IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v21y2001i4p641-656.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of the EU T25 Single Point Estimate Method with Benchmark Dose Response Modeling for Estimating Potency of Carcinogens

Author

Listed:
  • Cynthia B. Van Landingham
  • Bruce C. Allen
  • Annette M. Shipp
  • Kenny S. Crump

Abstract

The T25 single‐point estimate method of evaluating the carcinogenic potency of a chemical, which is currently used by the European Union (EU) and is denoted the EU approach, is based on the selection of a single dose in a chronic bioassay with an incidence rate that is significantly higher than the background rate. The T25 is determined from that single point by a linear extrapolation or interpolation to the chronic dose (in mg/kg/day), at which a 25% increase in the incidence of the specified tumor type is expected, corrected for the background rate. Another method used to obtain a carcinogenic potency value based on a 25% increase in incidence above the background rate is the estimation of a T25 derived from a benchmark dose (BMD) response model fit to the chronic bioassay data for the specified tumor type. A comparison was made between these two methods using 276 chronic bioassays conducted by the National Toxicology Program. In each of the 2‐year bioassays, a tumor type was selected based on statistical and biological significance, and both EU T25 and BMD T25 estimates were determined for that end point. In addition, simulations were done using underlying cumulative probability distributions to examine the effect of dose spacing, the number of animals per dose group, the possibility of a dose threshold, and variation in the background incidence rates on the EU T25 and BMD estimates. The simulations showed that in the majority of cases the EU T25 method underestimated the true T25 dose and overestimated the carcinogenic potency. The BMD estimate is generally less biased and has less variation about the true T25 value than the EU estimate.

Suggested Citation

  • Cynthia B. Van Landingham & Bruce C. Allen & Annette M. Shipp & Kenny S. Crump, 2001. "Comparison of the EU T25 Single Point Estimate Method with Benchmark Dose Response Modeling for Estimating Potency of Carcinogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(4), pages 641-656, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:21:y:2001:i:4:p:641-656
    DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.214141
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.214141
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/0272-4332.214141?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Walter W. Piegorsch, 2010. "Translational benchmark risk analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 653-667, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:21:y:2001:i:4:p:641-656. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.