IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v24y2004i5p1165-1183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Addressing Nonlinearity in the Exposure‐Response Relationship for a Genotoxic Carcinogen: Cancer Potency Estimates for Ethylene Oxide

Author

Listed:
  • C. R. Kirman
  • L. M. Sweeney
  • M. J. Teta
  • R. L. Sielken
  • C. Valdez‐Flores
  • R. J. Albertini
  • M. L. Gargas

Abstract

Ethylene oxide (EO) has been identified as a carcinogen in laboratory animals. Although the precise mechanism of action is not known, tumors in animals exposed to EO are presumed to result from its genotoxicity. The overall weight of evidence for carcinogenicity from a large body of epidemiological data in the published literature remains limited. There is some evidence for an association between EO exposure and lympho/hematopoietic cancer mortality. Of these cancers, the evidence provided by two large cohorts with the longest follow‐up is most consistent for leukemia. Together with what is known about human leukemia and EO at the molecular level, there is a body of evidence that supports a plausible mode of action for EO as a potential leukemogen. Based on a consideration of the mode of action, the events leading from EO exposure to the development of leukemia (and therefore risk) are expected to be proportional to the square of the dose. In support of this hypothesis, a quadratic dose‐response model provided the best overall fit to the epidemiology data in the range of observation. Cancer dose‐response assessments based on human and animal data are presented using three different assumptions for extrapolating to low doses: (1) risk is linearly proportionate to dose; (2) there is no appreciable risk at low doses (margin‐of‐exposure or reference dose approach); and (3) risk below the point of departure continues to be proportionate to the square of the dose. The weight of evidence for EO supports the use of a nonlinear assessment. Therefore, exposures to concentrations below 37 μg/m3 are not likely to pose an appreciable risk of leukemia in human populations. However, if quantitative estimates of risk at low doses are desired and the mode of action for EO is considered, these risks are best quantified using the quadratic estimates of cancer potency, which are approximately 3.2‐ to 32‐fold lower, using alternative points of departure, than the linear estimates of cancer potency for EO. An approach is described for linking the selection of an appropriate point of departure to the confidence in the proposed mode of action. Despite high confidence in the proposed mode of action, a small linear component for the dose‐response relationship at low concentrations cannot be ruled out conclusively. Accordingly, a unit risk value of 4.5 × 10−8 (μg/m3)−1 was derived for EO, with a range of unit risk values of 1.4 × 10−8 to 1.4 × 10−7 (μg/m3)−1 reflecting the uncertainty associated with a theoretical linear term at low concentrations.

Suggested Citation

  • C. R. Kirman & L. M. Sweeney & M. J. Teta & R. L. Sielken & C. Valdez‐Flores & R. J. Albertini & M. L. Gargas, 2004. "Addressing Nonlinearity in the Exposure‐Response Relationship for a Genotoxic Carcinogen: Cancer Potency Estimates for Ethylene Oxide," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1165-1183, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:24:y:2004:i:5:p:1165-1183
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00517.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00517.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00517.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Jane Teta & Robert L. Sielken & Ciriaco Valdez‐Flores, 1999. "Ethylene Oxide Cancer Risk Assessment Based on Epidemiological Data: Application of Revised Regulatory Guidelines," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(6), pages 1135-1155, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Douglas L. Weed, 2005. "Weight of Evidence: A Review of Concept and Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1545-1557, December.
    2. Mitchell J. Small, 2008. "Methods for Assessing Uncertainty in Fundamental Assumptions and Associated Models for Cancer Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1289-1308, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      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:24:y:2004:i:5:p:1165-1183. 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.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.