Carcinogenic Drugs: A Model Data-Base for Human Risk Quantification
Many of the drugs used in cancer chemotherapy are themselves carcinogenic. However, they differ from other carcinogens, in that humans are intentionally exposed to them at high, carefully measured doses. Studies of second cancers following chemotherapy have as their primary goal the reduction of long-term risk through suitable modification of therapy. However, they can also provide unique quantitative information on human carcinogenesis. We discuss the information available on various aspects of chemotherapy-induced leukemia, including dose-effect and temporal relationships, and suggest ways in which statistical analyses could be extended. Further topics considered include the comparative carcinogenicity of chemotherapeutic agents and radiation, and other endpoints related to carcinogenicity which may usefully be studied in treated patients.
KeywordsCancer Risk Acute Leukemia Excess Relative Risk Human Carcinogen Human Carcinogenesis
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 6.J.D. BOICE, M. BLETTNER, R.A. KLEINERMAN et al. Radiation dose and leukaemia risk in patients treated for cancer of the cervix. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 74 (1987), pp. 1295–1311.Google Scholar
- 7.N.E. BRESLOW and N.E. DAY. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research, Volume II, The Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies (IARC Scientific Publications No. 82), Lyon, (1987) International Agency for Research on Cancer.Google Scholar
- 9.N.E. DAY and C.C. BROWN. Multistage models and the primary prevention of cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 64 (1980), pp. 977–989.Google Scholar
- 10.L. EHRENBERG, E. MOUSTÀCCHI, S. OSTERMAN-GOLKAR. Dosimetry of genotoxic agents and dose-response relationships and their effects. Mutation Research, 123 (1983), pp. 121–182.Google Scholar
- 12.M.H. GREENE, E.L. HARRIS, D.M. GERESHENSON, G.D. MALKASIAN, L.J. MELTON, A.J. DEMBO et al. Melphalan may be a more potent leukemogen than cyclophosphamide. Annals of Internal Medicine, 105 (1986), pp. 360–367.Google Scholar
- 14.IARC. Overall Evaluations of Carcinogenicity: An Updating of IARC Monographs Volumes 1 to 42. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Supplement 7 (1987), International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.Google Scholar
- 15.J. KALDOR, N.E. DAY, P. BAND, N.W. CHOI, E.A. CLARKE, M.P. COLEMAN et al. Second malignancies following testicular cancer, ovarian cancer and Hodgkin’s disease: An international collaborative study among cancer registries. International Journal of Cancer, 39 (1987), pp. 571–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.J. KALDOR and N.E. DAY. Estimation of temporal effects in treatment-induced second cancer. Statistics in Medicine, 8 (1989) (in press).Google Scholar
- 18.S.H. MOOLGAVKAR and A.G. KNUDSON Jr. Mutation and Cancer: A model for human carcinogenesis. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 66 (1981), pp. 1037–1051.Google Scholar
- 19.CS. MUIR, J. WATERHOUSE, T. MACK, J. POWELL and S. WHELAN. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, Volume V. (1987) IARC Scientific Publications No. 88.Google Scholar
- 20.J.D. ROWLEY, H.M. GOLOMB and J.W. VARDIMAN. Nonrandom chromosome abnormalities in acute leukemia and dysmyelopoietic syndromes in patients with previously treated malignant disease. Blood, 58 (1981), pp. 759–767.Google Scholar
- 21.D. SCHMAHL and H. OSSWALD. Experimental studies on the carcinogenic effect of cancer chemotherapeutic agents and immunosuppression. Arzneimittelforschung, 20 (1970), pp. 1461–1467.Google Scholar