Uncertainty in cancer risk estimates.

Several existing databases compiled by Gold et al. for carcinogenesis bioassays are examined to obtain estimates of the reproducibility of cancer rates across experiments, strains, and rodent species. A measure of carcinogenic potency is given by the TD50 (daily dose that causes a tumor type in 50% of the exposed animals that otherwise would not develop the tumor in a standard lifetime). The lognormal distribution can be used to model the uncertainty of the estimates of potency (TD50) and the ratio of TD50's between two species. For near-replicate bioassays, approximately 95% of the TD50's are estimated to be within a factor of 4 of the mean. Between strains, about 95% of the TD50's are estimated to be within a factor of 11 of their mean, and the pure genetic component of variability is accounted for by a factor of 6.8. Between rats and mice, about 95% of the TD50's are estimated to be within a factor of 32 of the mean, while between humans and experimental animals the factor is 110 for 20 chemicals reported by Allen et al. The common practice of basing cancer risk estimates on the most sensitive rodent species-strain-sex and using interspecies dose scaling based on body surface area appears to overestimate cancer rates for these 20 human carcinogens by about one order of magnitude on the average.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

[1]  K S Crump,et al.  Correlation between carcinogenic potency of chemicals in animals and humans. , 1988, Risk Analysis.

[2]  D. Gaylor,et al.  Using the biological two-stage model to assess risk from short-term exposures. , 1988, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[3]  J C Bailar,et al.  One-hit models of carcinogenesis: conservative or not? , 1988, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[4]  M. Pike,et al.  A carcinogenic potency database of the standardized results of animal bioassays , 1984, Environmental health perspectives.

[5]  D. Gaylor,et al.  Using average lifetime dose rate for intermittent exposures to carcinogens. , 1987, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  H. Rosenkranz,et al.  Quantitative factors in chemical carcinogenesis: variation in carcinogenic potency. , 1990, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[7]  L. Bernstein,et al.  Summary of carcinogenic potency and positivity for 492 rodent carcinogens in the carcinogenic potency database. , 1989, Environmental health perspectives.

[8]  E. Crouch,et al.  Regulation of Carcinogens , 1981 .

[9]  J K Haseman,et al.  Sources of variability in rodent carcinogenicity studies. , 1989, Fundamental and applied toxicology : official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[10]  Malcolm C. Pike,et al.  The TD50: a proposed general convention for the numerical description of the carcinogenic potency of chemicals in chronic-exposure animal experiments. , 1984 .

[11]  Edmund A. C. Crouch,et al.  Interspecies comparison of carcinogenic potency , 1979 .

[12]  E A Crouch,et al.  Uncertainties in interspecies extrapolations of carcinogenicity. , 1983, Environmental health perspectives.

[13]  D. Gaylor,et al.  Carcinogenic risk assessment: comparison of estimated safe doses for rats and mice. , 1987, Environmental health perspectives.

[14]  D. Gaylor,et al.  Relative potency of chemical carcinogens in rodents. , 1986, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[15]  S H Moolgavkar,et al.  Mutation and cancer: a model for human carcinogenesis. , 1981, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.