Dawley rats. Organohalogen Compounds 29:222-227.
34. Portier CJ, Kopp-Schneider A. 1991. A multistage model of carcinogenesis incorporating DNA damage and repair. Risk Anal 11(3):535-543.
35. Portier CJ, Sherman CD, Kohn M, Edler L, Kopp-Schneider A, Maronpot RM, et al. 1996. Modeling the number and size of hepatic focal lesions following exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Toxicol Applied Pharmacol 138(1):20-30.
36. Setzer RW, Lau C, Mole ML, Copeland MF, Rogers JM, Kavlock RJ. 2001. Toward a biologically based dose-response model for developmental toxicity of 5-fluorouracil in the rat: a mathematical construct. Toxicol Sci 59(1):49-58.
37. Subramaniam RP, Crump KS, Van Landingham CB, White P, Chen C, Schlosser P. 2007. Uncertainties in the CIIT model for formaldehyde-induced carcinogenicity in the rat: a limited sensitivity analysis I. Risk Anal 27(5):1237-1254.
38. Tan WY, Chen CW. 1998. Stochastic modeling of carcinogenesis: some new insight. Math Comput Model 28:49-71.
39. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001F. Washington, DC:Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
40. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. ORD's Computational Toxicology Research Program Implementation Plan (FY 2006-2008). Available: http://www.epa.gov/comptox/pdf/ORD_NCCT_Imp_Plan.pdf [accessed 22 March 2010].
41. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Analysis of the Sensitivity and Uncertainty in 2-Stage Clonal Growth Models for Formaldehyde with Relevance to Other Biologically-Based Dose Response (BBDR) Models. EPA/600/R-08/103. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
42. Weinberg A. 1972. Science and trans-science. Science 177(4045):211.
43. Yang GL, Chen CW. 1991. A stochastic two-stage carcinogenesis model: a new approach to computing probability of observing tumor in animal bioassays. Math Biosci 104:247-258.