What Role for Biologically Based Dose-Response Models in Estimating Low-Dose Risk?

被引:31
作者
Crump, Kenny S. [1 ]
Chen, Chao [2 ]
Chiu, Weihsueh A. [2 ]
Louis, Thomas A. [3 ]
Portier, Christopher J. [4 ]
Subramaniam, Ravi P. [2 ]
White, Paul D. [2 ]
机构
[1] Louisiana Tech Univ, Ruston, LA 71272 USA
[2] US EPA, Off Res & Dev, Natl Ctr Environm Assessment, Washington, DC 20460 USA
[3] Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Baltimore, MD USA
[4] NIEHS, NIH, US Dept HHS, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
关键词
biologically based dose response; dose-response model; low-dose risk; risk assessment; two-stage model; ALTERED LIVER FOCI; LUNG-CANCER; QUANTITATIVE-ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY-ANALYSIS; FORMALDEHYDE; CARCINOGENESIS; 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN; RATS; DIETHYLNITROSAMINE; PROBABILITY;
D O I
10.1289/ehp.0901249
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Biologically based dose-response (BBDR) models can incorporate data on biological processes at the cellular and molecular level to link external exposure to an adverse effect. Objectives: Our goal was to examine the utility of BBDR models in estimating low-dose risk. METHODS: We reviewed the utility of BBDR models in risk assessment. RESULTS: BBDR models have been used profitably to evaluate proposed mechanisms of toxicity and identify data gaps. However, these models have not improved the reliability of quantitative predictions of low-dose human risk. In this commentary we identify serious impediments to developing BBDR models for this purpose. BBDR models do not eliminate the need for empirical modeling of the relationship between dose and effect, but only move it from the whole organism to a lower level of biological organization. However, in doing this, BBDR models introduce significant new sources of uncertainty. Quantitative inferences are limited by inter- and intraindividual heterogeneity that cannot be eliminated with available or reasonably anticipated experimental techniques. BBDR modeling does not avoid uncertainties in the mechanisms of toxicity relevant to low-level human exposures. Although implementation of BBDR models for low-dose risk estimation have thus far been limited mainly to cancer modeled using a two-stage clonal expansion framework, these problems are expected to be present in all attempts at BBDR modeling. CONCLUSIONS: The problems discussed here appear so intractable that we conclude that BBDR models are unlikely to be fruitful in reducing uncertainty in quantitative estimates of human risk from low-level exposures in the foreseeable future. Use of in vitro data from recent advances in molecular toxicology in BBDR models is not likely to remove these problems and will introduce new issues regarding extrapolation of data from in vitro systems.
引用
收藏
页码:585 / 588
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
[41]   The role of low-dose computed tomography in lung cancer screening [J].
Agh Tamas ;
Szilberhorn Laszlo ;
Csanadi Marcell ;
Szeles Gyorgy ;
Voko Zoltan ;
Adam Gabor ;
Kallai Arpad .
ORVOSI HETILAP, 2022, 163 (37) :1464-1471
[42]   The assessment of the role of baseline low-dose CT scan in patients at high risk of lung cancer [J].
Kolaczyk, Katarzyna ;
Walecka, Anna ;
Grodzki, Tomasz ;
Alchimowicz, Jacek ;
Smereczynski, Andrzej ;
Kiedrowicz, Radoslaw .
POLISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2014, 79 :210-218
[43]   Neuroprotection or neurotoxicity - Impact of discontinuous dose-response curves on risk assessment [J].
Slikker, W ;
Duhart, H ;
Gaylor, D ;
Imam, S .
NEUROPROTECTIVE AGENTS, 2003, 993 :158-158
[44]   A graphic user interface toolkit for specification, report and comparison of dose-response relations and treatment plans using the biologically effective uniform dose [J].
Su, Fan-Chi ;
Mavroidis, Panayiotis ;
Shi, Chengyu ;
Ferreira, Brigida Costa ;
Papanikolaou, Niko .
COMPUTER METHODS AND PROGRAMS IN BIOMEDICINE, 2010, 100 (01) :69-78
[45]   EMBRYOTOXICITY INDUCED BY ALKYLATING-AGENTS .7. LOW-DOSE PRENATAL-TOXIC RISK-ESTIMATION BASED ON NOAEL RISK FACTOR APPROACH, DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS, AND DNA-ADDUCTS USING METHYLNITROSOUREA AS A MODEL-COMPOUND [J].
PLATZEK, T ;
BOCHERT, G ;
MEISTER, R ;
NEUBERT, D .
TERATOGENESIS CARCINOGENESIS AND MUTAGENESIS, 1993, 13 (03) :101-125
[46]   Comparison of six dose-response models for use with food-borne pathogens [J].
Holcomb, DL ;
Smith, MA ;
Ware, GO ;
Hung, YC ;
Brackett, RE ;
Doyle, MP .
RISK ANALYSIS, 1999, 19 (06) :1091-1100
[47]   Comparison of Radiomic Models Based on Low-Dose and Standard-Dose CT for Prediction of Adenocarcinomas and Benign Lesions in Solid Pulmonary Nodules [J].
Liu, Jieke ;
Xu, Hao ;
Qing, Haomiao ;
Li, Yong ;
Yang, Xi ;
He, Changjiu ;
Ren, Jing ;
Zhou, Peng .
FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2021, 10
[48]   Extracting the normal lung dose-response curve from clinical DVH data: a possible role for low dose hyper-radiosensitivity, increased radioresistance [J].
Gordon, J. J. ;
Snyder, K. ;
Zhong, H. ;
Barton, K. ;
Sun, Z. ;
Chetty, I. J. ;
Matuszak, M. ;
Ten Haken, R. K. .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2015, 60 (17) :6719-6732
[49]   Adaptive response to hydrogen peroxide in yeast: Induction, time course, and relationship to dose-response models [J].
Hoffmann, George R. ;
Moczula, Andrew V. ;
Laterza, Amanda M. ;
MacNeil, Lindsey K. ;
Tartaglione, Jason P. .
ENVIRONMENTAL AND MOLECULAR MUTAGENESIS, 2013, 54 (06) :384-396
[50]   Telephone risk-based eligibility assessment for low-dose CT lung cancer screening [J].
Dickson, Jennifer L. ;
Hall, Helen ;
Horst, Carolyn ;
Tisi, Sophie ;
Verghese, Priyam ;
Mullin, Anne-Marie ;
Teague, Jonathan ;
Farrelly, Laura ;
Bowyer, Vicky ;
Gyertson, Kylie ;
Bojang, Fanta ;
Levermore, Claire ;
Anastasiadis, Tania ;
Sennett, Karen ;
McCabe, John ;
Devaraj, Anand ;
Nair, Arjun ;
Navani, Neal ;
Callister, Matthew E. J. ;
Hackshaw, Allan ;
Quaife, Samantha L. ;
Janes, Sam M. .
THORAX, 2022, 77 (10) :1036-1040