A Comparison of Methods for Estimating the Benchmark Dose Based on Overdispersed Data from Developmental Toxicity Studies

Developmental anomalies resulting from prenatal toxicity can be manifested in terms of both malformations among surviving offspring and prenatal death. Although these two endpoints have traditionally been analyzed separately in the assessment of risk, multivariate methods of risk characterization have recently been proposed. We examined this and other issues in developmental toxicity risk assessment by evaluating the accuracy and precision of estimates of the effective dose ( ED ₀₅) and the benchmark dose ( BMD ₀₅) using computer simulation. Our results indicated that different variance structures (Dirichlet-trinomial and generalized linear model) used to characterize overdispersion yielded comparable results when fitting joint dose response models based on generalized estimating equations. (The choice of variance structure in separate modeling was also not critical.) However, using the Rao-Scott transformation to eliminate overdispersion tended to produce estimates of the ED ₀₅ with reduced bias and mean squared error. Because joint modeling ensures that the ED ₀₅ for overall toxicity (based on both malformations and prenatal death) is always less than the ED ₀₅ for either malformations or prenatal death, joint modeling is preferred to separate modeling for risk assessment purposes.     

Assessing human health response in life cycle assessment using ED10s and DALYs: part 2--Noncancer effects.

In Part 1 of this article we developed an approach for the calculation of cancer effect measures for life cycle assessment (LCA). In this article, we propose and evaluate the method for the screening of noncancer toxicological health effects. This approach draws on the noncancer health risk assessment concept of benchmark dose, while noting important differences with regulatory applications in the objectives of an LCA study. We adopt the centraltendency estimate of the toxicological effect dose inducing a 10% response over background, ED10, to provide a consistent point of departure for default linear low-dose response estimates (betaED10). This explicit estimation of low-dose risks, while necessary in LCA, is in marked contrast to many traditional procedures for noncancer assessments. For pragmatic reasons, mechanistic thresholds and nonlinear low-dose response curves were not implemented in the presented framework. In essence, for the comparative needs of LCA, we propose that one initially screens alternative activities or products on the degree to which the associated chemical emissions erode their margins of exposure, which may or may not be manifested as increases in disease incidence. We illustrate the method here by deriving the betaED10 slope factors from bioassay data for 12 chemicals and outline some of the possibilities for extrapolation from other more readily available measures, such as the no observable adverse effect levels (NOAEL), avoiding uncertainty factors that lead to inconsistent degrees of conservatism from chemical to chemical. These extrapolations facilitated the initial calculation of slope factors for an additional 403 compounds; ranging from 10(-6) to 10(3) (risk per mg/kg-day dose). The potential consequences of the effects are taken into account in a preliminary approach by combining the betaED10 with the severity measure disability adjusted life years (DALY), providing a screening-level estimate of the potential consequences associated with exposures, integrated over time and space, to a given mass of chemical released into the environment for use in LCA.     

Estimation of the Joint Risk from Multiple-Compound Exposure Based on Single-Compound Experiments

In the absence of data from multiple-compound exposure experiments, the health risk from exposure to a mixture of chemical carcinogens is generally based on the results of the individual single-compound experiments. A procedure to obtain an upper confidence limit on the total risk is proposed under the assumption that total risk for the mixture is additive. It is shown that the current practice of simply summing the individual upper-confidence-limit risk estimates as the upper-confidence-limit estimate on the total excess risk of the mixture may overestimate the true upper bound. In general, if the individual upper-confidence-limit risk estimates are on the same order of magnitude, the proposed method gives a smaller upper-confidence-limit risk estimate than the estimate based on summing the individual upper-confidence-limit estimates; the difference increases as the number of carcinogenic components increases.     

