Biologically bounded risk assessment for receptor-mediated nongenotoxic carcinogens

Early indicators of response in biologically based risk assessment for nongenotoxic carcinogens

The proposed existence of dose-response thresholds for nongenotoxic carcinogens has led to a major controversy in the risk extrapolation process. To resolve this debate, there has been a significant investment in mechanism-based risk assessment research. The ability to utilize this mechanistic research for risk assessment procedures is still limited and may not warrant the expense. Alternatively, an approach can be used to identify dose-response thresholds through the utilization of sensitive indicators of biological response. This approach does not rely upon a mechanistic framework for the development of pathology, is solely dependent on already existing technology, and takes into account the possibility of background levels of pathway activation. For this approach, sensitive biochemical responses need to be identified and linked to the introduction of the toxicant through dose response, by time of response, and, when possible, through a proposed biochemical mechanism. The weakness of this approach is that more sensitive unidentified responses may exist requiring that a safety factor of 10 be used to define a NOEL. For dioxin-like compounds, using a surrogate marker of response CYP1A1 induction, this approach yields an estimate of the acceptable daily intake of 5-50 fg/kg/day. This limit is remarkably similar to the results of the original EPA linear extrapolation (6 fg/kg/day). A similar approach can be used for other nongenotoxic carcinogens and the analysis can be completed within 1 year.

Dose-response and threshold-mediated mechanisms in mutagenesis: statistical models and study design

The objective of this paper is to review the use, in mutagenesis, of various mathematical models to describe the dose-response relationship and to try to identify thresholds. It is often taken as axiomatic that genotoxic carcinogens could damage DNA at any level of exposure, leading to a mutation, and that this could ultimately result in tumour development. This has led to the assumption that for genotoxic chemicals, there is no discernible threshold. This assumption is increasingly being challenged in the case of aneugens. The distinction between 'absolute' and 'pragmatic' thresholds is made and the difficulties in determining 'absolute' thresholds using hypothesis testing approaches are described. The potential of approaches, based upon estimation rather than statistical significance for the characterization of dose-response relationships, is stressed. The achievement of a good fit of a mathematical model to experimental data is not proof that the mechanism supposedly underlying this model is operating. It has been argued, in the case of genotoxic chemicals, that any effects produced by a genotoxic chemical which augments that producing a background incidence in unexposed individuals will lead to a dose-response relationship that is non-thresholded and is linear at low doses. The assumptions underlying this presumption are explored in the context of the increasing knowledge of the mechanistic basis of mutagenicity and carcinogenicity. The possibility that exposure to low levels of genotoxic chemicals may induce and enhance defence and repair mechanisms is not easily incorporated into many of the existing mathematical models and should be an objective in the development of the next generation of biologically based dose-response (BB-DR) models. Studies aimed at detecting or characterizing non-linearities in the dose-response relationship need appropriate experimental designs with careful attention to the choice of biomarker, number and selection of dose levels, optimum allocation of experimental units and appropriate levels of replication within and repetition of experiments. The characterization of dose-response relationships with appropriate measures of uncertainty can help to identify 'pragmatic' thresholds based upon biologically relevant criteria which can help in the regulatory process.

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 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. 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.