Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 1981 Jul;44(1):24–34. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1981.143

Initiation and promotion at different ages and doses in 2200 mice. III. Linear extrapolation from high doses may underestimate low-dose tumour risks.

F Stenbäck, R Peto, P Shubik
PMCID: PMC2010656  PMID: 6789855

Abstract

The dose-response relationships from the data described in Paper I were analysed. Among unpromoted animals, only doses sufficient to cause ulceration with subsequent promotion due to wound healing caused a rapid crop of tumours, so the dose-response curve exhibited strong upward curvature. Among promoted animals, the response of the skin to initiation appeared to have been nearly saturated by all DMBA doses tested, so that a 30-fold decrease in dose produced only a 3-fold decrease in effect. The dose-response relationship thus exhibited strong downward curvature. Among promoted animals, estimation of the risks associated with very low doses of carcinogen by linear extrapolation through the origin from the effects of larger doses (which is often assumed to be conservative) would under-estimate the true risks by 10-fold or more. Our results emphasize that whereas linear interpolation from the results of high doses may be reasonable for data on the effects of continuous treatment with non-toxic dose levels of carcinogen, it may be misleading when extrapolating, as here, from the effects of single large doses.

Full text

PDF
24

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. BOUTWELL R. K. SOME BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF SKIN CARCINOGENISIS. Prog Exp Tumor Res. 1964;4:207–250. doi: 10.1159/000385978. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cornfield J. Carcinogenic risk assessment. Science. 1977 Nov 18;198(4318):693–699. doi: 10.1126/science.910152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Crump K. S., Hoel D. G., Langley C. H., Peto R. Fundamental carcinogenic processes and their implications for low dose risk assessment. Cancer Res. 1976 Sep;36(9 PT1):2973–2979. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Guess H., Crump K., Peto R. Uncertainty estimates for low-dose-rate extrapolations of animal carcinogenicity data. Cancer Res. 1977 Oct;37(10):3475–3483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kennedy A. R., Fox M., Murphy G., Little J. B. Relationship between x-ray exposure and malignant transformation in C3H 10T1/2 cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980 Dec;77(12):7262–7266. doi: 10.1073/pnas.77.12.7262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kennedy A. R., Little J. B. Investigation of the mechanism for enhancement of radiation transformation in vitro by 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate. Carcinogenesis. 1980;1(12):1039–1047. doi: 10.1093/carcin/1.12.1039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Major I. R., Mole R. H. Myeloid leukaemia in x-ray irradiated CBA mice. Nature. 1978 Mar 30;272(5652):455–456. doi: 10.1038/272455a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mantel N., Schneiderman M. A. Estimating "safe" levels, a hazardous undertaking. Cancer Res. 1975 Jun;35(6):1379–1386. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. PIKE M. C., ROE F. J. AN ACTUARIAL METHOD OF ANALYSIS OF AN EXPERIMENT IN TWO-STAGE CARCINOGENESIS. Br J Cancer. 1963 Dec;17:605–610. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1963.80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Pereira M. A., Burns F. J., Albert R. E. Dose response for benzo(a)pyrene adducts in mouse epidermal DNA. Cancer Res. 1979 Jul;39(7 Pt 1):2556–2559. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Peto R. Detection of risk of cancer to man. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1979 Jul 18;205(1158):111–120. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1979.0052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. SAFFIOTTI U., SHUBIK P. The effects of low concentrations of carcinogen in epidermal carcinogenesis; a comparison with promoting agents. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1956 Feb;16(4):961–969. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Slaga T. J., Klein-Szanto A. J., Fischer S. M., Weeks C. E., Nelson K., Major S. Studies on mechanism of action of anti-tumor-promoting agents: their specificity in two-stage promotion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980 Apr;77(4):2251–2254. doi: 10.1073/pnas.77.4.2251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Stenbäck F., Peto R., Shubik P. Initiation and promotion at different ages and doses in 2200 mice. I. Methods, and the apparent persistence of initiated cells. Br J Cancer. 1981 Jul;44(1):1–14. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1981.141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. TERRACINI B., SHUBIK P., DELLA PORTA G. A study of skin carcinogenesis in the mouse with single applications of 9,10-dimethyl-1,2-benzanthracene at different dosages. Cancer Res. 1960 Nov;20:1538–1542. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Turusov V., Day N., Andrianov L., Jain D. Influence of dose on skin tumors induced in mice by single application of 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1971 Jul;47(1):105–111. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES