Improving Weight of Evidence Approaches to Chemical Evaluations

Federal and other regulatory agencies often use or claim to use a weight of evidence (WoE) approach in chemical evaluation. Their approaches to the use of WoE, however, differ significantly, rely heavily on subjective professional judgment, and merit improvement. We review uses of WoE approaches in key articles in the peer‐reviewed scientific literature, and find significant variations. We find that a hypothesis‐based WoE approach, developed by Lorenz Rhomberg et al., can provide a stronger scientific basis for chemical assessment while improving transparency and preserving the appropriate scope of professional judgment. Their approach, while still evolving, relies on the explicit specification of the hypothesized basis for using the information at hand to infer the ability of an agent to cause human health impacts or, more broadly, affect other endpoints of concern. We describe and endorse such a hypothesis‐based WoE approach to chemical evaluation.     

Reproductive and Developmental Risks from Ethylene Oxide: A Probabilistic Characterization of Possible Regulatory Thresholds

Ethylene oxide is a gas produced in large quantities in the United States that is used primarily as a chemical intermediate in the production of ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, non-ionic surfactants, ethanolamines, glycol ethers, and other chemicals. It has been well established that ethylene oxide can induce cancer, genetic, reproductive and developmental, and acute health effects in animals. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently developing both a cancer potency factor and a reference concentration (RfC) for ethylene oxide. This study used the rich database on the reproductive and developmental effects of ethylene oxide to develop a probabilistic characterization of possible regulatory thresholds for ethylene oxide. This analysis was based on the standard regulatory approach for noncancer risk assessment, but involved several innovative elements, such as: (1) the use of advanced statistical methods to account for correlations in developmental outcomes among littermates and allow for simultaneous control of covariates (such as litter size); (2) the application of a probabilistic approach for characterizing the uncertainty in extrapolating the animal results to humans; and (3) the use of a quantitative approach to account for the variation in heterogeneity among the human population. This article presents several classes of results, including: (1) probabilistic characterizations of ED10s for two quantal reproductive outcomes-resorption and fetal death, (2) probabilistic characterizations of one developmental outcome-the dose expected to yield a 5% reduction in fetal (or pup) weight, (3) estimates of the RfCs that would result from using these values in the standard regulatory approach for noncancer risk assessment, and (4) a probabilistic characterization of the level of ethylene oxide exposure that would be expected to yield a 1/1,000 increase in the risk of reproductive or developmental outcomes in exposed human populations.     

Estimating Noncancer Uncertainty Factors: Are Ratios NOAELs Informative?

The prominent role of animal bioassay evidence in environmental regulatory decisions compels a careful characterization of extrapolation uncertainties. In noncancer risk assessment, uncertainty factors are incorporated to account for each of several extrapolations required to convert a bioassay outcome into a putative subthreshold dose for humans. Measures of relative toxicity taken between different dosing regimens, different endpoints, or different species serve as a reference for establishing the uncertainty factors. Ratios of no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) have been used for this purpose; statistical summaries of such ratios across sets of chemicals are widely used to guide the setting of uncertainty factors. Given the poor statistical properties of NOAELs, the informativeness of these summary statistics is open to question. To evaluate this, we develop an approach to calibrate the ability of NOAEL ratios to reveal true properties of a specified distribution for relative toxicity. A priority of this analysis is to account for dependencies of NOAEL ratios on experimental design and other exogenous factors. Our analysis of NOAEL ratio summary statistics finds (1) that such dependencies are complex and produce pronounced systematic errors and (2) that sampling error associated with typical sample sizes (50 chemicals) is non-negligible. These uncertainties strongly suggest that NOAEL ratio summary statistics cannot be taken at face value; conclusions based on such ratios reported in well over a dozen published papers should be reconsidered.     

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).     

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.     

Absolute Risk or Relative Risk? A Study of Intraspecies and Interspecies Extrapolation of Chemical‐Induced Cancer Risk

We have used the CBDS database of the National Toxicology Program to study the difference between absolute risk and relative risk models for interspecies and intersex predictions of cancer risk. For no combination (class) of tumor and site is the prediction good for all chemicals. The variation in predicted risk between chemicals exceeds the difference in risks resulting from application of these two models. On the whole, it appears that relative risk is a better model.     

Empirical Scaling of Single Oral Lethal Doses Across Mammalian Species Based on a Large Database

The scaling of administered doses to achieve equal degrees of toxic effect in different species has been relatively poorly examined for noncancer toxicity, either empirically or theoretically. We investigate empirical patterns in the correspondence of single oral dose LD, values across several mammalian species for a large number of chemicals based on data reported in the RTECSQ database maintained by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. We find a good correspondence of LD, values across species when the dose levels are expressed in terms of mgadministered per kg of body mass. Our findings contrast with earlier analyses that support scaling doses by the 3/4-power of body mass to achieve equal subacute toxicity of antineoplastic agents. We suggest that, especially for severe toxicity, single- and repeated-dosing regimes may have different cross-species scaling properties, as they may depend on standing levels of defenses and rate of regeneration of defenses, respectively.