Hypothesis-driven weight of evidence framework for evaluating data within the US EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 61, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 185-191

  Borgert, Christopher J ^a,b   Mihaich, Ellen M ^c   Ortego, Lisa S ^d   Bentley, Karin S ^e   Holmes, Catherine M ^f   Levine, Steven L ^g   Becker, Richard A ^h  

^a Applied Pharmacology and Toxicology Inc   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^c Environmental and Regulatory Resources (ER)   (United States)

^d BAYER CROPSCIENCE   (United States)

^e DUPONT COMPANY   (United States)

^f BASF CORPORATION   (United States)

^g MONSANTO COMPANY   (United States)

^h American Chemistry Council   (United States)

Author keywords

Endocrine disruption; Endocrine screening program; Regulatory framework; Weight of evidence

Indexed keywords

ANDROGEN; AROMATASE; ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR; ENZYME; ESTROGEN; STEROIDOGENIC ENZYME; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ARTICLE; DATA ANALYSIS; DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER; ENDOCRINE SYSTEM; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; PHARMACOKINETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY; SCREENING TEST; STATISTICAL CONCEPTS; THYROID GLAND; TOXICITY TESTING; UNITED STATES; VALIDATION STUDY; WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE;

ANIMALS; ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS; ENDOCRINE SYSTEM; ENDOCRINE SYSTEM DISEASES; HUMANS; PROGRAM EVALUATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTS; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

EID: 80053590436     PISSN: 02732300     EISSN: 10960295     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.07.007     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Balls M., Amcoff P., Bremer S., Casati S., Coecke S., Clotheir R., et al. The principles of weight of evidence validation of test methods and testing strategies: the report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 58a. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2006, 34(6):603-620.
2. Bars R., Broeckaert F., Fegert I., Gross M., Hallmark N., Kedwards T., et al. Science based guidance for the assessment of endocrine disrupting properties of chemicals. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2011, 59:37-46.
3. Boobis A.R., Cohen S.M., Dellarco V., McGregor D., Meek M.E., Vickers C., et al. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 2006, 36(10):781-792.
4. Boobis A.R., Doe J.E., Heinrch-Hirsch B., Meek M.E., Munn S., Ruchirawat M., et al. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a noncancer mode of action for humans. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 2008, 38(2):87-96.
5. Borgert C.J. Conflict of interest or contravention of science?. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2007, 48(1):4-5.
6. Borgert C.J. Conflict of interest: kill the messenger or follow the data?. Environmental Science & Technology 2007, 41(3):665.
7. Borgert, C.J., Gori, G.B., in preparation. Demonstrating causation: essential concepts from pharmacology. Toxicology and Epidemiology.
8. Borgert C.J., Mihaich E.M., Quill T.F., Marty M.S., Levine S.L., Becker R.A. Evaluation of EPA's tier 1 endocrine screening battery and recommendations for improving the interpretation of screening results. Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology 2011, 59(3):397-411.
9. Bipartican Policy Center, 2009. Improving the use of Science in Regulatory Policy. (accessed 16.06.11). http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20Science%20Report%20fnl.pdf.
10. Calabrese E.J., Baldwin L.A., Kostecki P.T., Potter T.L. A toxicologically based weight-of-evidence methodology for the relative ranking of chemicals of endocrine disruption potential. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 1997, 26(1):36-40.
11. Damstra, T., Barlow, S., Bergman, A., Kavlock, R., Van der Kraak, G., 2002. Causal criteria for assessing endocrine disruptors: a proposed framework. In: Global Assessment of the State-of-the-science of Endocrine Disruptors. World Health Organisation, International Programme on Chemical Safety (Chapter 7).
12. ECETOC, 2009. Technical Document 106: Guidance on Identifying Endocrine Disrupting Effects. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC), Brussels, Belgium.
13. Farquhar C., Vail A. Pitfalls in systematic reviews. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006, 18(4):433.
14. Goodman J.E., McConnell E.E., Sipes I.G., Witorsch R.J., Slayton T.M., Yu C.J., Lewis A.S., Rhomberg L.R. An updated weight of the evidence evaluation of reproductive and developmental effects of low doses of bisphenol A. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 2006, 36:387-457.
15. Goodman J.E., Witorsch R.J., McConnell E.E., Sipes I.G., Slayton T.M., Yu C.J., Franz A.M., Rhomberg L.R. Weight-of-evidence evaluation of reproductive and developmental effects of low doses of bisphenol A. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 2009, 39:1-75.
16. Gori G.B. The EPA and the courts: inching toward a showdown. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 1999, 30:167-168.
17. Gori G.B. The costly illusion of regulating unknowable risks. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2001, 34(3):205-212.
18. Gori G.B. Considerations on guidelines of epidemiologic practice. Annals of Epidemiology 2002, 12(2):73-78.
19. Gori G.B. Conflict of interest and public policy. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2009, 53(3):159-160.
20. Gori G.B. Scientific integrity. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2009, 54(3):213.
21. Gori G.B. Regulating unknown risk. Regulation 2010, 33(1):16-21.
22. Gray G.M., Baskin S.I., Charnley G., Cohen J.T., Gold L.S., Kerkvliet N.I., et al. The Annapolis Accords on the use of toxicology in risk assessment and decision-making: an Annapolis Center workshop report. Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods 2001, 11:225-231.
23. Gronseth G.S. From evidence to action. Neurorx 2004, 1(3):331-340.
24. Klimisch H.J., Andreae M., Tillmann U. A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 1997, 25(1):1-5.
25. Krimsky S. The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law. American Journal of Public Health 2005, 95(Suppl. 1):S129-S136.
26. Martin O.V., Lester J.N., Voulvoulis N., Boobis A.R. Human health and endocrine disruption: a simple multicriteria framework for the qualitative assessment of end point specific risks in a context of scientific uncertainty. Toxicological Sciences 2007, 98(2):332-347.
27. McQueen M.J. Overview of evidence-based medicine: challenges for evidence-based laboratory medicine. Clinical Chemistry 2001, 47(8):1536-1546.
28. Menzie C., Henning M.H., Cura J., Finkelstein K., Gentile J., Maughan J., et al. Special report of the Massachusetts weight-of-evidence workgroup A weight-of-evidence approach for evaluating ecological risks. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 1996, 2(2):277-304.
29. NRC 2011. Review of the Environmental Protection Agency's Draft IRIS Assessment of Formaldehyde, A Roadmap for Revision. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C (Chapter 7) (accessed 16.06.11). http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13142.html.
30. Oosterhuis W.P., Bruns D.E., Watine J., Sandberg S., Horvath A.R. Evidence-based guidelines in laboratory medicine: principles and methods. Clinical Chemistry 2004, 50(5):806-818.
31. Rhomberg L.R. Risk characterization for human health effects from potential environmental endocrine disruptors. Human Diet and Endocrine Modulation: Estrogenic and Androgenic Effects 1998, ILSI Press. G.E. Dunaif, S.S. Olin, J.A. Scimeca, J.A. Thomas (Eds.).
32. Rhomberg, L.R., 2008. A Framework for Weight of Evidence: Application to Endocrine Effects and the Low-dose hypotheses. ISRTP Workshop: Conducting and Assessing the Results of Endocrine Screening. Bethesda, MD.
33. Rhomberg L.R., Goodman J.E. CERHR conclusions would have been strengthened by a more explicit weight-of-evidence analysis. Birth Defects Research Part B: Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology 2008, 83:155-156.
34. Ricci S., Celani M.G., Righetti E. Development of clinical guidelines: methodological and practical issues. Neurological Sciences 2006, 27(Suppl. 3):S228-S230.
35. Schneider K., Schwarz M., Burkholder I., Kopp-Schneider A., Edler L., Kinsner-Ovaskainen A., et al. " Toxrtool" , a new tool to assess the reliability of toxicological data. Toxicology Letters 2009, 189(2):138-144.
36. Schreider J., Barrow C., Birchfield N., Dearfield K., Devlin D., Henry S., et al. Enhancing the credibility of decisions based on scientific conclusions: transparency is imperative. Toxicological Sciences 2010, 116(1):5-7.
37. Smyth R.L. Evidence-based medicine. Paediatric Respiratory Reviews 2000, 1(3):287-293.
38. Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, 2010. US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Hearing of 2/25/2010. http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1908:endocrine-disrupting-chemicals-in-drinking-water-risks-to-human-health-and-the-environment&catid=130:subcommittee-on-energy-and-the-environment&Itemid=71.
39. Subcommittee on Health, 2010. US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Hearing of 4/22/2010; Hearing Transcript at pages 79 & 80. http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1964:the-environment-and-human-health-the-role-of-hhs&catid=132:subcommittee-on-health&Itemid=72.
40. US EPA, 1998. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program; Proposed Statement of Policy. Federal Register, vol. 63, No. 248, pp. 71541-71568, December 28, 1998. (accessed 18.07.10). http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/pubs/122898frnotice.pdf.
41. US EPA, 2009. Environmental Protection Agency Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP); Announcing the Availability of the Tier 1 Screening Battery and Related Test Guidelines. Federal Register, vol. 74, No. 202, pp. 54415-54422, October 21, 2009. (accessed 18.07.10). http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006480a4732danddisposition=attachmentandcontentType=html.
42. US EPA, 2010. Weight-of-evidence Guidance Document: Evaluating Results of EDSP Tier 1 Screening to Identify Candidate Chemicals for Tier 2 Testing. Draft for Public Comment. See also Federal Register (vol. 75, No. 213, pp. 67963-67965). http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006480b80c60&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf.
43. Weed D.L. Weight of evidence: a review of concept and methods. Risk Analysis 2005, 25:1545-1557.
44. Zaza S., Wright-De Agüero L.K., Briss P.A., Truman B.I., Hopkins D.P., Hennessy M.H., et al. Data collection instrument and procedure for systematic reviews in the guide to community preventive services. Task force on community preventive services. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2000, 18(Suppl. 1):44-74.