Document zQxB98OEo3qg7OJyqXOz1zK23

[CANCER RESEARCH 36, 2973-2979, September 1976] Fundamental Carcinogenic Processes and Their Implications for Low Dose Risk Assessment K. S. Crump,1 D. G. Hod,2 C. H. Langley, and R. Peto National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 (K. S. C., 0. G. H.. C. H. L.J, and University of Oxford, Oxford, England (A. P.) Summary Various possible models of carcinogenesis are analyzed with respect to low dose kinetics. The importance of back ground carcinogenesis upon the shape of the dose-re sponse curve at low dose is emphasized. It is shown that, if carcinogenesis by an external agent acts additively with any already ongoing process, then under almost any model the response will be linear at low dose. Measures of the degree of linearity are obtained for multistage models of carcino genesis, where it is shown that throughout the dose range where the extra risk is less than the spontaneous risk linear extrapolation must be quite accurate. Introduction The presence of carcinogenic agents in the environment is an accepted fact. Although most agents can be avoided once they are identified as carcinogenic, some may be avoided only at great expense or alternative risk, in which case oerisvkersus benefitmust be evaluated. One impor tant aspect of the determination of risk is the estimation from animal experiments conducted at high doses on small to moderate numbers of animals of the risks to such animals of cancer associated with very low levels of exposure. This is likely to be a principal element in risk estimation for the myriad of chemicals that must be evaluated. Relevant hu man data are usually not available. The estimation of attributable risk at a dose very much lower (say 1/1000th) than the smallest practical experimen tal dose involves the interpolation between 2 dose levels: the control and the experimental dose levels. Interpolation necessitates an assumption about the behavior of the risk with increasing dose. The assumption can be specified arbitrarily or it can be deduced from reasonable models of the carcinogenic process. An oeestimateofrisk is as arbi trary as the interpolation scheme that produced it. We will attempt in what follows to relate the properties of various risk estimation procedures to several observations and as sumptions about carcinogenesis. Two properties of carcinogenesis are critical to low dose risk estimation. I Present address: Louisiana Tech university, Ruston, La. 71270. 2 To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, P. 0. Box 12233, Research Triangle Park. N. C.. 27709. Received September 25. 1975; accepted June 1. 1976. 1. Cancers are believed to he single cell in origin (6, 7). Of a large number of cells at risk in the individual organism, 1 undergoes certain changes that allow it to divide and grow into a tumor. Thus we can view the carcinogenic process as mechanistically single cell in origin even though, by the time a cancer is pathologically recognizable, very extensive changes may have developed. 2. It will be shown that it is important to know whether the causal processes associated with the particular carcinogen of interest are common to those involved in carcinogenesis due to other causes, either oespontaneousorfrom other carcinogens. In other words, we need to know whether or not carcinogenesis due to a particular carcinogen is inde pendent of other modes of carcinogenesis. In the 1st section of this paper, the consequences of the manner of combining oespontaneousand inoeducedcarci nogenesis will be explored. We will show that, if the addi tion of the test carcinogen merely increases the rates of processes that were occurring anyway, then dose-response relationships will be linear at low dose levels. In the 2nd section several models will be considered and their low dose properties will be identified. We will find that every reasonable model of carcinogenesis is linear or sublinear at low dose. Finally, in the 3rd section we will look more closely at this linearity and determine the accuracy of linear approximations in m~~ultistagemodels of cancer. It should be recognized that there may be agents that indirectly affect the carcinogenic process. An example might be some dietary alteration that led to a modification of gut flora that may change the carcinogenic process in a qualitative way. Although our analysis and conclusions might be appropriate for some of these indirect carcino genic processes as well, we are chiefly discussing direct carcinogenic processes in which the compound or its me tabolite acts at the cellular level to produce an irreversible and heritable (genetic or epigenetic) change. Significance of the Relation of a Carcinogen to Occur rence of Cancer due to Other Causes Throughout this paper we shall concentrate upon the case of a population chronically exposed to carcinogens