Modeling and Risk Assessment of Carcinogenic Dose-Response

  • Ajit K. Thakur
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 145)


Before a pharmaceutical or agricultural compound is put in the consumer market, it is customary to evaluate its safety for humans. In many cases the safety is evaluated in terms of the compound’s carcinogenic potential. The experiments for this purpose are generally performed on rodents, specifically, rats and mice. Generally the human equivalent of life-span in rodents is taken as 2 years. Since there may be sex-specific changes taking place in humans, these studies are performed on both sexes. The end points of such chronic toxicityoncogenicity studies are multiple. The dose levels at which the compound is administered should ideally cover a “NOEL” (no-observable-effectlevel) and an “MTD” (maximum tolerable dose). At the “NOEL”, the animals in the study should not show any biologically meaningful effect, and at “MTD” it should provide some indication of homeostatic imbalance. Furthermore, there is a concurrent negative or vehicle control group in the study for providing valid comparisons of treatment effect. Traditionally the design of such a study includes randomly selected equal number of animals per group per sex in some selected strains of rats and mice and between three to five dosed groups along with the control (three treatment groups and a control is the common practice now-a-days as accepted by most regulatory agencies).


Toxicity Dioxide Adenoma Toxicology Dieldrin 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Thakur, A.K., K.J. Berry and P.W. Mielke, Jr. (1985) A FORTRAN program for testing trend and homogeneity in proportions. Comp. Progr. Biomed., 19:229–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dinse, G.E. and S.W. Lagakos (1983) Regression analysis of tumor prevalence data. J. Roy. Stat. Soc, Series C, 32:236–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thomas, D.G., N. Breslow and J.J. Gart (1977) Trend and homogeneity analyses of proportions and life table data. Comp. Progr. Biomed., 10:373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Armitage, P. and R. Doll (1954) The age distribution of cancer and a multistage theory of’carcinogenesis. Brit. J. Cancer, 8:1–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crump, K.S., D.G. Hoel, C.H. Langley and R. Peto (1976) Fundamental carcinogenic processes and their implications for low dose risk assessment, Cancer Res. 36:2973–2979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rai, K. and J. Van Ryzin (1981) A generalized multi-hit dose- response model for low-dose extrapolation. Biometrics, 37:341–352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mantel, N. and W.R. Bryan (1961) “Safety” testing of carcinogenic agents. J. Nat. Cancer Inst., 27:455–470.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doll, R. (1971) Age distribution of cancer. J. Roy. Stat. Soc., Series A 134:133–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cornfield, J., F.W. Carlborg and J. Van Ryzin (1978) Setting tolerance on the basis of mathematical treatment of doseresponse data extrapolated to low doses, In G.L. Plaa and W.A.M. Duncan Ed., Proceedings of First International Congress on Toxicology: Toxicology as a Predictive Science, Academic Press, New York, pp. 143–164.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carlborg, F.W. (1981) Dose-response functions in carcinogenesis and the Weibuil model. Fd. Cosmet. Toxicol., 19:255–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hartley, H.O. and R.L. Sielken (1977) Estimation of ’safe doses’ in carcinogenic experiments. Biometrics, 33:1–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalbfleisch, J.D., D. Krewski and J. Van Ryzin (1983) Dose-response models for time to response toxicity data (with discussion). Canad. J. Stat., 11:25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Druckery, H. (1967) Quantitative aspects of chemical carcinogenesis, In Potential Carcinogenic Hazards from Drugs (Evaluation of Risks), R. Truhaut ed., UICC Monograph Series, Vol 7, SpringerVerlag, New York, pp. 60–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prentice, R.L., A.V. Peterson and P. Marek (1982) Dose mortality relationships in RFM mice following 137Cs gamma ray irradiation. Radiation Res., 90:57–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cornfield, J. (1977) Carcinogenic risk assessment. Science, 198:693–699.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krewski, D., C. Brown and D. Murdoch (1984) Determining “safe” levels of exposure: Safety factors or mathematical models? Fund. Appl. Toxicol., 4:S383–S394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group (1979) Scientific bases for identification of potential carcinogens and estimation of risks. Fed. Register, 44:39858–39879.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Food safety Council (1980) Quantitative risk assessment. Fd. Cosmet. Toxicol., 18:711–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gehring, P.J. and G.E. Blau (197 7) Mechanisms of carcinogenesis: Dose-Response. J. Env. Path. Toxicol. 1:163–179.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dixon, R.L. (1976) Problems in extrapolating toxicity data from laboratory animals to man. Env. Health Perspect., 12:43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gillette, J.R. (1976) Application of pharmacokinetic principles in the extrapolation of animal data to humans. Clin. Toxicol., 9:709–722.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Krasovskii, G.N. (1976) Extrapolation of experimental data from animals to man. Env. Health Perspect., 13:51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Motulsky, A.G. (1982) Interspecies and human genetic variation: Problems of risk assessment in chemical mutagenesis and carcinogenesis. Progr. Mut. Res., 3:75–83.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Book, S.A. (1982) Scaling toxicity from laboratory animals to people: An example with nitrogen dioxide. J. Toxicol. Env. Health, 9:719–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Boxenbaum, H. (1984) Interspecies pharmacokinetic scaling and the evolutionary-comparative paradigm. Drug Metab. Rev., 15:1071–1121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Office of the Technology Assessment (OTA) (1981) Assessment of Technologies for Determining Cancer Risks from the Environment. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Park, C.N. and R.D. Snee (1983) Quantitative risk assessment: State-of-the-art for carcinogenesis. Fund. Appl. Toxicol., 3:320–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Crump, K.S., A. Silvers, P.F. Ricci and R. Wyzga (1985) Interspecies comparison for carcinogenic potency to humans, In P.F. Ricci Ed. Principles of Health Risk Assessment, Prentice Hall, EnglewoodCliff, New Jersey, pp. 321–372.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajit K. Thakur
    • 1
  1. 1.Biostatistics DepartmentHazleton Laboratories America, Inc.ViennaUSA

Personalised recommendations