IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v36y2016i3p589-604.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Linear‐No‐Threshold Default Assumptions for Noncancer and Nongenotoxic Cancer Risks: A Mathematical and Biological Critique

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth T. Bogen

Abstract

To improve U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dose‐response (DR) assessments for noncarcinogens and for nonlinear mode of action (MOA) carcinogens, the 2009 NRC Science and Decisions Panel recommended that the adjustment‐factor approach traditionally applied to these endpoints should be replaced by a new default assumption that both endpoints have linear‐no‐threshold (LNT) population‐wide DR relationships. The panel claimed this new approach is warranted because population DR is LNT when any new dose adds to a background dose that explains background levels of risk, and/or when there is substantial interindividual heterogeneity in susceptibility in the exposed human population. Mathematically, however, the first claim is either false or effectively meaningless and the second claim is false. Any dose‐and population‐response relationship that is statistically consistent with an LNT relationship may instead be an additive mixture of just two quasi‐threshold DR relationships, which jointly exhibit low‐dose S‐shaped, quasi‐threshold nonlinearity just below the lower end of the observed “linear” dose range. In this case, LNT extrapolation would necessarily overestimate increased risk by increasingly large relative magnitudes at diminishing values of above‐background dose. The fact that chemically‐induced apoptotic cell death occurs by unambiguously nonlinear, quasi‐threshold DR mechanisms is apparent from recent data concerning this quintessential toxicity endpoint. The 2009 NRC Science and Decisions Panel claims and recommendations that default LNT assumptions be applied to DR assessment for noncarcinogens and nonlinear MOA carcinogens are therefore not justified either mathematically or biologically.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth T. Bogen, 2016. "Linear‐No‐Threshold Default Assumptions for Noncancer and Nongenotoxic Cancer Risks: A Mathematical and Biological Critique," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 589-604, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:3:p:589-604
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12460
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12460?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. Kenny S. Crump, 2017. "Bogen's Critique of Linear‐No‐Threshold Default Assumptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 1802-1807, October.

    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:36:y:2016:i:3:p:589-604. 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.