Quantitative risk assessment and the limitations of the linearized multistage model

Abstract

1 Quantifying carcinogenic risk is an important objec tive for assisting in the assessment and management of risks from chemical exposure. The most widely used ofthe many mathematical models proposed for extrapolation of carcinogenicity data from animal studies to low dose human exposures is the linearized multistage (LMS) model. This has, in effect, become the default approach for much of Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA). The practical properties of this model have been investigated.

2 Analysis of simulated data using the LMS model showed (i) that the Maximum Likelihood Estimate (MLE) of the low dose slope, q₁, was unstable and extremely sensitive to small changes in the data; (ii) the 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) estimate, q₁*, preferred by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was insensitive with only small changes in values being obtained for large changes in the data; (iii) data sets where there was no statistical significance could give risk estimates similar to those obtained from data sets with clear dose-related effects; (iv) the size of the values of the Virtually Safe Dose (VSD) obtained did not necessarily relate to the biological interpretation of the data sets; (v) the value of q₁* obtained was closely related to the top dose used in the study.

3 Limitations of the LMS model were illustrated by examples of its use in assessing the carcinogenicity of 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD leading to the conclusion that the existing models are not suitable for routine use in the estimation of the risk from chemical carcinogens. The use of the LMS model has been justified in part by its original derivation from a mathematical model based upon a multistage model of carcinogenesis. However, estimates of the parameters of the model used to provide estimates of low dose risk to humans have no direct relationship to specific biological event in carcinogenesis. Further developments in mathematical models and increased understanding of the biological events underlying carcinogenesis will lead to more biologically plausible QRA methods which would then justify serious consideration of QRA by regulatory authorities throughout the world.

Keywords

Quantitative Risk Assessment carcinogens linearized multistage model dioxin

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Royal Society. Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management. Report of a Royal Society Study Group, The Royal Society, London , 1992.

Rodericks JV Risk assessment, the environment and public health. Environmental Health Perspectives 1994; 102: 258-264.

Russell M. , Gruber M. Risk assessment in environmental policy-making. Science 1987; 236: 286-290.

DoH. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Chemicals for Carcinogenicity. Department of Health, Report on Health and Social Subjects No. 42. HMSO, London, 1991.

Nas/Nrc. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. National Academy Press, Washington. 1983.

Royal Society. Risk Assessment - A Study Group Report. The Royal Society , London, 1983.

Lovell DP Risk assessment - general principles. In Toxic Hazard Assessment of Chemicals. Ed. Richardson ML , Royal Society of Chemistry, London, 1986. pp 207-222.

Ball DJ Understanding the risks. Chemistry & Industry 1992; 19th October 776-779.

Anderson EL and the Carcinogen Assessment Group of the US Environmental Protection Agency. Quantitative approaches in use to assess cancer risk. Risk Analysis 1983; 3: 277-295.

10.

Anderson EL The risk analysis process. In Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Contemporary Issues in Risk Assessment, Vol 3, Ed. Travis CC. Plenum Press, New York, 1988, pp. 3-17.

11.

Food Safety Council.

Quantitative risk assessment. Food and Cosmetic

Toxicology 1980; 18: 711-734.

12.

Mantel N. , Bryan WR 'Safety' testing of carcinogenic agents. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1961; 27: 455-470.

13.

Mantel N. , Bohidar N. , Brown C. , Ciminera J. , Tukey J. An improved Mantel-Bryan procedure for 'Safety' testing of carcinogens . Cancer Research 1975; 35: 865-872.

14.

US EPA. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Federal Register 1986; 51: 33992-34003.

15.

Armitage P. , Doll R. The age distribution of cancer and a multistage theory of carcinogenesis. British Journal of Cancer 1954; 8: 1-12.

16.

Crump KS , Hoel DG , Langley CH , Peto R. Fundamental carcinogenic processes and their implications for low-dose risk assessment. Cancer Research 1976; 36: 2973-2979.

17.

Crump KS An improved procedure for low-dose carcinogenic assessment from animal data . Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology 1984; 6: 339-348.

18.

Ota. Identifying and Regulating Carcinogens. Office of Technology Assessment, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1988.

19.

Moolgavkar SH , Luebeck G. Two-event model for carcinogenesis: biological, mathematical and statistical considerations. Risk Analysis 1990; 10: 323-341.

20.

Leung H-W. , Paustenbach DJ Cancer risk assessment for dioxane based upon a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic approach. Toxicology Letters 1990; 51: 147-162.

21.

Gart JJ , Krewski D. , Lee PN , Tarone RE , Wahrendorf J. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Vol. III, The design and analysis of long-term animal experiments. IARC Scientific Publications No. 79. IARC, Lyon, 1986.

22.

Sidhu KS Basis of body weight exponent (0.75) as a scaling factor in energy metabolism and risk assessment. Journal of Applied Toxicology 1992; 12: 309-310.

23.

US EPA. Draft Report: a cross-species scaling factor for carcinogen risk assessment based on equivalence of mg/kg 3/4 /day. Federal Register 1992; 57: 24152-24173.

24.

Shu HP , Paustenbach DJ , Murray FJ A critical evaluation of the use of mutagenesis, carcinogenesis, and tumor promotion data in a cancer risk assessment of 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin . Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 1987 ; 7: 57-88.

25.

Us Epa. A cancer risk-specific dose estimate for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Review Draft. EPA/600/6-88/007Aa, 1988.

26.

US Epa. Intent to review guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment . Federal Register 1988; 53: 3256-3258.

27.

Roberts L. EPA moves to reassess the risk of dioxin. Science 1991; 252: 911.

28.

Us Epa. Health assessment for 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD and related compounds (Chapter 1 through 8). Workshop Review Drafts. EPA/600/AP-92/001a through 001h, 1992.

29.

Stone R. Dioxin report faces scientific gauntlet. Science, 1994; 265: 1650.

30.

Paustenbach DJ , Layard MW , Wenning RJ , Keenan RE Risk assessment of 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD using a biologically-based cancer model: a re-evaluation of the Kociba et al. (1978) bioassay using the 1978 and 1990 histopathology criteria. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 1991; 34: 11-26.

31.

Lucier GW , Portier CJ , Gallo MA Receptor mechanisms and dose-response models for the effects of dioxins . Environmental Health Perspectives 1993; 101: 36-44.

32.

Portier C. , Tritscher A. , Kohn M. , Sewall C. , Clark G. , Elder L. , Hoel D. , Lucier G. Ligand/receptor binding for 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD: implications for risk assessment . Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 1993; 20 48-56.

33.

Kociba RJ , Keyes DG , Beyer JE , Carreon RM , Wade CE , Dittenber DA , Kalnons RP , Frauson LE , Park CN , Barnard SD , Hummel RA , Humiston CG Results of a two-year chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study of 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzop-dioxin in rats. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 1978; 46: 279-303.

34.

US FDA Statement by Sanford A Miller, PhD, Director, Bureau of Foods, Food and Drug Aministration, before the subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, Research and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, US House of Representatives, June 30. (1983).

35.

Gaylor DW , Kodell RL Linear interpolation algorithm for low dose risk assessment of toxic substances . Journal of Environmental Pathology and Toxicology 1980; 4: 305-311.

36.

DOE. Report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins (PCDDs) and Polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs). Pollution Paper No. 27. Department of the Environment, Central Directorate of Environmental Protection. HMSO, London, 1989.

37.

Krewski D. , Murdoch DJ , Withey JR

Dose-response models. Recent developments in carcinogenic risk assessment. Health

Physics 1989; 57: 313-325.

38.

Gold LS , Slone TH , Bernstein L. Summary of carcinogenic potency and positivity for 492 rodent carcinogens in the carcinogenic potency database. Environmental Health Perspectives 1989; 79: 259-272.

39.

Kodell RL , Gaylor DW , Chen JJ Carcinogenic potency correlations: real or artifactual. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 1991; 32 1-9.

40.

Gaylor DW Preliminary estimates of the virtually safe dose for tumors obtained from the maximum tolerated dose. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 1989; 9: 101-108.

41.

Krewski D. , Gaylor DW , Soms AP , Szyszkowicz M. An overview of the report: correlation between carcinogenic potency and the maximum tolerated dose: implications for risk assessment. Risk Analysis 1993; 13: 383-398.

42.

National Research Council's Committee on Risk Assessment Methodology. Issues in Risk Assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC , 1993.

43.

Us Epa. Draft revisions to Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Review Draft. US Environmental Protection Agency, July 1994.

44.

WHO Regional Office for Europe. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. WHO Regional Publications , Europe Series 23, Copenhagen, 1987.

45.

Maynard RL , Cameron KM , Fielder R. , McDonald A. , Wadge A. Setting air quality standards for carcinogens: an alternative to mathematical quantitative risk assessment - discussion paper. Human & Experimental Toxicology 1995; 14: 175-186.

46.

CalEPA. Expedited cancer potency values and proposed regulatory levels for certain Proposition 65 carcinogens. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, (Cal/EPA/OEHHA), Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Section, OEHHA Berkeley, CA, April 1992.

47.

Krewski D. , Gaylor D. , Szyszkowicz M. A model-free approach to low-dose extrapolation. Environmental Health Perspectives 1991; 90: 279-285.

48.

Sielken RL Jr. Cancer dose-response extrapolations. Envir

Sci Technol 1987; 21: 1033-1039.

49.

Johannsen FR Risk assessment of carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 1990; 20: 341-367.

50.

Krewski D. , Szyszkowicz M. , Rosenkranz H. Quantitative factors in chemical carcinogenic potency. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 1990; 12: 13-29.