at constant dose rates. We are interested in the individual response when the population is exposed to a particular carcinogen at an approximately constant dose rate d per unit time. This response can be described by the age-spe cific cancer incidence rate l(t,d) which is the expected rate per unit time at which cancer will be discovered in individ SEPTEMBER1976 2973 K. S. Crump et al. uals of age t who were previously cancer free. In consider by using the formula of Abbott (1) for correcting for re ing this response, it is important to keep in mind that mdi sponse due to extraneous causes. In terms of the above viduals at risk will ordinarily be exposed to a large number formulation, this is equivalent to supposing that the 2nd of carcinogens, and we are interested in the effect upon the group of carcinogens contains only the primary one, or, in response of a single one of these which we shall for conven other words, the carcinogen of interest acts in some man ience call the primary carcinogen. As we shall see, the ner completely independent of the mechanism by which all independence or equivalence of the mechanism(s) of action other cancers are formed . If this does, in fact, turn out to be of the primary carcinogen and the other carcinogens can be the true biological situation, then the response function 1(d) important in determining the response due to a low dose is still represented by Equation C except now 0, = 0. Thus rate of the primary carcinogen. we see that even in this case 1(d) can still be linear at low We can reasonably divide the totality of carcinogens into dose provided the slope of the function H is positive at zero. 2 groups: Group 1, containing all of those carcinogens that This turns out to be true for some models of carcinogenesis, cause a response of cancer in a way that is completely e.g., 1-hit models (2), but not for others, e.g. , some multihit independent of the mechanisms by which the primary car models (15) and the Mantel-Bryan model (11). However, cinogen causes a response; and Group 2, consisting of when other carcinogens act in conjunction with the primary those carcinogens (including spontaneous biochemical ac one (D,, > 0), the linearity of the response merely depends cidents) that somehow act in conjunction with the primary upon H having a positive slope at the point D,,. This seems carcinogen in causing cancer. Let l@be the incidence rate of intuitively likely and, in fact, is the case in all models of new cancers at a fixed time t due to a carcinogen in Group 1 carcinogenesis with which we are familiar. or via an inherent spontaneous phenomenon that is There are, of course, a number of questions about the mechanistically related to the effects of the carcinogens of biological validity of the assumptions. Group 1. Let l@be the incidence rate of new cancers at time t 1. Do all carcinogens act independently or do certain due either to a carcinogen in Group 2 or to an inherent subgroups act in conjunction with each other? It should not spontaneous phenomenon that is mechanistically related to be difficult to answer this question experimentally with re the effects of the carcinogens of Group 2. Then, because of gard to the effects of specific carcinogens on specific can the assumed independence, we can write cers. 2. Given that at least some carcinogens act in conjunction 1(d) = I + 19 (A) with the primary carcinogen, is it reasonable to assume that their individual effects are additive in the sense of Equation where, as shall be done throughout the paper when conven ient, the argument t has been omitted. Now suppose that Group 2 consists of m carcinogens at dose levels d1@ din addition to the primary carcino gen at a dose level d. The simplest assumption with regard to the interactive effect of these carcinogens would be to suppose that the effect is additive, i.e. , the rate I, at which cancer occurs due to a carcinogen in Group 2 is a function of an effective dose rate B? This question is probably much more difficult than the 1st one. However, the idea of complete additivity of effects is not essential to our arguments, and a variety of other assumptions would lead to effectively the same conclusion. 