Experimental Design of Bioassays for Screening and Low Dose Extrapolation

Relatively high doses of chemicals generally are employed in animal bioassays to detect potential carcinogens with relatively small numbers of animals. The problem investigated here is the development of experimental designs which are effective for high to low dose extrapolation for tumor incidence as well as for screening (detecting) carcinogens. Several experimental designs are compared over a wide range of different dose response curves. Linear extrapolation is used below the experimental data range to establish an upper bound on carcinogenic risk at low doses. The goal is to find experimental designs which minimize the upper bound on low dose risk estimates (i.e., maximize the allowable dose for a given level of risk). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) is employed for screening purposes. Among the designs investigated, experiments with doses at the MTD, 1/2 MTD, 1/4 MTD, and controls generally provide relatively good data for low dose extrapolation with relatively good power for detecting carcinogens. For this design, equal numbers of animals per dose level perform as well as unequal allocations.     

Assessing human health response in life cycle assessment using ED10s and DALYs: part 1--Cancer effects.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a framework for comparing products according to their total estimated environmental impact, summed over all chemical emissions and activities associated with a product at all stages in its life cycle (from raw material acquisition, manufacturing, use, to final disposal). For each chemical involved, the exposure associated with the mass released into the environment, integrated over time and space, is multiplied by a toxicological measure to estimate the likelihood of effects and their potential consequences. In this article, we explore the use of quantitative methods drawn from conventional single-chemical regulatory risk assessments to create a procedure for the estimation of the cancer effect measure in the impact phase of LCA. The approach is based on the maximum likelihood estimate of the effect dose inducing a 10% response over background, ED10, and default linear low-dose extrapolation using the slope betaED10 (0.1/ED10). The calculated effects may correspond to residual risks below current regulatory compliance requirements that occur over multiple generations and at multiple locations; but at the very least they represent a "using up" of some portion of the human population's ability to accommodate emissions. Preliminary comparisons are performed with existing measures, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) slope factor measure q1*. By analyzing bioassay data for 44 chemicals drawn from the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database, we explore estimating ED10 from more readily available information such as the median tumor dose rate TD50 and the median single lethal dose LD50. Based on the TD50, we then estimate the ED10 for more than 600 chemicals. Differences in potential consequences, or severity, are addressed by combining betaED10 with the measure disability adjusted life years per affected person, DALYp. Most of the variation among chemicals for cancer effects is found to be due to differences in the slope factors (betaED10) ranging from 10(-4) up to 10(4) (risk of cancer/mg/kg-day).     

Uncertainty in Cancer Risk Estimates

Several existing databases compiled by Gold et al.^(1–3) 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.⁽⁴⁾ 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. Hence, for chemicals where the dose-response is nearly linear below experimental doses, cancer risk estimates based on animal data are not necessarily conservative and may range from a factor of 10 too low for human carcinogens up to a factor of 1000 too high for approximately 95% of the chemicals tested to date. These limits may need to be modified for specific chemicals where additional mechanistic or pharmacokinetic information may suggest alterations or where particularly sensitive subpopu-lations may be exposed. Supralinearity could lead to anticonservative estimates of cancer risk. Underestimating cancer risk by a specific factor has a much larger impact on the actual number of cancer cases than overestimates of smaller risks by the same factor. This paper does not address the uncertainties in high to low dose extrapolation. If the dose-response is sufficiently nonlinear at low doses to produce cancer risks near zero, then low-dose risk estimates based on linear extrapolation are likely to overestimate risk and the limits of uncertainty cannot be established.     

An Overview of the Report: Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency and the Maximum Tolerated Dose: Implications for Risk Assessment

Current practice in carcinogen bioassay calls for exposure of experimental animals at doses up to and including the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Such studies have been used to compute measures of carcinogenic potency such as the TD₅₀ as well as unit risk factors such as q ₁ * for predicting low-dose risks. Recent studies have indicated that these measures of carcinogenic potency are highly correlated with the MTD. Carcinogenic potency has also been shown to be correlated with indicators of mutagenicity and toxicity. Correlation of the MTDs for rats and mice implies a corresponding correlation in TD₅₀ values for these two species. The implications of these results for cancer risk assessment are examined in light of the large variation in potency among chemicals known to induce tumors in rodents.     

