Monte Carlo Simulation of Rodent Carcinogenicity Bioassays

In this paper we describe a simulation, by Monte Carlo methods, of the results of rodent carcinogenicity bioassays. Our aim is to study how the observed correlation between carcinogenic potency (beta or 1n2/TD50) and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) arises, and whether the existence of this correlation leads to an artificial correlation between carcinogenic potencies in rats and mice. The validity of the bioassay results depends upon, among other things, certain biases in the experimental design of the bioassays. These include selection of chemicals for bioassay and details of the experimental protocol, including dose levels. We use as variables in our simulation the following factors: (1) dose group size, (2) number of dose groups, (3) tumor rate in the control (zero-dose) group, (4) distribution of the MTD values of the group of chemicals as specified by the mean and standard deviation, (5) the degree of correlation between beta and the MTD, as given by the standard deviation of the random error term in the linear regression of log beta on log (1/MTD), and (6) an upper limit on the number of animals with tumors. Monte Carlo simulation can show whether the information present in the existing rodent bioassay database is sufficient to reject the validity of the proposed interspecies correlations at a given level of stringency. We hope that such analysis will be useful for future bioassay design, and more importantly, for discussion of the whole NCI/NTP program.     

Issues Concerning the Estimation of the TD50

The TD50 (or tumorigenic dose rate 50) is a generally accepted measure of the carcinogenic potency of a chemical in a particular strain of animal. This paper discusses error in the estimation of the TD50 caused by intercurrent mortality and error resulting from consideration of only significant TD50's. Using computer simulations, we found that treatment-related toxicity had only a small effect on estimating the TD50, with errors seldom exceeding 5%. The TD50 is sensitive to changes in tumor lethality with errors ranging to as high as 50%. Many of these errors were significantly different from zero and the results suggest that potency estimation could be improved by basing the estimates upon the tumor incidence rate rather than upon the tumor death rate when an estimate of tumor lethality is obtainable.     

Point Estimates of Cancer Risk at Low Doses

There has been considerable discussion regarding the conservativeness of low-dose cancer risk estimates based upon linear extrapolation from upper confidence limits. Various groups have expressed a need for best (point) estimates of cancer risk in order to improve risk/benefit decisions. Point estimates of carcinogenic potency obtained from maximum likelihood estimates of low-dose slope may be highly unstable, being sensitive both to the choice of the dose–response model and possibly to minimal perturbations of the data. For carcinogens that augment background carcinogenic processes and/or for mutagenic carcinogens, at low doses the tumor incidence versus target tissue dose is expected to be linear. Pharmacokinetic data may be needed to identify and adjust for exposure-dose nonlinearities. Based on the assumption that the dose response is linear over low doses, a stable point estimate for low-dose cancer risk is proposed. Since various models give similar estimates of risk down to levels of 1%, a stable estimate of the low-dose cancer slope is provided by ŝ = 0.01/ED01, where ED01 is the dose corresponding to an excess cancer risk of 1%. Thus, low-dose estimates of cancer risk are obtained by, risk = ŝ × dose. The proposed procedure is similar to one which has been utilized in the past by the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration. The upper confidence limit, s , corresponding to this point estimate of low-dose slope is similar to the upper limit, q ₁ obtained from the generalized multistage model. The advantage of the proposed procedure is that ŝ provides stable estimates of low-dose carcinogenic potency, which are not unduly influenced by small perturbations of the tumor incidence rates, unlike ₁.     

Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency of Chemicals in Animals and Humans

Twenty-three chemicals were selected for comparison of the carcinogenic potencies estimated from epidemiological data to those estimated from animal carcinogenesis bioassays. The chemicals were all those for which reasonably strong evidence of carcinogenicity could be found in humans or animals and for which suitable data could be obtained for quantifying carcinogenic potencies in both humans and animals. Many alternative methods of analyzing the bioassay data were investigated. Almost all of the methods yielded potency estimates that were highly correlated with potencies estimated from epidemiological data; correlations were highly statistically significant (p less than 0.001), with the corresponding correlation coefficients ranging as high as 0.9. These findings provide support for the general use of animal data to evaluate carcinogenic potential in humans and also for the use of animal data to quantify human risk.     

Comparison of Contact Site Cancer Potency Across Dose Routes: Case Study with Epichlorohydrin*

Risk assessment for airborne carcinogens is often limited by a lack of inhalation bioassay data. While extrapolation from oral-based cancer potency factors may be possible for some agents, this is not considered feasible for contact site carcinogens. The change in contact sites (oral: g.i. tract; inhalation: respiratory tract) when switching dose routes leads to possible differences in tissue sensitivity as well as chemical delivery. This research evaluates the feasibility to extrapolate across dose routes for a contact site carcinogen through a case study with epichlorohydrin (EPI). EPI cancer potency at contact sites is compared across three bioassays involving different dose routes (gavage, drinking water, inhalation) through the use of dosimetry models to adjust for EPI delivery to contact sites. Results indicate a large disparity (two orders of magnitude) in potency across the three routes of administration when expressed as the externally applied dose. However, when expressed as peak delivered dose, inhalation and oral potency estimates are similar and overall, the three potency estimates are within a factor of seven. The results suggest that contact site response to EPI is more dependent upon the rate than the route of delivery, with peak concentration the best way to extrapolate across dose routes. These results cannot be projected to other carcinogens without further study.     

The Value of Animal Test Information in Environmental Control Decisions

Value of information (VOI)analytic techniques are used to evaluate the benefit of performing animal bioassays to provide information about the cancer potency of specific chemical compounds. These tools allow the identification of the conditions in which the cost of reducing uncertainty about potency, by performing a subchronic or chronic bioassay, is justified by the benefit of having improved information for making control decisions. The decision analytic results are readily scaled to apply to a range of human contact rates (exposures)and a variety of control strategies. The sensitivity of results to uncertainty about animal to human extrapolation and the design of the bioassay is explored. An evaluation of the possible gains in general understanding about the mechanisms of carcinogenicity resulting from chronic bioassays is beyond the scope of this approach.     

Use of Biological Markers in Risk Assessment1

Measurements of intermediate end points in the carcinogenic process may reduce uncertainty in human risk assessment from bioassay data, by identifying sources of interspecies variation and dose nonlinearity. This paper describes desirable properties of such markers: persistence, predictive power, temporal relevance, and consistency across dose rate and species. We illustrate these properties by evaluating markers for squamous cell nasal carcinoma in rodents exposed to formaldehyde. We also discuss design issues for bioassays that evaluate markers and tumors simultaneously at necropsy.     

Extrapolation of Carcinogenicity Between Species: Qualitative and Quantitative Factors

Prediction of human cancer risk from the results of rodent bioassays requires two types of extrapolation: a qualitative extrapolation from short-lived rodent species to long-lived humans, and a quantitative extrapolation from near-toxic doses in the bioassay to low-level human exposures. Experimental evidence on the accuracy of prediction between closely related species tested under similar experimental conditions (rats, mice, and hamsters) indicates that: (1) if a chemical is positive in one species, it will be positive in the second species about 75% of the time; however, since about 50% of test chemicals are positive in each species, by chance alone one would expect a predictive value between species of about 50%. (2) If a chemical induces tumors in a particular target organ in one species, it will induce tumors in the same organ in the second species about 50% of the time. Similar predictive values are obtained in an analysis of prediction from humans to rats or from humans to mice for known human carcinogens. Limitations of bioassay data for use in quantitative extrapolation are discussed, including constraints on both estimates of carcinogenic potency and of the dose-response in experiments with only two doses and a control. Quantitative extrapolation should be based on an understanding of mechanisms of carcinogenesis, particularly mitogenic effects that are present at high and not low doses.     

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.     

Bootstrap Estimation of Benchmark Doses and Confidence Limits with Clustered Quantal Data

