IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v6y1986i3p283-290.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relative Potency of Chemical Carcinogens in Rodents

Author

Listed:
  • David W. Gaylor
  • James J. Chen

Abstract

Extensive carcinogenesis data compiled by Gold et al.(1) for 770 compounds tested in 2944 chronic bioassays in animals provided an opportunity to compare cancer rates across animal species for a wide variety of compounds administered by various routes of exposure. The comparisons in this paper are restricted to the most frequently tested species: rats, mice, and hamsters. When sufficient experimental data exist, Gold et al.1’ provide estimates of the TD50 (the chronic dose rate expressed in mg/kg body weight/day which halves the actuarially adjusted percentage of tumor‐free animals at the end of a standard lifetime experiment). Since the current practice generally is to base risk assessments upon the data set producing the highest cancer risk, the ratio of the minimum TD50's provides a measure of the relative potency between two species for each compound administered to animals by the same route. The geometric means of the ratios of minimum TD50's for rats: mice are 1/2.2 and 1/1.3 for diet and gavage, respectively. A mean ratio for rats: mice of 1/1.48 is obtained for compounds administered in the diet when the tumor site is the liver for both species. In general the minimum TD50 is lowest for the rat and highest for the hamster. Although limited data are available for inhalation studies, this route of administration resulted in the poorest agreement between rats and mice. In general, comparisons of minimum TD50's across the three rodent species are generally within a factor of 100 for a wide variety of compounds.

Suggested Citation

  • David W. Gaylor & James J. Chen, 1986. "Relative Potency of Chemical Carcinogens in Rodents," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 283-290, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:6:y:1986:i:3:p:283-290
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00220.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00220.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00220.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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gay Goodrnan & Richard Wilson, 1992. "Comparison of the Dependence of the TD50 on Maximum Tolerated Dose for Mutagens and Nonmutagens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 525-533, December.
    2. Michael J. Goddard & Daniel Krewski, 1992. "Interspecies Extrapolation of Toxicity Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 315-317, June.

    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:6:y:1986:i:3:p:283-290. 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.