Comparison of cancer slope factors using different statistical approaches.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's cancer guidelines ( USEPA, 2005 ) present the default approach for the cancer slope factor (denoted here as s*) as the slope of the linear extrapolation to the origin, generally drawn from the 95% lower confidence limit on dose at the lowest prescribed risk level supported by the data. In the past, the cancer slope factor has been calculated as the upper 95% confidence limit on the coefficient (q*₁) of the linear term of the multistage model for the extra cancer risk over background. To what extent do the two approaches differ in practice? We addressed this issue by calculating s* and q*₁ for 102 data sets for 60 carcinogens using the constrained multistage model to fit the dose‐response data. We also examined how frequently the fitted dose‐response curves departed appreciably from linearity at low dose by comparing q₁, the coefficient of the linear term in the multistage polynomial, with a slope factor, s_c, derived from a point of departure based on the maximum liklihood estimate of the dose‐response. Another question we addressed is the extent to which s* exceeded s_c for various levels of extra risk. For the vast majority of chemicals, the prescribed default EPA methodology for the cancer slope factor provides values very similar to that obtained with the traditionally estimated q*₁. At 10% extra risk, q*₁/s* is greater than 0.3 for all except one data set; for 82% of the data sets, q*₁ is within 0.9 to 1.1 of s*. At the 10% response level, the interquartile range of the ratio, s*/s_c, is 1.4 to 2.0.     

An Evaluation of Risk Estimation Procedures for Mixtures of Carcinogens

The estimation of health risks from exposure to a mixture of chemical carcinogens is generally based on the combination of information from several available single compound studies. The current practice of directly summing the upper bound risk estimates of individual carcinogenic components as an upper bound on the total risk of a mixture is known to be generally too conservative. Gaylor and Chen (1996, Risk Analysis) proposed a simple procedure to compute an upper bound on the total risk using only the upper confidence limits and central risk estimates of individual carcinogens. The Gaylor-Chen procedure was derived based on an underlying assumption of the normality for the distributions of individual risk estimates. In this paper we evaluated the Gaylor-Chen approach in terms of the coverage probability. The performance of the Gaylor-Chen approach in terms the coverages of the upper confidence limits on the true risks of individual carcinogens. In general, if the coverage probabilities for the individual carcinogens are all approximately equal to the nominal level, then the Gaylor-Chen approach should perform well. However, the Gaylor-Chen approach can be conservative or anti-conservative if some or all individual upper confidence limit estimates are conservative or anti-conservative.     

Using Average Lifetime Dose Rate for Intermittent Exposures to Carcinogens

The effect of using the average dose rate over a lifetime as a representative measure of exposure to carcinogens is investigated by comparing the true theoretical multistage intermittent-dosing lifetime low-dose excess risk to the theoretical multistage continuous-dosing lifetime risk corresponding to the average lifetime dose rate. It is concluded that low-dose risk estimates based on the average lifetime dose rate may overestimate the true risk by several orders of magnitude, but that they never underestimate the true risk by more than a factor of k/r, where k is the total number of stages in the multistage model and r is the number of stages that are dose-related.     

Use of Acute Toxicity to Estimate Carcinogenic Risk

Data on the effects of human exposure to carcinogens are limited, so that estimation of the risks of carcinogens must be obtained indirectly. Current risk estimates are generally based on lifetime animal bioassays which are expensive and which take more than two years to complete. We here show how data on acute toxicity can be used to make a preliminary estimate of carcinogenic risk and give an idea of the uncertainty in that risk estimate. The estimates obtained are biased upwards, and so are useful for setting interim standards and determining whether further study is worthwhile. A general scheme which incorporates the use of such estimates is outlined, and it is shown by example how adoption of the procedures suggested could have prevented regulatory hiatus in the past.     

