Potency Factors for Risk Assessment at Libby,Montana

We reanalyzed the Libby vermiculite miners’ cohort assembled by Sullivan to estimate potency factors for lung cancer, mesothelioma, nonmalignant respiratory disease (NMRD), and all‐cause mortality associated with exposure to Libby fibers. Our principal statistical tool for analyses of lung cancer, NMRD, and total mortality in the cohort was the time‐dependent proportional hazards model. For mesothelioma, we used an extension of the Peto formula. For a cumulative exposure to Libby fiber of 100 f/mL‐yr, our estimates of relative risk (RR) are as follows: lung cancer, RR = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) =[1.06, 1.17]; NMRD, RR = 1.14, 95% CI =[1.09, 1.18]; total mortality, RR = 1.06, 95% CI =[1.04, 1.08]. These estimates were virtually identical when analyses were restricted to the subcohort of workers who were employed for at least one year. For mesothelioma, our estimate of potency is K_M = 0.5 × 10^?8, 95% CI =[0.3 × 10^?8, 0.8 × 10^?8]. Finally, we estimated the mortality ratios standardized against the U.S. population for lung cancer, NMRD, and total mortality and obtained estimates that were in good agreement with those reported by Sullivan. The estimated potency factors form the basis for a quantitative risk assessment at Libby.     

Uncertainty and Variability Analysis in Multiplicative Risk Models

Currently, there is a trend away from the use of single (often conservative) estimates of risk to summarize the results of risk analyses in favor of stochastic methods which provide a more complete characterization of risk. The use of such stochastic methods leads to a distribution of possible values of risk, taking into account both uncertainty and variability in all of the factors affecting risk. In this article, we propose a general framework for the analysis of uncertainty and variability for use in the commonly encountered case of multiplicative risk models, in which risk may be expressed as a product of two or more risk factors. Our analytical methods facilitate the evaluation of overall uncertainty and variability in risk assessment, as well as the contributions of individual risk factors to both uncertainty and variability which is cumbersome using Monte Carlo methods. The use of these methods is illustrated in the analysis of potential cancer risks due to the ingestion of radon in drinking water.     

A Risk Assessment for Occupational Acrylonitrile Exposure Using Epidemiology Data

The extensive data from the Blair et al.((1)) epidemiology study of occupational acrylonitrile exposure among 25460 workers in eight plants in the United States provide an excellent opportunity to update quantitative risk assessments for this widely used commodity chemical. We employ the semiparametric Cox relative risk (RR) regression model with a cumulative exposure metric to model cause-specific mortality from lung cancer and all other causes. The separately estimated cause-specific cumulative hazards are then combined to provide an overall estimate of age-specific mortality risk. Age-specific estimates of the additional risk of lung cancer mortality associated with several plausible occupational exposure scenarios are obtained. For age 70, these estimates are all markedly lower than those generated with the cancer potency estimate provided in the USEPA acrylonitrile risk assessment.((2)) This result is consistent with the failure of recent occupational studies to confirm elevated lung cancer mortality among acrylonitrile-exposed workers as was originally reported by O'Berg,((3)) and it calls attention to the importance of using high-quality epidemiology data in the risk assessment process.     

Errors in Estimates of Smoking-Related Deaths Derived from Nonsmoker Mortality

A number of recent analyses have computed present and future costs associated with a risk by estimating what would happen if the risk were absent. Two sources of bias are associated with this approach: (1) differences in confounding factors between present risk avoiders and risk takers, and (2) the difficulty of selecting an unbiased sample of risk avoiders. A staff memo from the Office of Technology Assessment used this approach to estimate mortality due to smoking. Numbers of deaths and age at death distributions of U.S. smokers and nonsmokers for all causes, all cancers, lung cancers, heart disease, and cerebrovascular lesions are used to assess the accuracy of these estimates. Large errors in the OTA estimates are found. Conditions are discussed that might help reduce errors from this approach.     