The benchmark dose (BMD) is an exposure level that would induce a small risk increase (BMR level) above the background. The BMD approach to deriving a reference dose for risk assessment of noncancer effects is advantageous in that the estimate of BMD is not restricted to experimental doses and utilizes most available dose-response information. To quantify statistical uncertainty of a BMD estimate, we often calculate and report its lower confidence limit (i.e., BMDL), and may even consider it as a more conservative alternative to BMD itself. Computation of BMDL may involve normal confidence limits to BMD in conjunction with the delta method. Therefore, factors, such as small sample size and nonlinearity in model parameters, can affect the performance of the delta method BMDL, and alternative methods are useful. In this article, we propose a bootstrap method to estimate BMDL utilizing a scheme that consists of a resampling of residuals after model fitting and a one-step formula for parameter estimation. We illustrate the method with clustered binary data from developmental toxicity experiments. Our analysis shows that with moderately elevated dose-response data, the distribution of BMD estimator tends to be left-skewed and bootstrap BMDL s are smaller than the delta method BMDL s on average, hence quantifying risk more conservatively. Statistically, the bootstrap BMDL quantifies the uncertainty of the true BMD more honestly than the delta method BMDL as its coverage probability is closer to the nominal level than that of delta method BMDL. We find that BMD and BMDL estimates are generally insensitive to model choices provided that the models fit the data comparably well near the region of BMD. Our analysis also suggests that, in the presence of a significant and moderately strong dose-response relationship, the developmental toxicity experiments under the standard protocol support dose-response assessment at 5% BMR for BMD and 95% confidence level for BMDL.     

Assessing Cancer Risks from Short-Term Exposures in Children

For the vast majority of chemicals that have cancer potency estimates on IRIS, the underlying database is deficient with respect to early-life exposures. This data gap has prevented derivation of cancer potency factors that are relevant to this time period, and so assessments may not fully address children's risks. This article provides a review of juvenile animal bioassay data in comparison to adult animal data for a broad array of carcinogens. This comparison indicates that short-term exposures in early life are likely to yield a greater tumor response than short-term exposures in adults, but similar tumor response when compared to long-term exposures in adults. This evidence is brought into a risk assessment context by proposing an approach that: (1) does not prorate children's exposures over the entire life span or mix them with exposures that occur at other ages; (2) applies the cancer slope factor from adult animal or human epidemiology studies to the children's exposure dose to calculate the cancer risk associated with the early-life period; and (3) adds the cancer risk for young children to that for older children/adults to yield a total lifetime cancer risk. The proposed approach allows for the unique exposure and pharmacokinetic factors associated with young children to be fully weighted in the cancer risk assessment. It is very similar to the approach currently used by U.S. EPA for vinyl chloride. The current analysis finds that the database of early life and adult cancer bioassays supports extension of this approach from vinyl chloride to other carcinogens of diverse mode of action. This approach should be enhanced by early-life data specific to the particular carcinogen under analysis whenever possible.     

A Simulation Study of the Influence of Study Design on the Estimation of Benchmark Doses for Developmental Toxicity1

The benchmark dose (BMD)⁴ approach is emerging as replacement to determination of the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) in noncancer risk assessment. This possibility raises the issue as to whether current study designs for endpoints such as developmental toxicity, optimized for detecting pair wise comparisons, could be improved for the purpose of calculating BMDs. In this paper, we examine various aspects of study design (number of dose groups, dose spacing, dose placement, and sample size per dose group) on BMDs for two endpoints of developmental toxicity (the incidence of abnormalities and of reduced fetal weight). Design performance was judged by the mean-squared error (reflective of the variance and bias) of the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) from the log-logistic model of the 5% added risk level (the likely target risk for a benchmark calculation), as well as by the length of its 95% confidence interval (the lower value of which is the BMD). We found that of the designs evaluated, the best results were obtained when two dose levels had response rates above the background level, one of which was near the ED₀₅, were present. This situation is more likely to occur with more, rather than fewer dose levels per experiment. In this instance, there was virtually no advantage in increasing the sample size from 10 to 20 litters per dose group. If neither of the two dose groups with response rates above the background level was near the ED₀₅, satisfactory results were also obtained, but the BMDs tended to be more conservative (i.e., lower). If only one dose level with a response rate above the background level was present, and it was near the ED₀₅, reasonable results for the MLE and BMD were obtained, but here we observed benefits of larger dose group sizes. The poorest results were obtained when only a single group with an elevated response rate was present, and the response rate was much greater than the ED₀₅. The results indicate that while the benchmark dose approach is readily applicable to the standard study designs and generally observed dose-responses in developmental assays, some minor design modifications would increase the accuracy and precision of the BMD.     