Plausible Upper Bounds: Are Their Sums Plausible?1

Quantitative cancer risk assessments are typically expressed as plausible upper bounds rather than estimates of central tendency. In analyses involving several carcinogens, these upper bounds are often summed to estimate overall risk. This begs the question of whether a sum of upper bounds is itself a plausible estimate of overall risk. This question can be asked in two ways: whether the sum yields an improbable estimate of overall risk (that is, is it only remotely possible for the true sum of risks to match the sum of upper bounds), or whether the sum gives a misleading estimate (that is, is the true sum of risks likely to be very different from the sum of upper bounds). Analysis of four case studies shows that as the number of risk estimates increases, their sum becomes increasingly improbable, but not misleading. Though the overall risk depends on the independence, additivity, and number of risk estimates, as well as the shapes of the underlying risk distributions, sums of upper bounds provide useful information about the overall risk and can be adjusted downward to give a more plausible [perhaps probable] upper bound, or even a central estimate of overall risk.     

Risk Assessment for Carcinogens Under California''s Proposition 65

Risk assessments for carcinogens are being developed through an accelerated process in California as a part of the state's implementation of Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. Estimates of carcinogenic potency made by the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) are generally similar to estimates made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The largest differences are due to EPA's use of the maximum likelihood estimate instead of CDHS' use of the upper 95% confidence bounds on potencies derived from human data and to procedures used to correct for studies of short duration or with early mortality. Numerical limits derived from these potency estimates constitute "no significant risk" levels, which govern exemption from Proposition 65's discharge prohibition and warning requirements. Under Proposition 65 regulations, lifetime cancer risks less than 10(-5) are not significant and cumulative intake is not considered. Following these regulations, numerical limits for a number of Proposition 65 carcinogens that are applicable to the control of toxic discharges are less stringent than limits under existing federal water pollution control laws. Thus, existing federal limits will become the Proposition 65 levels for discharge. Chemicals currently not covered by federal and state controls will eventually be subject to discharge limitations under Proposition 65. "No significant risk" levels (expressed in terms of daily intake of carcinogens) also trigger warning requirements under Proposition 65 that are more extensive than existing state or federal requirements. A variety of chemical exposures from multiple sources are identified that exceed Proposition 65's "no significant risk" levels.     

Comparison of the EU T25 Single Point Estimate Method with Benchmark Dose Response Modeling for Estimating Potency of Carcinogens

The T25 single-point estimate method of evaluating the carcinogenic potency of a chemical, which is currently used by the European Union (EU) and is denoted the EU approach, is based on the selection of a single dose in a chronic bioassay with an incidence rate that is significantly higher than the background rate. The T25 is determined from that single point by a linear extrapolation or interpolation to the chronic dose (in mg/kg/day), at which a 25% increase in the incidence of the specified tumor type is expected, corrected for the background rate. Another method used to obtain a carcinogenic potency value based on a 25% increase in incidence above the background rate is the estimation of a T25 derived from a benchmark dose (BMD) response model fit to the chronic bioassay data for the specified tumor type. A comparison was made between these two methods using 276 chronic bioassays conducted by the National Toxicology Program. In each of the 2-year bioassays, a tumor type was selected based on statistical and biological significance, and both EU T25 and BMD T25 estimates were determined for that end point. In addition, simulations were done using underlying cumulative probability distributions to examine the effect of dose spacing, the number of animals per dose group, the possibility of a dose threshold, and variation in the background incidence rates on the EU T25 and BMD estimates. The simulations showed that in the majority of cases the EU T25 method underestimated the true T25 dose and overestimated the carcinogenic potency. The BMD estimate is generally less biased and has less variation about the true T25 value than the EU estimate.     

Exploring the Uncertainties in Cancer Risk Assessment Using the Integrated Probabilistic Risk Assessment (IPRA) Approach

Current methods for cancer risk assessment result in single values, without any quantitative information on the uncertainties in these values. Therefore, single risk values could easily be overinterpreted. In this study, we discuss a full probabilistic cancer risk assessment approach in which all the generally recognized uncertainties in both exposure and hazard assessment are quantitatively characterized and probabilistically evaluated, resulting in a confidence interval for the final risk estimate. The methodology is applied to three example chemicals (aflatoxin, N‐nitrosodimethylamine, and methyleugenol). These examples illustrate that the uncertainty in a cancer risk estimate may be huge, making single value estimates of cancer risk meaningless. Further, a risk based on linear extrapolation tends to be lower than the upper 95% confidence limit of a probabilistic risk estimate, and in that sense it is not conservative. Our conceptual analysis showed that there are two possible basic approaches for cancer risk assessment, depending on the interpretation of the dose‐incidence data measured in animals. However, it remains unclear which of the two interpretations is the more adequate one, adding an additional uncertainty to the already huge confidence intervals for cancer risk estimates.     

