Mode-of-Action Uncertainty for Dual-Mode Carcinogens:Lower Bounds for Naphthalene-Induced Nasal Tumors in Rats Implied byPBPK and 2-Stage Stochastic Cancer Risk Models

PDF Version Also Available for Download.

Description

As reflected in the 2005 USEPA Guidelines for Cancer Risk Assessment, some chemical carcinogens may have a site-specific mode of action (MOA) that is dual, involving mutation in addition to cell-killing induced hyperplasia. Although genotoxicity may contribute to increased risk at all doses, the Guidelines imply that for dual MOA (DMOA) carcinogens, judgment be used to compare and assess results obtained using separate ''linear'' (genotoxic) vs. ''nonlinear'' (nongenotoxic) approaches to low-level risk extrapolation. However, the Guidelines allow the latter approach to be used only when evidence is sufficient to parameterize a biologically based model that reliably extrapolates risk to low ... continued below

Physical Description

PDF-file: 42 pages; size: 3.7 Mbytes

Creation Information

Bogen, K T January 30, 2007.

Context

This report is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided by UNT Libraries Government Documents Department to Digital Library, a digital repository hosted by the UNT Libraries. More information about this report can be viewed below.

Who

People and organizations associated with either the creation of this report or its content.

Author

Publisher

Provided By

UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Serving as both a federal and a state depository library, the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department maintains millions of items in a variety of formats. The department is a member of the FDLP Content Partnerships Program and an Affiliated Archive of the National Archives.

Contact Us

What

Descriptive information to help identify this report. Follow the links below to find similar items on the Digital Library.

Description

As reflected in the 2005 USEPA Guidelines for Cancer Risk Assessment, some chemical carcinogens may have a site-specific mode of action (MOA) that is dual, involving mutation in addition to cell-killing induced hyperplasia. Although genotoxicity may contribute to increased risk at all doses, the Guidelines imply that for dual MOA (DMOA) carcinogens, judgment be used to compare and assess results obtained using separate ''linear'' (genotoxic) vs. ''nonlinear'' (nongenotoxic) approaches to low-level risk extrapolation. However, the Guidelines allow the latter approach to be used only when evidence is sufficient to parameterize a biologically based model that reliably extrapolates risk to low levels of concern. The Guidelines thus effectively prevent MOA uncertainty from being characterized and addressed when data are insufficient to parameterize such a model, but otherwise clearly support a DMOA. A bounding factor approach--similar to that used in reference dose procedures for classic toxicity endpoints--can address MOA uncertainty in a way that avoids explicit modeling of low-dose risk as a function of administered or internal dose. Even when a ''nonlinear'' toxicokinetic model cannot be fully validated, implications of DMOA uncertainty on low-dose risk may be bounded with reasonable confidence when target tumor types happen to be extremely rare. This concept was illustrated for the rodent carcinogen naphthalene. Bioassay data, supplemental toxicokinetic data, and related physiologically based pharmacokinetic and 2-stage stochastic carcinogenesis modeling results all clearly indicate that naphthalene is a DMOA carcinogen. Plausibility bounds on rat-tumor-type specific DMOA-related uncertainty were obtained using a 2-stage model adapted to reflect the empirical link between genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of the most potent identified genotoxic naphthalene metabolites, 1,2- and 1,4-naphthoquinone. Resulting bounds each provided the basis for a corresponding ''uncertainty'' factor <1 appropriate to apply to estimates of naphthalene risk obtained by linear extrapolation under a default genotoxic MOA assumption. This procedure is proposed as scientifically credible method to address MOA uncertainty for DMOA carcinogens.

Physical Description

PDF-file: 42 pages; size: 3.7 Mbytes

Language

Item Type

Identifier

Unique identifying numbers for this report in the Digital Library or other systems.

  • Report No.: UCRL-TR-227766
  • Grant Number: W-7405-ENG-48
  • DOI: 10.2172/902617 | External Link
  • Office of Scientific & Technical Information Report Number: 902617
  • Archival Resource Key: ark:/67531/metadc891342

Collections

This report is part of the following collection of related materials.

Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports

Reports, articles and other documents harvested from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information.

Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) is the Department of Energy (DOE) office that collects, preserves, and disseminates DOE-sponsored research and development (R&D) results that are the outcomes of R&D projects or other funded activities at DOE labs and facilities nationwide and grantees at universities and other institutions.

What responsibilities do I have when using this report?

When

Dates and time periods associated with this report.

Creation Date

  • January 30, 2007

Added to The UNT Digital Library

  • Sept. 22, 2016, 2:13 a.m.

Description Last Updated

  • Dec. 7, 2016, 5:39 p.m.

Usage Statistics

When was this report last used?

Congratulations! It looks like you are the first person to view this item online.

Interact With This Report

Here are some suggestions for what to do next.

Start Reading

PDF Version Also Available for Download.

Citations, Rights, Re-Use

Bogen, K T. Mode-of-Action Uncertainty for Dual-Mode Carcinogens:Lower Bounds for Naphthalene-Induced Nasal Tumors in Rats Implied byPBPK and 2-Stage Stochastic Cancer Risk Models, report, January 30, 2007; Livermore, California. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc891342/: accessed October 18, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.