On the Correlation Coefficient Between the TD50 and the MTD

The existence of correlation between the carcinogenic potency and the maximum tolerated dose has been the subject of many investigations in recent years. Several attempts have been made to quantify this correlation in different bioassay experiments. By using some distributional assumptions, Krewski et al .⁽¹⁾ derive an analytic expression for the coefficient of correlation between the carcinogenic potency TD₅₀ and the maximum tolerated dose. Here, we discuss the deviation that may result in using their analytical expression. By taking a more general approach we derive an expression for the correlation coefficient which includes the result of Krewski et al .⁽¹⁾ as a special case, and show that their expression may overestimate the correlation in some instances and yet underestimate the correlation in other instances. The proposed method is illustrated by application to a real dataset.     

Characterizing Dose-Response I: Critical Assessment of the Benchmark Dose Concept

We present a critical assessment of the benchmark dose (BMD) method introduced by Crump⁽¹⁾ as an alternative method for setting a characteristic dose level for toxicant risk assessment. The no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) method has been criticized because it does not use all of the data and because the characteristic dose level obtained depends on the dose levels and the statistical precision (sample sizes) of the study design. Defining the BMD in terms of a confidence bound on a point estimate results in a characteristic dose that also varies with the statistical precision and still depends on the study dose levels.⁽²⁾ Indiscriminate choice of benchmark response level may result in a BMD that reflects little about the dose-response behavior available from using all of the data. Another concern is that the definition of the BMD for the quantal response case is different for the continuous response case. Specifically, defining the BMD for continuous data using a ratio of increased effect divided by the background response results in an arbitrary dependence on the natural background for the endpoint being studied, making comparison among endpoints less meaningful and standards more arbitrary. We define a modified benchmark dose as a point estimate using the ratio of increased effect divided by the full adverse response range which enables consistent placement of the benchmark response level and provides a BMD with a more consistent relationship to the dose-response curve shape.     

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.     

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.     

Benchmark Dose Risk Assessment for Formaldehyde Using Airflow Modeling and a Single-Compartment, DNA-Protein Cross-Link Dosimetry Model to Estimate Human Equivalent Doses

Formaldehyde induced squamous-cell carcinomas in the nasal passages of F344 rats in two inhalation bioassays at exposure levels of 6 ppm and above. Increases in rates of cell proliferation were measured by T. M. Monticello and colleagues at exposure levels of 0.7 ppm and above in the same tissues from which tumors arose. A risk assessment for formaldehyde was conducted at the CIIT Centers for Health Research, in collaboration with investigators from Toxicological Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in 1999. Two methods for dose-response assessment were used: a full biologically based modeling approach and a statistically oriented analysis by benchmark dose (BMD) method. This article presents the later approach, the purpose of which is to combine BMD and pharmacokinetic modeling to estimate human cancer risks from formaldehyde exposure. BMD analysis was used to identify points of departure (exposure levels) for low-dose extrapolation in rats for both tumor and the cell proliferation endpoints. The benchmark concentrations for induced cell proliferation were lower than for tumors. These concentrations were extrapolated to humans using two mechanistic models. One model used computational fluid dynamics (CFD) alone to determine rates of delivery of inhaled formaldehyde to the nasal lining. The second model combined the CFD method with a pharmacokinetic model to predict tissue dose with formaldehyde-induced DNA-protein cross-links (DPX) as a dose metric. Both extrapolation methods gave similar results, and the predicted cancer risk in humans at low exposure levels was found to be similar to that from a risk assessment conducted by the U.S. EPA in 1991. Use of the mechanistically based extrapolation models lends greater certainty to these risk estimates than previous approaches and also identifies the uncertainty in the measured dose-response relationship for cell proliferation at low exposure levels, the dose-response relationship for DPX in monkeys, and the choice between linear and nonlinear methods of extrapolation as key remaining sources of uncertainty.     

Model Uncertainty and Bayesian Model Averaged Benchmark Dose Estimation for Continuous Data

The benchmark dose (BMD) approach has gained acceptance as a valuable risk assessment tool, but risk assessors still face significant challenges associated with selecting an appropriate BMD/BMDL estimate from the results of a set of acceptable dose‐response models. Current approaches do not explicitly address model uncertainty, and there is an existing need to more fully inform health risk assessors in this regard. In this study, a Bayesian model averaging (BMA) BMD estimation method taking model uncertainty into account is proposed as an alternative to current BMD estimation approaches for continuous data. Using the “hybrid” method proposed by Crump, two strategies of BMA, including both “maximum likelihood estimation based” and “Markov Chain Monte Carlo based” methods, are first applied as a demonstration to calculate model averaged BMD estimates from real continuous dose‐response data. The outcomes from the example data sets examined suggest that the BMA BMD estimates have higher reliability than the estimates from the individual models with highest posterior weight in terms of higher BMDL and smaller 90th percentile intervals. In addition, a simulation study is performed to evaluate the accuracy of the BMA BMD estimator. The results from the simulation study recommend that the BMA BMD estimates have smaller bias than the BMDs selected using other criteria. To further validate the BMA method, some technical issues, including the selection of models and the use of bootstrap methods for BMDL derivation, need further investigation over a more extensive, representative set of dose‐response data.     

Exposure Reconstruction for the TCDD-Exposed NIOSH Cohort Using a Concentration- and Age-Dependent Model of Elimination

Recent studies demonstrating a concentration dependence of elimination of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) suggest that previous estimates of exposure for occupationally exposed cohorts may have underestimated actual exposure, resulting in a potential overestimate of the carcinogenic potency of TCDD in humans based on the mortality data for these cohorts. Using a database on U.S. chemical manufacturing workers potentially exposed to TCDD compiled by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), we evaluated the impact of using a concentration- and age-dependent elimination model (CADM) (Aylward et al., 2005) on estimates of serum lipid area under the curve (AUC) for the NIOSH cohort. These data were used previously by Steenland et al. (2001) in combination with a first-order elimination model with an 8.7-year half-life to estimate cumulative serum lipid concentration (equivalent to AUC) for these workers for use in cancer dose-response assessment. Serum lipid TCDD measurements taken in 1988 for a subset of the cohort were combined with the NIOSH job exposure matrix and work histories to estimate dose rates per unit of exposure score. We evaluated the effect of choices in regression model (regression on untransformed vs. ln-transformed data and inclusion of a nonzero regression intercept) as well as the impact of choices of elimination models and parameters on estimated AUCs for the cohort. Central estimates for dose rate parameters derived from the serum-sampled subcohort were applied with the elimination models to time-specific exposure scores for the entire cohort to generate AUC estimates for all cohort members. Use of the CADM resulted in improved model fits to the serum sampling data compared to the first-order models. Dose rates varied by a factor of 50 among different combinations of elimination model, parameter sets, and regression models. Use of a CADM results in increases of up to five-fold in AUC estimates for the more highly exposed members of the cohort compared to estimates obtained using the first-order model with 8.7-year half-life. This degree of variation in the AUC estimates for this cohort would affect substantially the cancer potency estimates derived from the mortality data from this cohort. Such variability and uncertainty in the reconstructed serum lipid AUC estimates for this cohort, depending on elimination model, parameter set, and regression model, have not been described previously and are critical components in evaluating the dose-response data from the occupationally exposed populations.     

Relative Potency of Chemical Carcinogens in Rodents

Extensive carcinogenesis data compiled by Gold et al. for 770 compounds tested in 2944 chronic bioassays in animals provided an opportunity to compare cancer rates across animal species for a wide variety of compounds administered by various routes of exposure. The comparisons in this paper are restricted to the most frequently tested species: rats, mice, and hamsters. When sufficient experimental data exist, Gold et al. provide estimates of the TD50 (the chronic dose rate expressed in mg/kg body weight/day which halves the actuarially adjusted percentage of tumor-free animals at the end of a standard lifetime experiment). Since the current practice generally is to base risk assessments upon the data set producing the highest cancer risk, the ratio of the minimum TD50's provides a measure of the relative potency between two species for each compound administered to animals by the same route. The geometric means of the ratios of minimum TD50's for rats:mice are 1/2.2 and 1/1.3 for diet and gavage, respectively. A mean ratio for rats: mice of 1/1.48 is obtained for compounds administered in the diet when the tumor site is the liver for both species. In general the minimum TD50 is lowest for the rat and highest for the hamster. Although limited data are available for inhalation studies, this route of administration resulted in the poorest agreement between rats and mice. In general, comparisons of minimum TD50's across the three rodent species are generally within a factor of 100 for a wide variety of compounds.