Predicting Future Excess Events in Risk Assessment

Risk characterization in a study population relies on cases of disease or death that are causally related to the exposure under study. The number of such cases, so-called "excess" cases, is not just an indicator of the impact of the risk factor in the study population, but also an important determinant of statistical power for assessing aspects of risk such as age-time trends and susceptible subgroups. In determining how large a population to study and/or how long to follow a study population to accumulate sufficient excess cases, it is necessary to predict future risk. In this study, focusing on models involving excess risk with possible effect modification, we describe a method for predicting the expected magnitude of numbers of excess cases and assess the uncertainty in those predictions. We do this by extending Bayesian APC models for rate projection to include exposure-related excess risk with possible effect modification by, e.g., age at exposure and attained age. The method is illustrated using the follow-up study of Japanese Atomic-Bomb Survivors, one of the primary bases for determining long-term health effects of radiation exposure and assessment of risk for radiation protection purposes. Using models selected by a predictive-performance measure obtained on test data reserved for cross-validation, we project excess counts due to radiation exposure and lifetime risk measures (risk of exposure-induced deaths (REID) and loss of life expectancy (LLE)) associated with cancer and noncancer disease deaths in the A-Bomb survivor cohort.     

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.     

Variability and Uncertainty in Swedish Exposure Factors for Use in Quantitative Exposure Assessments

Information of exposure factors used in quantitative risk assessments has previously been compiled and reported for U.S. and European populations. However, due to the advancement of science and knowledge, these reports are in continuous need of updating with new data. Equally important is the change over time of many exposure factors related to both physiological characteristics and human behavior. Body weight, skin surface, time use, and dietary habits are some of the most obvious examples covered here. A wealth of data is available from literature not primarily gathered for the purpose of risk assessment. Here we review a number of key exposure factors and compare these factors between northern Europe—here represented by Sweden—and the United States. Many previous compilations of exposure factor data focus on interindividual variability and variability between sexes and age groups, while uncertainty is mainly dealt with in a qualitative way. In this article variability is assessed along with uncertainty. As estimates of central tendency and interindividual variability, mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, and multiple percentiles were calculated, while uncertainty was characterized using 95% confidence intervals for these parameters. The presented statistics are appropriate for use in deterministic analyses using point estimates for each input parameter as well as in probabilistic assessments.     

Multi-Stage Model Estimates of Lung Cancer Risk from Exposure to Diesel Exhaust, Based on a U.S. Railroad Worker Cohort

A California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) report concluded that a reasonable and likely explanation for the increased lung cancer rates in numerous epidemiological studies is a causal association between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer. A version of the present analysis, based on a retrospective study of a U.S. railroad worker cohort, provided the Cal/EPA report with some of its estimates of lung cancer risk associated with diesel exhaust. The individual data for that cohort study furnish information on age, employment, and mortality for 56,000 workers over 22 years. Related studies provide information on exposure concentrations. Other analyses of the original cohort data reported finding no relation between measures of diesel exhaust and lung cancer mortality, while a Health Effects Institute report found the data unsuitable for quantitative risk assessment. None of those three works used multistage models, which this article uses in finding a likely quantitative, positive relations between lung cancer and diesel exhaust. A seven-stage model that has the last or next-to-last stage sensitive to diesel exhaust provides best estimates of increase in annual mortality rate due to each unit of concentration, for bracketing assumptions on exposure. Using relative increases of risk and multiplying by the background lung cancer mortality rates for California, the 95% upper confidence limit of the 70-year unit risks for lung cancer is estimated to be in the range 2.1 x 10(-4) (microg/m3)(-1) to 5.5 x 10(-4) (microg/m3)(-1). These risks constitute the low end of those in the Cal/EPA report and are below those reported by previous investigators whose estimates were positive using human data.     

Diesel Engine Exhaust and Lung Cancer Mortality: Time‐Related Factors in Exposure and Risk

To develop a quantitative exposure‐response relationship between concentrations and durations of inhaled diesel engine exhaust (DEE) and increases in lung cancer risks, we examined the role of temporal factors in modifying the estimated effects of exposure to DEE on lung cancer mortality and characterized risk by mine type in the Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study (DEMS) cohort, which followed 12,315 workers through December 1997. We analyzed the data using parametric functions based on concepts of multistage carcinogenesis to directly estimate the hazard functions associated with estimated exposure to a surrogate marker of DEE, respirable elemental carbon (REC). The REC‐associated risk of lung cancer mortality in DEMS is driven by increased risk in only one of four mine types (limestone), with statistically significant heterogeneity by mine type and no significant exposure‐response relationship after removal of the limestone mine workers. Temporal factors, such as duration of exposure, play an important role in determining the risk of lung cancer mortality following exposure to REC, and the relative risk declines after exposure to REC stops. There is evidence of effect modification of risk by attained age. The modifying impact of temporal factors and effect modification by age should be addressed in any quantitative risk assessment (QRA) of DEE. Until there is a better understanding of why the risk appears to be confined to a single mine type, data from DEMS cannot reliably be used for QRA.     