3. Is the assumption that H'(D,,) is positive valid? For example, if there were some type of threshold effect operat ing so that H(D) = 0 for D less than some threshold value DIh, then if D,, were less than D,, the argument would break down and 1(d) would, in fact, not be linear at the lowest dose rates. On the other hand, if cancer is single cell in D = D,, + @3d (B) origin, then the threshold D1@is, a property of a single cell rather than of the whole organism. Viewed in this light, it is @ whereD,, issomefunction ofd1 Nowwe can write entirely plausible that, even if a threshold effect does exist for each cell, nevertheless in the entire organism the proba /9 = H(D) bility of response may be linear at low dose rates. These cellular thresholds will not all be constant but will be distrib and we will assume that H is a nondecreasing analytical uted over some range of doses. If this range includes D,,, the function. (This merely implies that any increase in the dose organismic response will, generally speaking, be linear at rate does not decrease the age-specific cancer incidence rate.) Now we can write l+@H+"f(3D+H00(')(dD) jdl(d)=11+H(D,,+f3d) (C) D,, + 0. (The same conclusion would follow from postulating that each person in a large population has a particular threshold but that individual thresholds have a random dis tribution.) 4. Even if one is willing to accept the fact that the re sponse curve is linear for low dose rates, this in itself may as the dose rate d approaches zero where o(d) denotes a be of little value unless there is some knowledge about function with the property o(d)/d approaches zero as d oehowlinear and oehowlow the dose rates must be. To approaches zero. Thus we see that 1(d) will be a linear answer such quantitative questions as these, one must function of the dose rate d at low dose rates provided H'(D,,) make more specific assumptions than are incorporated into > 0. the very general discussion presented here. We shall return Other authors (11) have allowed for cancers in the models to this question in the light of some particular models for due to causes other than the primary carcinogen of interest carci nogenesis. 2974 CANCER RESEARCH VOL. 36 Particular Models for Carcinogenesis Carcinogenic Processes and Low Dose Risk Assessment where Experimental evidence (6, 7) indicates that cancers origi @ nate from a single cell. The models we shall look at will be Sk(t) = nk J f(t U" )Uk du (H) based upon this premise. First, consider the time to re sponse of a single cell, where the response might possibly At low dose rates this response is linear in the dose rate. To be detection of or death due to a cancer originating with see this, we note that it is possible to write this cell. This time to response can be written as the sum of the period of genetic and/or epigenetic alteration of the cell l(t,d) = SktQkd) = S@t @A+ Bd + o(d)} to a malignant phenotype, plus the growth period from the time at which the cell is completely altered to the time of the where observed response. The time to cell alteration is presumably dependent upon the dose rate d. This may also be true for @ the growth time, but we shall assume that the latter effect is /.. A = ir a@and B = @.f3@ @r I= I i = .1 I negligible. If these 2 times are independent of each other, we can in general write The incidence rate will be linear in dose rate at low dose rates whenever the constant B is positive. In order that there be both background carcinogenesis and also some effect of lr(t,d) = ji@@(t _ u,d)f(u)du (D) the dose rate d, it is necessary that all of the (51Sand at least 1 of the [3's be positive. However, under these conditions where I,, (t,d) is the incidence rate of the alteration of a single cell, f(t) is the density of cancer growth time, and I@(t,d)is the observed incidence rate for cancer response. the constant B is seen to be positive, and thus the incidence rate is linear at low dose. If k = 1 (1-hit model) then The approximation in Equation D is valid because I,,t,d) applies to a single cell and will be very small. Now the 1(d) = (a + f3d)S(t) (I) observed incidence rate is for an entire tissue and, as pointed out by Armitage and Doll (4), insufficient attention has been given in some earlier models to the distinction between cell response and tissue response. If a tissue is composed of n cells, then the time to response of a tissue is the minimum of the associated n cell response times. If we suppose that these n cells all respond in the same manner but independently, then we arrive at the formula and the incidence rate is exactly linear in dose for all dose rates. Alternatively, one could consider the time to cellular alter ation to be the result of a multistage process. This process has been applied to carcinogenesis by Armitage and Doll (5). As in the multihit process, k events must occur in a cell to initiate cancer, these events occurring with fixed rate constants. The only difference between the multistage and 1t,d) = flI,.