This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lovell, D. P Articles by Thomas, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lovell, D. P Articles by Thomas, G. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Quantitative risk assessment and the limitations of the linearized multistage model

BIBRA International, Woodmansterne Road, Carshalton, Surrey, SM5 4DS, UK

Gail Thomas

BIBRA International, Woodmansterne Road, Carshalton, Surrey, SM5 4DS, UK

1 Quantifying carcinogenic risk is an important objec tive for assisting in the assessment and management of risks from chemical exposure. The most widely used ofthe many mathematical models proposed for extrapolation of carcinogenicity data from animal studies to low dose human exposures is the linearized multistage (LMS) model. This has, in effect, become the default approach for much of Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA). The practical properties of this model have been investigated.

2 Analysis of simulated data using the LMS model showed (i) that the Maximum Likelihood Estimate (MLE) of the low dose slope, q₁, was unstable and extremely sensitive to small changes in the data; (ii) the 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) estimate, q₁*, preferred by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was insensitive with only small changes in values being obtained for large changes in the data; (iii) data sets where there was no statistical significance could give risk estimates similar to those obtained from data sets with clear dose-related effects; (iv) the size of the values of the Virtually Safe Dose (VSD) obtained did not necessarily relate to the biological interpretation of the data sets; (v) the value of q₁* obtained was closely related to the top dose used in the study.

3 Limitations of the LMS model were illustrated by examples of its use in assessing the carcinogenicity of 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD leading to the conclusion that the existing models are not suitable for routine use in the estimation of the risk from chemical carcinogens. The use of the LMS model has been justified in part by its original derivation from a mathematical model based upon a multistage model of carcinogenesis. However, estimates of the parameters of the model used to provide estimates of low dose risk to humans have no direct relationship to specific biological event in carcinogenesis. Further developments in mathematical models and increased understanding of the biological events underlying carcinogenesis will lead to more biologically plausible QRA methods which would then justify serious consideration of QRA by regulatory authorities throughout the world.

Key Words: Quantitative Risk Assessment • carcinogens • linearized multistage model • dioxin

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 15, No. 2, 87-104 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/096032719601500201


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Guzelian, M. Victoroff, C Halmes, and R. James Clear path: towards an evidence-based toxicology (EBT) Human and Experimental Toxicology, February 1, 2009; 28(2-3): 71 - 79. [PDF]

				M. A. Morelli Industry Viewpoint on Thresholds for Genotoxic Carcinogens Toxicol Pathol, May 1, 2000; 28(3): 396 - 404. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. McDonald, R. Fielder, G. Diggle, D. Tennant, and C. Fisher Carcinogens in food: priorities for regulatory action Human and Experimental Toxicology, September 1, 1996; 15(9): 739 - 746. [Abstract] [PDF]