Quantitative Cancer Risk Estimation for Formaldehyde

Of primary concern are irreversible effects, such as cancer induction, that formaldehyde exposure could have on human health. Dose-response data from human exposure situations would provide the most solid foundation for risk assessment, avoiding problematic extrapolations from the health effects seen in nonhuman species. However, epidemiologic studies of human formaldehyde exposure have provided little definitive information regarding dose-response. Reliance must consequently be placed on laboratory animal evidence. An impressive array of data points to significantly nonlinear relationships between rodent tumor incidence and administered dose, and between target tissue dose and administered dose (the latter for both rodents and Rhesus monkeys) following exposure to formaldehyde by inhalation. Disproportionately less formaldehyde binds covalently to the DNA of nasal respiratory epithelium at low than at high airborne concentrations. Use of this internal measure of delivered dose in analyses of rodent bioassay nasal tumor response yields multistage model estimates of low-dose risk, both point and upper bound, that are lower than equivalent estimates based upon airborne formaldehyde concentration. In addition, risk estimates obtained for Rhesus monkeys appear at least 10-fold lower than corresponding estimates for identically exposed Fischer-344 rats.     

Cancer Risk Estimation for Mixtures of Coal Tars

Two-year chronic bioassays were conducted by using B6C3F1 female mice fed several concentrations of two different mixtures of coal tars from manufactured gas waste sites or benzo(a)pyrene (BaP). The purpose of the study was to obtain estimates of cancer potency of coal tar mixtures, by using conventional regulatory methods, for use in manufactured gas waste site remediation. A secondary purpose was to investigate the validity of using the concentration of a single potent carcinogen, in this case benzo(a)pyrene, to estimate the relative risk for a coal tar mixture. The study has shown that BaP dominates the cancer risk when its concentration is greater than 6,300 ppm in the coal tar mixture. In this case the most sensitive tissue site is the forestomach. Using low-dose linear extrapolation, the lifetime cancer risk for humans is estimated to be: Risk < 1.03 × 10⁻⁴ (ppm coal tar in total diet) + 240 × 10⁻⁴ (ppm BaP in total diet), based on forestomach tumors. If the BaP concentration in the coal tar mixture is less than 6,300 ppm, the more likely case, then lung tumors provide the largest estimated upper limit of risk, Risk < 2.55 × 10⁻⁴ (ppm coal tar in total diet), with no contribution of BaP to lung tumors. The upper limit of the cancer potency (slope factor) for lifetime oral exposure to benzo(a)pyrene is 1.2 × 10⁻³ per μg per kg body weight per day from this Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) study compared with the current value of 7.3 × 10⁻³ per μg per kg body weight per day listed in the U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System.     

Dose-Response and Risk Assessment of Airborne Hexavalent Chromium and Lung Cancer Mortality