(t,d) (E) the multihit processes is that the k-initiating events in a multistage process must occur in some particular time Se 1. Multihit and Multistage Models. Suppose k 1 differ ent events (hits) must occur in a cell before it is sufficiently altered and suppose the ith event occurs at a constant rate xi, I = 1 ,2 k. Suppose further that cells that have suf fered some, but not all, of the relevant events have no selective advantage or disadvantage relative to normal cells. Nordling (15) used the multihit model for the total response time, time to alteration, plus growth time, but here we generalize his approach by using the multihit process to model only the time to cellular alteration. The effect of dose rate is introduced in the manner of Neyman and Scott (14) by taking x1 = a + f3d (subject to a 0 and /3 0). The incidence rate of the alteration of a single cell is [see Armi tage and Doll (4)] quence. It can be shown (3) that Expression G still holds provided the right side of this equation is divided by k. Consequently, the comments on the linearity of the re sponse for the multihit model hold true for the multistage model also. Our comments would, of course, also hold for intermediate models in which some stages must occur in a fixed sequence while others may occur in various orders. 2. Generalized Multievent Model. More generally, a large number of events related to the initiation of cancer could occur in a cell. However, rather than its being neces sary for all of the events to occur to initiate cancer, there could be a (possibly quite large) number of subcollections A ,..., A,, of these events so that cancer is initiated as soon as all of the events in any 1 of these subcollections occur. Thus, in this model there are many paths through which cancer can be initiated, a single path corresponding to a @ l,1t,d) kth - I { (@ @1d)=} ktk - ~Qk(d) (F) particular subcollection A of events. A path containing k events can be called a k-hit path. The subcollections need where Qkd is a kth degree polynomial in d with constant coefficients. For the observed incidence rate of cancer we obtain, using Equations D, E, and F, not be disjoint so that 1 particular event could be included in a number of different paths. The general consequences of this model are readily understood without going through all of the details. It makes no difference for our purposes whether or not some of the events must occur in a specified l(t,d) = Qk(d)Sk(t) (G) order since adjustments necessary to go from one case to SEPTEMBER1976 2975 K. S. Crump et a!. the other are quite like the adjustment necessary for going from a multihit to a multistage model. It is again supposed 1+p 1 + log 1 + P) that the ith event occurs at a constant rate (5, + /3@dwhere the a65 may be functions of dose rates of other carcinogens as k "@@T.hus, we have the bounds but are notfunctions ofd. In the terminology of the previous @ section, all of the paths in which the rates are not functions of d (that is in which the f3@'asre all zero) represent the soet 1 1 r (1 + p)/{1 + log (1 + p)} (M) group' m~echanisms, which are independent of the mecha nisms by which the primary carcinogen causes cancer. The This upper bound forr holds for any k, and for any multipath incidence rate associated with the union of these paths model with different values of k for different paths. The represents I of Equation A, and the incidence rate associ upper bound for the ratio is increasing in p . For a oedoubling @ ated with the union of those paths in which at least 1 of the dosep = 1 we have r 1.18 regardless of the value of k, @ rates is a function of d represents 19.It can be shown that the and if k = 2 we have r 1.09. For a 10% increase in @ response will be linear in d for small dose rate d unless all incidence over background, we setp = 0.1 and find thatr paths depending upon d contain at least 2 events that occur 1.004. These results are quite interesting and useful for 2 only in the presence of the specific primary carcinogen. reasons: (a ) they indicate the closeness to linearity for a very general class of models; (b ) the results depend only on How Linear Is oeLinear? the proportion over background. If a finer bound is desired, the number of stages of the carcinogenic process or an In this section we attempt to describe quantitatively the upper bound to the number of stages is needed. range of dose rates for which the linear approximations are Our next approach to the question hooew linear?could valid. To do this one must obviously be somewhat model be of interest in the following situation. Suppose estimates specific, and we will assume the hit models. Two different for Rd) and 1(o) are available from experiments where d is a approaches to the question of h~o~w linear?' w~ill be consid known experimental dose and information is desired about ered. the incidence rate curve at dose rates much lower than d. For a k-hit model with an arbitrary distribution for cancer There are 2 possible problems to consider. First of all, one induction time, we found (Equation G) that !t,d) can be might ask what dose rate d,, would yield a prescribed mci expressed as the product of a function of age t only, and the dence rate I,, which may represent a~~given acceptable polynomial @r(a1 + f31d)in the dose rate d. It is of interest increase in the incidence rate over the background mci dence rate 1(o). It should be expected that, if d is so small as to compare this exact expression with its linear approxima to be on the linear portion of the dose-response curve, then tion d( can be approximated by fitting a straight line through the points [o,!