Reanalysis of the DEMS Nested Case‐Control Study of Lung Cancer and Diesel Exhaust: Suitability for Quantitative Risk Assessment

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2012 upgraded its hazard characterization of diesel engine exhaust (DEE) to “carcinogenic to humans.” The Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study (DEMS) cohort and nested case‐control studies of lung cancer mortality in eight U.S. nonmetal mines were influential in IARC's determination. We conducted a reanalysis of the DEMS case‐control data to evaluate its suitability for quantitative risk assessment (QRA). Our reanalysis used conditional logistic regression and adjusted for cigarette smoking in a manner similar to the original DEMS analysis. However, we included additional estimates of DEE exposure and adjustment for radon exposure. In addition to applying three DEE exposure estimates developed by DEMS, we applied six alternative estimates. Without adjusting for radon, our results were similar to those in the original DEMS analysis: all but one of the nine DEE exposure estimates showed evidence of an association between DEE exposure and lung cancer mortality, with trend slopes differing only by about a factor of two. When exposure to radon was adjusted, the evidence for a DEE effect was greatly diminished, but was still present in some analyses that utilized the three original DEMS DEE exposure estimates. A DEE effect was not observed when the six alternative DEE exposure estimates were utilized and radon was adjusted. No consistent evidence of a DEE effect was found among miners who worked only underground. This article highlights some issues that should be addressed in any use of the DEMS data in developing a QRA for DEE.     

Risk assessment methodologies for passive smoking-induced lung cancer

Risk assessment methodologies have been successfully applied to control societal risk from outdoor air pollutants. They are now being applied to indoor air pollutants such as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and radon. Nonsmokers' exposures to ETS have been assessed based on dosimetry of nicotine, its metabolite, continine, and on exposure to the particulate phase of ETS. Lung cancer responses have been based on both the epidemiology of active and of passive smoking. Nine risk assessments of nonsmokers' lung cancer risk from exposure to ETS have been performed. Some have estimated risks for lifelong nonsmokers only; others have included ex-smokers; still others have estimated total deaths from all causes. To facilitate interstudy comparison, in some cases lung cancers had to be interpolated from a total, or the authors' original estimate had to be adjusted to include ex-smokers. Further, all estimates were adjusted to 1988. Excluding one study whose estimate differs from the mean of the others by two orders of magnitude, the remaining risk assessments are in remarkable agreement. The mean estimate is approximately 5000 +/- 2400 nonsmokers' lung cancer deaths (LCDSs) per year. This is a 25% greater risk to nonsmokers than is indoor radon, and is about 57 times greater than the combined estimated cancer risk from all the hazardous outdoor air pollutants currently regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency: airborne radionuclides, asbestos, arsenic, benzene, coke oven emissions, and vinyl chloride.     

Hexavalent Chromium and Lung Cancer in the Chromate Industry: A Quantitative Risk Assessment

The purpose of this investigation was to estimate excess lifetime risk of lung cancer death resulting from occupational exposure to hexavalent-chromium-containing dusts and mists. The mortality experience in a previously studied cohort of 2,357 chromate chemical production workers with 122 lung cancer deaths was analyzed with Poisson regression methods. Extensive records of air samples evaluated for water-soluble total hexavalent chromium were available for the entire employment history of this cohort. Six different models of exposure-response for hexavalent chromium were evaluated by comparing deviances and inspection of cubic splines. Smoking (pack-years) imputed from cigarette use at hire was included in the model. Lifetime risks of lung cancer death from exposure to hexavalent chromium (assuming up to 45 years of exposure) were estimated using an actuarial calculation that accounts for competing causes of death. A linear relative rate model gave a good and readily interpretable fit to the data. The estimated rate ratio for 1 mg/m3-yr of cumulative exposure to hexavalent chromium (as CrO3), with a lag of five years, was RR=2.44 (95% CI=1.54-3.83). The excess lifetime risk of lung cancer death from exposure to hexavalent chromium at the current OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) (0.10 mg/m3) was estimated to be 255 per 1,000 (95% CI: 109-416). This estimate is comparable to previous estimates by U.S. EPA, California EPA, and OSHA using different occupational data. Our analysis predicts that current occupational standards for hexavalent chromium permit a lifetime excess risk of dying of lung cancer that exceeds 1 in 10, which is consistent with previous risk assessments.     

