09.02.2014 Views

home edit2 whole TSD November 2002 PDF format - OEHHA

home edit2 whole TSD November 2002 PDF format - OEHHA

home edit2 whole TSD November 2002 PDF format - OEHHA

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

IV.<br />

DERIVATION OF CANCER POTENCY<br />

Basis for Cancer Potency<br />

Gold et al. (1984, 1987) list results from drinking water studies in male and female Syrian Golden<br />

hamsters, feeding studies in male ICR mice, feeding studies in rhesus and cynomolgus monkeys,<br />

intraperitoneal studies in rhesus monkeys (combined data for males and females), and drinking water<br />

studies in Sprague-Dawley rats (combined data for males and females). N-Nitrosopiperidine induced<br />

liver tumors in all species and strains. Hamsters are the least sensitive of the species tested. The<br />

majority of treated primates developed liver tumors, including all cynomolgus monkeys given the<br />

compound in feed. Rats and mice exhibit sensitivity similar to primates. Because treatment groups in<br />

the primate studies are small and incidences observed are high, accurate estimates of cancer potency<br />

cannot be obtained from these studies. Of the dose-response data available for rats and mice, the<br />

highest quality data set is reported by Eisenbrand et al. (1980) for liver tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats.<br />

Cancer potency is derived from this data set (Table 2) (Cal/EPA, 1992).<br />

Methodology<br />

Expedited Proposition 65 methodology (with cross-route extrapolation) was used to derive a cancer<br />

potency factor. Analysis of the data set using the computer program TOX_RISK (Crump et al., 1991)<br />

indicated that inclusion of the high dose group resulted in a p-value of = 0.05 based on the chi-square<br />

goodness-of-fit test, indicating non-linearity. Following procedures described by US EPA (Anderson<br />

et al., 1983), the high dose group was excluded from the analysis to correct for the poor fit (Cal/EPA,<br />

1992). A unit risk factor of 6.0 E-6 (µg/m 3 ) -1 was derived by <strong>OEHHA</strong>/ATES from the human q 1 * using<br />

an inspiration rate of 20 m 3 /day.<br />

V. REFERENCES<br />

Adamson RH and Sieber SM. 1982. Chemical carcinogenesis studies in nonhuman primates. In: Basic<br />

Life Sciences, Vol. 24. Langenbach R, Nesnow S and Rice JM eds., Plenum Press, New York, pp.<br />

129-156.<br />

Anderson EL and the Carcinogen Assessment Group of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency<br />

1983. Quantitative approaches in use to assess cancer risk. Risk Anal. 3:277-295.<br />

California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) 1992. Expedited Cancer Potency Values and<br />

Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens. Office of Environmental Health<br />

Hazard Assessment, Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Section, Berkeley, CA.<br />

423

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!