(o)] and [d,!(d)] and using the dose rate corre = !o) + d!'o) (J) sponding to I,, on the line. The dose computed using this linearization process is where !d is given exactly by Equation G. To do this we shall consider the ratio r of !d to the linear approximation 11d when 1(d) is a certain prescribed proportional excess p of 1(o), the age-specific incidence rate at a zero dose rate. d,.= I,, 1" o) d 1(d) 1" o) (N) Symbolically, we have Since!,, 1"(o)will usually be very small, d,. = d,,!'(o)d/41d " r"@@" 1o)1+p) /(o)), and thus the ratio of the true dose d,, and the approxi (K) mation d1.is @ " l,d@) !o) + I' " 1+p " 1 + 1(0) @! -@- 1d 1o) R d,. !~o)d (0) where d,, satisfies 1(d,,)= (1 + p)/(o). It is easily seen that r 1 is independent of t. Moreover, it can be shown using the method of Lagrange multipliers that r assumes its largest value when a@/f31 a9//39 . . . f3@W.. hen this condition holds, we find that On the other hand, one may be interested in estimating the incidence rate l@which corresponds to a very small environ mental dose d@.If l@is approximated by l@,.the incidence rate corresponding to d@on the line joining [o,l(o)] and [d,!(d)], then the ratio of the approximation I,. 1" (o) of the increase over background incidence to the true value 1E @ 1+p r = k {(1+ p)l/k 1} (L) 1(o), is the same R, since @ This is an appealing result in that r depends only on the number of stages k and the proportion of background p, l@."lo) ______ IE ho) d!'o) (P) parameters that are easily interpretable. This expression is increasing in k and approaches Let us now consider the k-hit model and express R in 2976 CANCER RESEARCH VOL. 36 Carcinogenic Processes and Low Dose Risk Assessment terms of p, the excess response over background, deter sumed to arise from events associated with or occurring mined by 1 + p = l(d)/!(o). It can be shown that inside single cells. We note again here that this analysis is appropriate only 1-R< " " k{(1 + p)lIk 1} IQ' for those agents that affect cancer incidence through the ~ I alteration of single cells in an irreversible and hereditable manner (e.g. , chronic exposure to low-level ionizing radia the upper bound being attained when all f3/a1 are equal. iton). Those agents that increase cancer by anatomical and/ This upper bound increases steadily from 1 for a 1-hit model or physiological alteration of whole tissues and organs @ (k = 1) to " as k "7@L,We have tabulated the upper log(1 +p) (e.g. , dietary modification of gut flora) may or may not be described by these models. Since we do not know the bound for R for different values ofp and k in Table 1. We see relative proportion of these 2 types of carcinogens and that the linear approximations are reasonable over a wide often do not know into which category a particular agent range of values of k and p . The only circumstances in which falls, we must stress the importance of understanding basic linear approximation might be inappropriate are seen to be carcinogenic mechanisms. those where the background rate is vanishingly small and Relationship between oeSpontaneousand Induced Car thusp is very large. An example of this might be the induc cinogenesis. As we have shown, the independence or de tion of angiosarcomas by vinyl chloride; however, if recent pendence of oespontaneousand oeinducedcarcinogenesis evidence (13) that common tumors are also caused by vinyl is critical to the shape of the low dose-response curve. Two chloride is confirmed, p will not be extreme, and linear types of evidence indicate that these 2 processes share approximation will be adequate even in this case. The ex many common mechanistic steps if they are not identical. cess p of experimental incidence rate over background Cancers thought to be induced are generally indistin incidence 1(o) thus plays a key role in the accuracy of the guishable from oespontaneouscancers. This obviously linear approximations. In particular, the linear approxima does not demonstrate that the cancers arise by a common tions improve asp decreases towards zero. mechanism, but it is consistent with a common pathway to DISCUSSION We have shown under some reasonable assumptions about carcinogenic mechanisms and processes that dose responses will be approximately linear at low doses. Let us examine the evidence in favor of these assumptions and review the generality of models considered. Single-Cell Origin. If individual cancers arise from an original, single, oetransformedcell, then the statistical na ture of the carcinogenic dose response will be governed by the extreme tail of the oetransformationresponse distribu tion. The effect of this is to make virtually any process of discrete events approximately linear at low dose. Two primary observations indicate the single-cell origin of cancers. In women who are heterozygous for electropho retic variants of X-Iinked glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogen ase, cancers are unitormly of one phenotype or the other (6), whereas a comparable amount of normal tissue is com posed of a mixture of cells of the 2 phenotypic classes. Further evidence for the single-cell origin of cancers comes from experimental efforts in which oetransformedcells are transplanted into whole animals. Although there is much controversy associated with various aspects of this line of research, it seems that the ability of a single cell to give rise to a cancer is well demonstrated (7). Thus, 2 lines of evi dence indicate that cancer can be most reasonably as Table 1 Values of the upper bound of the ratio A from Equation Q 0.1 1 1.02 1.04 1.05 0.5 1 1.11 1.18 1.23 1.21 1.35 1.44 4 1.62 2.11 2.49 10 2.16 3.25 4.17 100 5.52 13.18 21.67 oeinduced and oespontaneous carcinogenesis. The view of carcinogenesis as a fundamentally mutational phenomenon, as recently reviewed by Knudson (8, 9), sup ports the assumption that induced and spontaneous steps are mechanistically identical. That is, experimental induc tion of cancer is the speeding up or the increasing of the probability of the various steps. The most important observation relevant to the relation shipbetween oeinduceadndoespontaneouissthathumans demonstrate a high background incidence of cancer. Whether these are due totally to inoeductionby environ mental agents or also to some truly spontaneous process is immaterial when considering the effects of a small amount of increased human exposure to a particular carcinogen. Approximately 1 of 5 Americans develops a cancer, and for any particular environmental carcinogen we are inter ested in a very small associated increase in risk. This 20% background must surely provide some significant ~~sponta neousprocesses that are shared with carcinogenesis by the carcinogen in question; from a public health standpoint the assumption that inoeducedand oespontaneousare not independent is conservative, as well as being biologically plausible. Small extra doses of a carcinogen will therefore elicit linear increases in risk for virtually any response model. One practical implication of the fact that different carcin ogens share many mechanistic steps is that enhancement of certain carcinogenic processes may have a more readily detectable effect on cancer incidence in animals with high background levels of all other carcinogenic processes. Therefore carcinogenicity tests of various substances should possibly include tests on high-spontaneous-mci dence strains or experiments to see whether the test sub stance enhances the carcinogenic effect of a standard car cinogen. Induction Time and Dose. In our discussion of stochastic models, we assumed that induction time is variable but SEPTEMBER 1976 2977 K. S. Crump et a!. independent of dose. This assumption is unfortunately might not be excluded from the class of oelineaart low weak in that high doses could well affect induction time. dose. This, then, is an area of research that is in need of further We have also attempted to answer the question of how effort. If we consider the low doses at which individual linear is oelineatr low dose' fo~r particular models. For the environmental carcinogens are experienced, however, it multihit and multistage models, linearity is dependent on seems reasonable to us to assume relatively little effect on background incidence. If the background is within a typm induction times. cally observable range, then the linear model provides a Now let us examine the generality of the result: linear reasonable estimate of the true state of nature, while ap dose response at low dose. Given the uncertainties and proaching this estimate from the conservative side. complexities of carcinogenesis, it is conceivable that sev All these considerations clearly demonstrate the impor eral distinct mechanistic phenomena will eventually be dis tance of explicit and realistic modelling in the development covered to contribute to the appearance of cancer. Thus, of low-dose extrapolation schemes. Many may feel that we we must have an open mind about our modelling and at have not considered certain biological observations or hy tempt to present the least model-dependent result that we potheses in the models presented above. We have tried to can. This we have done. embrace as much relevant information about carcinogene Virtually all models of carcinogenesis that depict the ex sis as possible and to obtain results that were the least posure as affecting an already ongoing process will lead to model dependent. linearity at low dose. We have discussed