Hormesis: Implications for Cancer Risk Assessment

Current guidelines for cancer risk assessment emphasize a toxicant's “mode of action”, rather than its empirically derived dose-response relationship, for determining whether linear low-dose extrapolation is appropriate. Thus, for reasons of policy, demonstration of hormesis is generally insufficient to justify a non-linear approach, although it may provide important insights into the actions of toxicants. We evaluated dose-response characteristics of four carcinogens reported to have hormetic dose-response curves: cadmium chloride; ionizing radiation; PAHs; and, 2,3,7,8-TCDD. For each, the study that documented hormesis in one organ also provided evidence of non-hormetic dose-responses in other organs or non-hormetic responses for seemingly similar carcinogens in the same species and organs. Such inconsistency suggests toxicologic reasons that the finding of hormesis alone is not sufficient to justify use of non-linear low-dose extrapolations. Moreover, available data in those examples are not sufficient to know whether hormesis is a property of the toxicants, the target organ, or the exposed species. From the perspectives of cancer risk assessment, the greatest informational value of hormesis may be that it provokes mechanistic studies intended to explain why hormesis occurs.

[1]  N. Mantel,et al.  Induction of tumors in mice given a minute single dose of dibenz[a,h]anthracene or 3-methylcholanthrene as newborns. A dose-response study. , 1965, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[2]  C. Wade,et al.  Results of a two-year chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in rats. , 1978, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[3]  M. Waalkes,et al.  Toxicological principles of metal carcinogenesis with special emphasis on cadmium. , 1992, Critical reviews in toxicology.

[4]  R. Macklis,et al.  Radiation hormesis. , 1991, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[5]  E J Calabrese,et al.  Hormesis: A Highly Generalizable and Reproducible Phenomenon With Important Implications for Risk Assessment , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  A. Hartwig,et al.  Current aspects in metal genotoxicity , 2004, Biometals.

[7]  T H Shepard,et al.  National toxicology program. , 1981, Teratology.

[8]  E. Calabrese Hormesis: from marginalization to mainstream: a case for hormesis as the default dose-response model in risk assessment. , 2004, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[9]  Sunderman Fw Carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of some metals and their compounds. , 1986 .

[10]  G. Schlapper Hormesis with Ionizing Radiation , 1983 .

[11]  L. Poirier,et al.  Cadmium carcinogenesis in male Wistar [Crl:(WI)BR] rats: dose-response analysis of tumor induction in the prostate and testes and at the injection site. , 1988, Cancer research.

[12]  Jan G Hengstler,et al.  Occupational exposure to heavy metals: DNA damage induction and DNA repair inhibition prove co-exposures to cadmium, cobalt and lead as more dangerous than hitherto expected. , 2003, Carcinogenesis.

[13]  Edward J. Calabrese Biological Effects of Low Level Exposures Dose-Response Relationships , 1994 .

[14]  R. Ullrich,et al.  Influence of gamma irradiation on the development of neoplastic disease in mice. II. Solid tumors. , 1979, Radiation research.

[15]  L. Poirier,et al.  In vitro cadmium-DNA interactions: cooperativity of cadmium binding and competitive antagonism by calcium, magnesium, and zinc. , 1984, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.