Carcinogenic Risk Assessment: Science or Fantasy?

  • Ajit K. Thakur
  • Arvind Parthasarathi
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 221)


Important regulatory decisions about the fate and applicability of many chemicals are made from life-time rodent bioassays using mathematical models on tumor incidence data. Generally, these models are mostly based on empirical functions whose low-dose extrapolative behaviors are of questionable nature. In a few instances assumptions are made to generate these functions which cannot be experimentally established or rejected under given experimental details. Often investigators who use these models do not pay attention to the shapes and behaviors of the dose-response curves under consideration under regulatory presumptions.


Risk Assessment Weibull Model High Dose Level Lower Confidence Limit Incidence Table 
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. Ames, B. and Gold, L.S., 1990. Too many rodent carcinogens: Mitogenesis increases mutagenesis. Science 249: 970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armitage, P. and Doll, R., 1954. The age distribution of cancer and a multistage theory of carcinogenesis. Brit. J. Cancer 8: 1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boxenbaum, H., Neafsky, P.J., and Fournier, D.J., 1988. Hormesis, Gompertz functions and risk assessment. Drug Metab. Rev. 19: 195.Google Scholar
  4. Carlborg, F.W., 1981. Dose-response functions in carcinogenesis and the Weibull model. Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 19: 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calabrese, E.J., McCarthy, M.E., and Kenyon, E., 1987. The occurrence of chemically induced hormesis. Health Phys. 52: 531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornfield, J., 1977. Carcinogenic risk assessment, Science 198: 693.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crump, K.S., Hoel, D.G., Langley, C.H., and Peto, R., 1976. Fundamental carcinogenic processes and their implications for low dose risk assessment, Cancer Res. 36: 2973.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Doll, R., 1971. Age distribution of cancer. J. Roy. Stat. Soc., Series A 134: 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gehring, P.J. and Blau, G.E., 1977. Mechanisms of carcinogenesis: Dose-response. J. Env. Path. Toxicol. 1: 163.Google Scholar
  10. Hartley, H.O. and Sielken, R.L., 1977. Estimation of ‘safe doses’ in carcinogenic experiments. Biometrics 33: 1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Howe, R.B. and Van Landingham, C., 1986. Global 86. Clement and Associates, Inc., Ruston, Louisiana.Google Scholar
  12. Kovar, J.G. and Krewski, D.R. “DORES81: A Computer Program for Low Dose Extrapolation of Quantal Response Toxicity Data” Biostatistics Section, Environmental Health Directorate, Health and Welfare Canada, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. Mantel, N. and Bryan, W.R., 1961. “Safety” testing of carcinogenic agents. J. Nat. Cancer In. st. 27:455.Google Scholar
  14. Neafsey, P.J., 1990. Longevity hormesis: A review. Mech, Age Develop. 51: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rai, K. and Van Ryzin, J., 1981. A generalized multi-hit dose-response model for low-dose extrapolation. Biometrics 37: 341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rai, K. and Van Ryzin, J., 1980. MULTI80: A Computer Program for Risk Assessment of Toxic Substances. A Rand Note, N-1512-NIEHS, Rand, Santa Monica, California.Google Scholar
  17. Thakur, A.K., 1988. Modeling and Risk Assessment of Carcinogenic Dose-response. In: “Pharmacokinetics: Mathematical and Statistical Approaches to Metabolism and Distribution of Chemicals and Drugs” ( A. Pecile and A. Rescigno, ed.), page 227. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajit K. Thakur
    • 1
  • Arvind Parthasarathi
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Hazleton Washington, Inc.ViennaUSA
  2. 2.Nandanam, MadrasIndia

Personalised recommendations