Computer Simulation of Chemical Carcinogenesis

  • Rory B. Conolly
  • Richard H. Reitz
  • Harvey J. ClewellIII
  • Melvin E. Andersen


The standard procedure for evaluating carcinogen risk is the rodent bioassay coupled with statistically-based risk extrapolation. Extrapolation serves to bridge the physiological differences between the experimental species and man and between the experimental exposure scenario and that occurring in the “real world”. Little of what is known, however, about carcinogen pharmacokinetics, biochemical mechanisms of action, and cancer biology in either the experimental species or in man is used in risk assessment because no paradigm has been available to guide the incorporation of this information. Moolgavkar and Venzon (1979), and Moolgavkar and Knudson (1981), have described a biologically structured model of carcinogenesis (M-V-K model) that provides quantitative insights into the relationship between cellular proliferation, mutation, and tumor development. This is not, however, (and was not intended to be) a fully integrated model of chemical carcinogenesis as it lacks a biologically-based description of carcinogen pharmacokinetics, nor does it explicitly define biochemical mechanisms linking target tissue dose with tumorigenesis.


Biochemical Mechanism Chemical Carcinogenesis Transitional Probability Experimental Species Tumor Prevalence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersen, M.E., Clewell, H.J., III, Gargas, M.J., Smith, F.A. and Reitz, R.H. (1987). Physiologically based pharmacokinetics and the risk assessment process for methylene chloride. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 87: 185–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen,M.E. (1987). Tissue dosimetry in risk assessment, or What’s the Problem Here Anyway? In: Drinking Water and Health, Volume 8: Pharmacokinetics in Risk Assessment, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 8–23.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, J.C., Tsutsui, T. and Tso, P.O.P. (1978). Neoplastic transformation induced by a direct perturbation of DNA. Nature 274: 229–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bischoff, K.B. and Brown, R.G. (1966). Drug Distribution in Mammals. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series 62: 33–45.Google Scholar
  5. Darnell, J., Lodish, H. and Baltimore, D. (1986). Molecular Cell Biology, Scientific American Books, p. 138.Google Scholar
  6. de la Iglesia, F.A., McGuire, H.J. and Feuer, G. (1975). Coumarin and 4methylcoumarin induced changes in the hepatic endoplasmic réticulum studied by quantitative stereology. Toxicology 4: 305–314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Digernes, V. (1983). Chemical liver carcinogenesis: Monitoring of the process by flow cytometric DNA measurements. Environ. Hlth. Perspect. 50: 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elmore, E., Kakunaga, T. and Barrett, J.C. (1983). Comparison of spontaneous mutation rates of normal and chemically transformed human akin fibroblasts. Cancer Research 43: 1650–1655.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Emmelot. P. and Scherer, E. (1980). The first relevant cell stage in rat liver carcinogenesis. A quantitative approach. Biochimica Biophysica Acta 605: 247–304.Google Scholar
  10. Freidberg, E.C. (1985). DNA Repair, W.H. Freeman and Co., New York, pp. 2340.Google Scholar
  11. Gasiewicz, T.A. and Rucci, G. (1984). Cytosolic receptor for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Evidence for a homologous nature among various mammalian species. Molec. Pharmacol. 26: 90–98.Google Scholar
  12. Lutz, R.J., Dedrick, R.L., Matthews, H.B., Eling, T.E. and Anderson, Y.W. (1977). A preliminary pharmacokinetic model for several chlorinated biphenyls in the rat. Drug Metal. Diet. 5: 386–396.Google Scholar
  13. Matthews, H.B. and Dedrick, R.L. (1984). Pharmacokinetice of PCBs. Ann. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 24: 85–103.Google Scholar
  14. McCann, J., Choi, E., Yamasaki, E. and Ames, B.N. (1975). Detection of carcinogens as mutagena in the salmonella/microsome test: Assay of 300 chemicals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 72: 5135–5139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moolgavkar, S.H. (1983). Model for human carcinogenesis: action of environmental agents. Environ. Hlth. Perspect., 50: 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moolgavkar, S.H. (1988). Carcinogenesis modeling: From molecular biology to epidemiology. Ann. Rev. Public Health 7: 151–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moolgavkar, S.H., Day, N.H. and Stevens, R.G. (1980). Two-stage model for carcinogenesis: Epidemiology of breast cancer in females. J.N.C.I. 65: 559–569.Google Scholar
  18. Moolgavkar, S.H., Dewanii, A., and Venzon, D.J. (1988). A stochastic two-stage model for cancer risk assessment I: The hazard function and the probability of tumor. To be published in Risk Analysis.Google Scholar
  19. Moolgavkar, S.H. and Knudson, A.G., Jr. (1981). Mutation and cancer: A model for human carcinogenesis. J.N.C.I. 66: 1037–1052.Google Scholar
  20. Moolgavkar, S.H. and Venzon, D.J. (1979). Two-event models for carcinogenesis: Incidence curves for childhood and adult tumors. Mathematical Biosciences 47: 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peraino, C., Carnes, B.A. and Stevens, F.J. (1986). Evidence for growth among foci with different phenotypes in the population of altered hepatocyte foci induced by a single neonatal treatment with carcinogen. Carcinogenesis 7: 191–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Quinn, D.W. Calculating the hazard function and probability of tumor for cancer risk assessment when the parameters are time dependent. Submitted to Risk Analysis.Google Scholar
  23. Ramsey, J.R. and Andersen, Y.E. (1984). A physiological model for the inhalation pharmacokinetics of inhaled styrene in rats and humans. Toxicol. Appt. Pharmacol. 73: 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reddy, E.P. (1983). Nucleotide sequence analysis of the T24 human bladder carcinoma oncogene. Science 220: 1061–1063.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rushmore, T.H., Sharma, R.N.S., Roomi, Y.W., Harris, L., Satoh, K., Sato, K., Murray R.K. and Farber, E. (1987). Identification of a characteristic cytosolic polypeptide of rat neoplastic hepatocyte nodules as placental glutathione S-transferase. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 143: 98–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tsutsui, T., Crawford, B.D. and Ts’o, P.O.P. (1981). Comparison between mutagenesis in normal and transformed Syrian hamster fibroblasts. Difference in the temporal order of HPRT gene replication. Mutation Research 80: 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weinstein, I.B. (1981). Current concepts and controversies in chemical carcinogenesis. J. Suptamolecular Structure and Cellular Biochemistry 17: 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yang, R.S., Tallant, Y.J. and McKelvy, J.A. (1984). Age-dependent pharmacokinetic changes of ethylenediamine in Fisher-344 rats parallel to a two-year chronic toxicity study. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 4: 663–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rory B. Conolly
    • 1
  • Richard H. Reitz
    • 2
  • Harvey J. ClewellIII
    • 3
  • Melvin E. Andersen
    • 3
  1. 1.NSI Technology Services, Corp.DaytonUSA
  2. 2.Mammalian and Environmental ToxicologyDow Chemical CompanyMidlandUSA
  3. 3.Toxic Hazards DivisionHarry G. Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research LaboratoryWright-Patterson AFBUSA

Personalised recommendations