the validity of this The weight of these results for human risk assessment is assumption above. This result then implies that, no matter difficult to judge. It is likely that the error in the acceptable what the biological mechanism we might imagine, if the dose associated with simple linear extrapolation will be carcinogen increases some part of the already ongoing much less than that associated with the species-to-species process, then we should expect the response to be approxi extrapolation to man from the laboratory animal data. The mately linear at low dose. BEIR report (16) recommended linear extrapolation on As pointed out above, this assumption of dependence or pragmatic grounds. The theoretical conclusions of the common mechanism is not trivial. It can make orders of present paper are that linear extrapolation to low dose magnitude differences in the estimated risk associated with levels is generally valid as a realistic yet slightly conserva low dose exposure. tiveprocedure. If we conceive of the cell alteration process as a series of Practical Implications. Our results may be crudely sum discrete single-cellular events that can occur in sequence or marized by the observation that, in environments already randomly in any given cell and that a dose-independent containing appreciable amounts of carcinogenic proc induction period follows, then we should expect dose re esses, the effects of any slight addition to these processes sponse over background to be linear. We have required will be proportional to the amount added. Both control neither that all steps be affected by the carcinogen (only laboratory animals and wild humans already suffer a con some) nor that these steps be all mechanistically similar in siderable incidence of cancer; thus the extra incidence quantity or quality. This general class incorporates most of caused by a small amount of a new carcinogen will be the reasonable models that have been proposed. The keys proportional to the dose rate of that carcinogen. This to this result are the assumptions of the single-cell origin thought is not particularly remarkable, but its implications and the lackof any appreciabledose dependence in the are that much previous investigation of the form of the inductionperiod. dose-response relationship at infinitesimal doses is irrele A further extension of this group of models allows the vant to the interpretation of animal studies for the formula incorporation of threshold models into the class of ~~linear tion of social policy. at low dose.We have indicated that, if we conceive of Unfortunately, the implications of linear extrapolation are single cells as the biological unit at risk and that the initia bleak. Mantel et a!. (10-12) have proposed that safe doses tion response is a threshold phenomenon, then by assum be defined on the basis of proeobite xtrapo'ation from upper ing that the threshold is randomly distributed in dose we confidence limits defined by the experimental results, argu find that the low dose response of the whole tissue over ing that such a procedure would reward good experimental background will be approximately linear. If, rather implausi investigations (by allowing industry bigger permitted doses) bly, we do suppose that some sort of cellular thresholds while enabling regulators to guarantee to the public that exists, then clearly all cells do not have the same threshold permitted doses were so small that they would cause cancer since all cells do not all become cancers simultaneously. in less than 1 person in 108. Probit extrapolation may be Here again, we have assumed that the carcinogen acts in scientifically valid for a few very special in~d~ irectcarcino conjunction with the oespontaneousorbackground effects. genic processes, but our arguments suggest that in general The Mantel-Bryan procedure (11) may be interpreted as a it is not correct. The social implications of our results are random threshold model (albeit without our assumption best understood by considering, as an extreme case, the that substances equivalent to the suspect carcinogen are use of linear extrapolation to define a oesafele~' vel after already present in the environment), although this interpre doing a large experiment in which no carcinogenic effects tation was not made by Mantel and Bryan. This requires that were observed. The most definite such negative experiment the whole organism or tissue be interpreted as the biologi that is practical might compare animals fed with the order of cal unit with a threshold. However, if the single cell is the 10% of the test substance in their diet with a control group unit at risk, it must be tentatively accepted that even the and might conclude that the extra risk of cancer was less threshold concept of carcinogenesis (if it were appropriate) than something like 1%. Linear extrapolation, even from 2978 CANCER RESEARCH VOL. 36 Carcinogenic Processes and Low Dose Risk Assessment such ideal results as these, implies that a dose level below publicly agreed for such substances, as it was for radiation 100 ppb is needed for the risk to be less than 10 a~@nd, in 20 years ago. real experiments dose levels below 10 or even 1 ppb are likely to be indicated by linear extrapolation in order to guarantee a risk below 10 ~O@u.r arguments that linear REFERENCES extrapolation is generally appropriate at least suffice to demonstrate that linear extrapolation may be appropriate; 1. Abbott, W. S. A Method of Computing the Effectiveness of an Insecti cide. J. Econ. Ent., 18: 265-267, 1952. thus dietary concentrations as low as a few ppb or less will always be needed to guarantee a risk below 10 83 2. Arley. N., and Iversen, N. On the Mechanism of Experimental Carcino genesis. Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Scand.. 31: 164-171 , 1952. 3. Armitage. P. A Note on the Time-homogenous Birth Process. J. Roy. These levels are of little practical use for the regulatory Statist. Soc. Ser. B. 15: 90"911,953. control of deliberate food additives, although they might occasionally be of practical value for the legislative control 4. Armitage, P. , and Doll, R. Stochastic Models for Carcinogenesis. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statis tics and Probability, Vol. 4, pp. 19-38. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univer of certain special contaminants. Our investigations have thus led us, reluctantly, away from Mantel's hopes and back to the familiar ground where the discovery of an apparently sity of California Press, 1961. 5. Armitage. P.. and Doll, R. The Age Distribution of Cancer and a Multi stage Theory of Carcinogenesis. Brit. J. Cancer. 18: 1-12, 1954. 6. Fiaklow, P. J. The Origin and Development of Human Tumors Studied relevant carcinogenic effect of a putative food additive in animals is likely to cause its rapid withdrawal rather than with Cell Markers. New EngI. J. Med., 219: 26-35, 1974. 7. Gartler, S. M. Utilization of Mosaic Systems in the Study of the Origin and Progression of Tumors. In: J. German (ed), Chromosomes and merely a slight reduction of the permitted dose level, unless Cancer, pp. 313-334, New York, Wiley/Interscience, 1974. there are compelling reasons otherwise. This does encour age any carcinogenicity testing sponsored by the industrial 8. Knudson, A. G. Mutation and Human Cancer. Advan. Cancer Res., 17: 317-352, 1973. 9. Knudson, A. G. Heredity and Cancer. Am. J. Pathol., 77: 77-84, 1974. users of an additive to be as bad as possible. Moreover, it 10. Mantel, N., Bohidar, N., Brown, C., Ciminera, J., and Tukey. J. An @ also means that essentially absolute human safety (e.g. , a Improved Mantel-BryanProcedure for Safety' Testing of Carcino gens. Cancer Res., 35: 865-872. 1975. risk of 10 @i4n) general cannot be guaranteed by extrapola 11. Mantel, N., and Bryan, W. R. Safety Testing of Carcinogenic Agents. J. tion from the results of animal carcinogenicity tests. This NatI. Cancer Inst., 27: 455-470, 1961. makes rational public action more difficult than it would be 12. Mantel, N., and Schneiderman, M. Estimating Safe Levels, a Hazard ous Undertaking. Cancer Res., 35: 1379-1386, 1975. if we lived in a universe where probit extrapolation was true, 13. Monson, R. A., Peters, J. M., and Johnson, M. N. Proportional Mortality but it is not a step towards rationality to adopt probit extrap olation because of this. In our opinion, linear dose-re among Vinyl Chloride Workers. Environmental Health Perspectives. 11: 75-77, 1975. 14. Neyman. J., and Scott, E. G. Statistical Aspect of the Problem of Carci sponse relationships are likely to be approximately correct for many environmental carcinogens, and this should be nogenesis. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathe matical Statistics and Probability. Vol. 4, pp. 745-776. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1965. 15. Nordling, C. 0. A New Theory on the Cancer-inducing Mechanism. Brit. 3 There is no compelling reason why the guarantee should be of an extra J. Cancer, 7: 68-72, 1953. risk of 10 ~orless; if, for example. we merely wanted to guarantee an extra 16. The Effect on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radia risk of less than 10 ~a. few ppm might be permitted. and. since human tion (BEIR Report). In: Report of the Advisory Committee of the Biologi cancer death rates in middle age exceed 10 per annum anyway, a limit cal Effects of Ionizing Radiations, National Academy of Sciences, Na substantially greater than 10 8 might be considered for substances that are tional Research Council. Publication No. 0-489-797, p. 217. Washington. particularly valuable. D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office. 1972. SEPTEMBER1976 2979