This study evaluates the dose-response relationship for inhalation exposure to hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)] and lung cancer mortality for workers of a chromate production facility, and provides estimates of the carcinogenic potency. The data were analyzed using relative risk and additive risk dose-response models implemented with both Poisson and Cox regression. Potential confounding by birth cohort and smoking prevalence were also assessed. Lifetime cumulative exposure and highest monthly exposure were the dose metrics evaluated. The estimated lifetime additional risk of lung cancer mortality associated with 45 years of occupational exposure to 1 microg/m3 Cr(VI) (occupational exposure unit risk) was 0.00205 (90%CI: 0.00134, 0.00291) for the relative risk model and 0.00216 (90%CI: 0.00143, 0.00302) for the additive risk model assuming a linear dose response for cumulative exposure with a five-year lag. Extrapolating these findings to a continuous (e.g., environmental) exposure scenario yielded an environmental unit risk of 0.00978 (90%CI: 0.00640, 0.0138) for the relative risk model [e.g., a cancer slope factor of 34 (mg/kg-day)-1] and 0.0125 (90%CI: 0.00833, 0.0175) for the additive risk model. The relative risk model is preferred because it is more consistent with the expected trend for lung cancer risk with age. Based on statistical tests for exposure-related trend, there was no statistically significant increased lung cancer risk below lifetime cumulative occupational exposures of 1.0 mg-yr/m3, and no excess risk for workers whose highest average monthly exposure did not exceed the current Permissible Exposure Limit (52 microg/m3). It is acknowledged that this study had limited power to detect increases at these low exposure levels. These cancer potency estimates are comparable to those developed by U.S. regulatory agencies and should be useful for assessing the potential cancer hazard associated with inhaled Cr(VI).     

Model Averaging Using the Kullback Information Criterion in Estimating Effective Doses for Microbial Infection and Illness

Since the National Food Safety Initiative of 1997, risk assessment has been an important issue in food safety areas. Microbial risk assessment is a systematic process for describing and quantifying a potential to cause adverse health effects associated with exposure to microorganisms. Various dose-response models for estimating microbial risks have been investigated. We have considered four two-parameter models and four three-parameter models in order to evaluate variability among the models for microbial risk assessment using infectivity and illness data from studies with human volunteers exposed to a variety of microbial pathogens. Model variability is measured in terms of estimated ED01s and ED10s, with the view that these effective dose levels correspond to the lower and upper limits of the 1% to 10% risk range generally recommended for establishing benchmark doses in risk assessment. Parameters of the statistical models are estimated using the maximum likelihood method. In this article a weighted average of effective dose estimates from eight two- and three-parameter dose-response models, with weights determined by the Kullback information criterion, is proposed to address model uncertainties in microbial risk assessment. The proposed procedures for incorporating model uncertainties and making inferences are illustrated with human infection/illness dose-response data sets.     

Risk Assessment of Nongenotoxic Carcinogens Based upon Cell Proliferation/Death Rates in Rodents

Increased cell proliferation increases the opportunity for transformations of normal cells to malignant cells via intermediate cells. Nongenotoxic cytotoxic carcinogens that increase cell proliferation rates to replace necrotic cells are likely to have a threshold dose for cytotoxicity below which necrosis and hence, carcinogenesis do not occur. Thus, low dose cancer risk estimates based upon nonthreshold, linear extrapolation are inappropriate for this situation. However, a threshold dose is questionable if a nongenotoxic carcinogen acts via a cell receptor. Also, a nongenotoxic carcinogen that increases the cell proliferation rate, via the cell division rate and/or cell removal rate by apoptosis, by augmenting an existing endogenous mechanism is not likely to have a threshold dose. Whether or not a threshold dose exists for nongenotoxic carcinogens, it is of interest to study the relationship between lifetime tumor incidence and the cell proliferation rate. The Moolgavkar–Venzon–Knudson biologically based stochastic two-stage clonal expansion model is used to describe a carcinogenic process. Because the variability in cell proliferation rates among animals often makes it impossible to detect changes of less than 20% in the rate, it is shown that small changes in the cell proliferation rate, that may be obscured by the background noise in rates, can produce large changes in the lifetime tumor incidence as calculated from the Moolgavkar–Venzon–Knudson model. That is, dose response curves for cell proliferation and tumor incidence do not necessarily mimic each other. This makes the use of no observed effect levels (NOELs) for cell proliferation rates often inadmissible for establishing acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) of nongenotoxic carcinogens. In those cases where low dose linearity is not likely, a potential alternative to a NOEL is a benchmark dose corresponding to a small increase in the cell proliferation rate, e. g., 1%, to which appropriate safety (uncertainty) factors can be applied to arrive at an ADI.