Integrated Uncertainty Analysis for Ambient Pollutant Health Risk Assessment: A Case Study of Ozone Mortality Risk

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses health risk assessment to help inform its decisions in setting national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA's standard approach is to make epidemiologically‐based risk estimates based on a single statistical model selected from the scientific literature, called the “core” model. The uncertainty presented for “core” risk estimates reflects only the statistical uncertainty associated with that one model's concentration‐response function parameter estimate(s). However, epidemiologically‐based risk estimates are also subject to “model uncertainty,” which is a lack of knowledge about which of many plausible model specifications and data sets best reflects the true relationship between health and ambient pollutant concentrations. In 2002, a National Academies of Sciences (NAS) committee recommended that model uncertainty be integrated into EPA's standard risk analysis approach. This article discusses how model uncertainty can be taken into account with an integrated uncertainty analysis (IUA) of health risk estimates. It provides an illustrative numerical example based on risk of premature death from respiratory mortality due to long‐term exposures to ambient ozone, which is a health risk considered in the 2015 ozone NAAQS decision. This example demonstrates that use of IUA to quantitatively incorporate key model uncertainties into risk estimates produces a substantially altered understanding of the potential public health gain of a NAAQS policy decision, and that IUA can also produce more helpful insights to guide that decision, such as evidence of decreasing incremental health gains from progressive tightening of a NAAQS.     

Diesel Emissions and Lung Cancer1

This paper uses two different methods to assess the potential risk of human lung cancer from exposure to diesel engine emissions. One method analyzes the best available epidemiological evidence on the lung cancer risks of persons exposed in their occupations to diesel engine emissions. The second conducts a comparative analysis of laboratory and epidemiological data on diesel engine emissions and two chemically related environmental exposures–coke oven emissions and roofing tar emissions. The estimates of potential risk derived from these two distinct methods are compared. The sources of uncertainty in each method are explicitly characterized. The value of these estimates for comparing the potential lung cancer risks from exposure to diesel engine emissions with other personal and societal risks are discussed. Also considered are the limitations of these results in predicting the possible excess incidence of lung cancer from ambient exposure to diesel emissions.     

A Probabilistic Framework for the Reference Dose (Probabilistic RfD)

Determining the probabilistic limits for the uncertainty factors used in the derivation of the Reference Dose (RfD) is an important step toward the goal of characterizing the risk of noncarcinogenic effects from exposure to environmental pollutants. If uncertainty factors are seen, individually, as "upper bounds" on the dose-scaling factor for sources of uncertainty, then determining comparable upper bounds for combinations of uncertainty factors can be accomplished by treating uncertainty factors as distributions, which can be combined by probabilistic techniques. This paper presents a conceptual approach to probabilistic uncertainty factors based on the definition and use of RfDs by the US. EPA. The approach does not attempt to distinguish one uncertainty factor from another based on empirical data or biological mechanisms but rather uses a simple displaced lognormal distribution as a generic representation of all uncertainty factors. Monte Carlo analyses show that the upper bounds for combinations of this distribution can vary by factors of two to four when compared to the fixed-value uncertainty factor approach. The probabilistic approach is demonstrated in the comparison of Hazard Quotients based on RfDs with differing number of uncertainty factors.     

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).     

Residential Radon in Canada: An Uncertainty Analysis of Population and Individual Lung Cancer Risk

Following a comprehensive evaluation of the health risks of radon, the U.S. National Research Council (US-NRC) concluded that the radon inside the homes of U.S. residents is an important cause of lung cancer. To assess lung cancer risks associated with radon exposure in Canadian homes, we apply the new (US-NRC) techniques, tailoring assumptions to the Canadian context. A two-dimensional uncertainty analysis is used to provide both population-based (population attributable risk, PAR; excess lifetime risk ratio, ELRR; and life-years lost, LYL) and individual-based (ELRR and LYL) estimates. Our primary results obtained for the Canadian population reveal mean estimates for ELRR, PAR, and LYL are 0.08, 8%, and 0.10 years, respectively. Results are also available and stratified by smoking status (ever versus never). Conveniently, the three indices (ELRR, PAR, and LYL) reveal similar output uncertainty (geometric standard deviation, GSD approximately 1.3), and in the case of ELRR and LYL, comparable variability and uncertainty combined (GSD approximately 4.2). Simplifying relationships are identified between ELRR, LYL, PAR, and the age-specific excess rate ratio (ERR), which suggest a way to scale results from one population to another. This insight is applied in scaling our baseline results to obtain gender-specific estimates, as well as in simplifying and illuminating sensitivity analysis.     

Further Notes on Public Response to Uncertainty in Risks and Science

Given the prevalence of uncertainty and variability in estimates of environmental health risks, it is important to know how citizens interpret information representing uncertainty in risk estimates. Ranges of risk estimates from a hypothetical industry source elicited divergent evaluations of risk assessors' honesty and competence among New Jersey residents within one mile of one or more factories. A plurality saw ranges of risk estimates as both honest and competent, but with most judging such ranges as deficient on one or both dimensions. They wanted definitive conclusions about safety, tended to believe the high end of the range was more likely to be an accurate estimate of the risk, and believed that institutions only discuss risks when they are "high." Acknowledgment of scientific, as opposed to self-interested, reasons for uncertainty and disputes among experts was low. Attitude toward local industry seemed associated with, if not a cause of, attitudes about ranges of risk estimates. These reactions by industry neighbors appear to replicate the findings of Johnson and Slovic (1995, 1998), despite the hypothetical producer of risk estimates being industry instead of government. Respondents were older and less educated on average than were the earlier samples, but more diverse. Regression analyses suggested attitude toward industry was a major factor in these reactions, although other explanations (e.g., level of scientific understanding independent of general education) were not tested in this study.     

Model Uncertainty and Risk Estimation for Experimental Studies of Quantal Responses

Experimental animal studies often serve as the basis for predicting risk of adverse responses in humans exposed to occupational hazards. A statistical model is applied to exposure-response data and this fitted model may be used to obtain estimates of the exposure associated with a specified level of adverse response. Unfortunately, a number of different statistical models are candidates for fitting the data and may result in wide ranging estimates of risk. Bayesian model averaging (BMA) offers a strategy for addressing uncertainty in the selection of statistical models when generating risk estimates. This strategy is illustrated with two examples: applying the multistage model to cancer responses and a second example where different quantal models are fit to kidney lesion data. BMA provides excess risk estimates or benchmark dose estimates that reflects model uncertainty.     

Some Limitations of Aggregate Exposure Metrics

Aggregate exposure metrics based on sums or weighted averages of component exposures are widely used in risk assessments of complex mixtures, such as asbestos-associated dusts and fibers. Allowed exposure levels based on total particle or fiber counts and estimated ambient concentrations of such mixtures may be used to make costly risk-management decisions intended to protect human health and to remediate hazardous environments. We show that, in general, aggregate exposure information alone may be inherently unable to guide rational risk-management decisions when the components of the mixture differ significantly in potency and when the percentage compositions of the mixture exposures differ significantly across locations. Under these conditions, which are not uncommon in practice, aggregate exposure metrics may be "worse than useless," in that risk-management decisions based on them are less effective than decisions that ignore the aggregate exposure information and select risk-management actions at random. The potential practical significance of these results is illustrated by a case study of 27 exposure scenarios in El Dorado Hills, California, where applying an aggregate unit risk factor (from EPA's IRIS database) to aggregate exposure metrics produces average risk estimates about 25 times greater - and of uncertain predictive validity - compared to risk estimates based on specific components of the mixture that have been hypothesized to pose risks of human lung cancer and mesothelioma.