Biologically-Based Models to Predict Cancer Risk

  • Gail Charnley
  • Todd W. Thorslund
Part of the Contemporary Issues in Risk Analysis book series (CIRA, volume 3)


Mathematical dose-response models are currently used to extrapolate cancer risk from the high dose levels used in laboratory bioassays to the low, environmental dose levels to which humans are generally exposed. These models are empirical in nature and lack a biological basis. It has long been recognized that the accuracy with which a mathematical model predicts cancer risks at low doses is dependent upon the validity of the underlying biological paradigm on which it is based. A model that is chosen because it provides a “best fit” to tumor data observed at high doses may greatly over- or underestimate risk at low doses. Historically, regulatory agencies have had to use the available models in the absence of more appropriate alternatives; however, this is no longer the case. Our under standing of the mechanisms of carcinogenesis has advanced to a point where use of a biologically-based cancer model is now feasible.


Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Mitotic Division Susceptible Cell Syrian Golden Hamster National Toxicology Program 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Armitage, P., and Doll, R., 1957, A two-stage theory of carcinogenesis in relation to the age distribution of human cancer, Br. J. Cancer 11:161–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berenblum, I., and Shubik, P., 1947, A new, quantitative approach to the study of the stages of chemical carcinogenesis in the mouse’s skin, Br. J. Cancer 1:383–391.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borek, C., and Sachs, L., 1968, The number of cell generations required to fix the transformed state, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 59:83–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Farber, E., 1984, The multistep nature of cancer development, Cancer Res. 44:4217–4223.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gelboin, H. W., 1980, Benzo[a]pyrene metabolism, activation, and carcinogenesis: Role and regulation of mixed-function oxidases and related enzymes, Physiol. Rev. 60:1107–1166.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hennings, H., Shores, R., Wenk, M. L., Spangler, E. F., Tarone, R., and Yuspa, S. H., 1983, Malignant conversion of mouse skin tumors is increased by tumor initiators and unaffected by tumor parameters, Nature 304:67–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kakunaga, T., 1974, Requirement for cell replication in the fixation and expression of the transformed state in mouse cells treated with 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide, Int. J. Cancer 14:736–742.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Klein, G., and Klein, E., 1985, Evaluation of tumors and the impact of molecular oncology, Nature 315:190– 195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Land, H., Parada, L. F., and Weinberg, R. A., 1983, Cellular oncogenes and multistep carcinogenesis, Science 222:771–777.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lee, P. N., and O’Neil, J. A., 1971, The effect both of time and dose applied on tumor incidence rate in benzpyrene skin painting experiments, Br. J. Cancer 25:759–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moolgavkar, S. H., and Venzon, D. J., 1979, Two-event models for carcinogenesis: incidence curves for childhood and adult tumors, Math. Biosci. 47:55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moolgavkar, S. H., and Knudson, A. G., Jr., 1981, Mutation and cancer: A model for human carcinogenesis, J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 66:1037–1052.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 1985, Drinking Water and Health ,Vol. 6, pp. 53–74, National Acade my Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  14. National Toxicology Program (NTP), 1983, Carcinogenesis Bioassay of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (CAS No. 117-81-7) in F344 rates and B6C3F1 Mice (Feed Study) ,NTP Technical Report Series No. 217, NIH Publication No. 82–1773, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  15. Peraino, C., Richards, W. L., and Stevens, F. J., 1983, Multistage hepatocarcinogenesis, in: Mechanisms of Tumor Promotion, Vol. 1: Tumor Promotion in Internal Organs (T. J. Slaga, ed.), pp. 1–53, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  16. Sims, P., and Grover, P. L., 1974, Epoxides in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon metabolism and carcinogenesis, Adv. Cancer Res. 20:165–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith-Oliver, T., Loury, D., and Butterworth, B. E., 1985, Measurement of DNA repair and cell proliferation in hepatocytes from mice treated with di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), Environ. Mutagen. 7 (Suppl. 3):71 (abstr).Google Scholar
  18. Thorslund, T. W., Brown, C. C., and Charnley, G., 1987, The use of biologically motivated mathematical models to predict the actual cancer risk associated with environmental exposure to a carcinogen, J. Risk Anal ,(in press).Google Scholar
  19. Thyssen, J., Althoff, J., Kimmerle, G., and Mohr, U., 1981, Inhalation studies with benzo[a]pyrene in Syrian golden hamsters, J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 66:575–577.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Trosko, J. E., Chang, C., and Medcalf, A., 1983, Mechanisms of tumor promotion: Potential role of intercellular communication, Cancer Invest. 1:511–526.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weinstein, I. B., Jeffrey, A. M., Leffler, S., Pulkrabek, P., Yamasaki, H., and Grunberger, D., 1978, Interactions between polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and cellular macromolecules, in: Polycyclic Hydro carbons and Cancer, Vol. 2: Molecular and Cell Biology (P. O. P. Ts’o and H. V. Gelboin, eds.), pp. 3–26, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gail Charnley
    • 1
  • Todd W. Thorslund
    • 1
  1. 1.Clement Associates, Inc.FairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations