Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by GOLD, L. S.
Right arrow Articles by HOEL, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by GOLD, L. S.
Right arrow Articles by HOEL, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1986 Oxford University Press

research-article

An Empirical Comparison of Methods Used to Estimate Carcinogenic Potency in Long-Term Animal Bioassays: Lifetable vs Summary Incidence Data

LOIS SWIRSKY GOLD*,1, LESLIE BERNSTEIN{dagger}, JOHN KALDOR*, GEORGANNE BACKMAN* and DAVID HOEL{ddagger}

*Biology and Medicine Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Berkeley, Calfornia 94720. {dagger}Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California School of Medicine Los Angeles, California 90033 {ddagger}National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709

An Empirical Comparison of Methods Used to Estimate Carcinogenic Potency in Long-Term Animal Bioassays: Lifetable vs Summary Incidence Data. GOLD, L. S., BERNSTEIN, L., KALDOR, J., BACKMAN, G., AND HOEL, D. (1986). Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 6, 263–269. Two methods forestimating carcinogenic potency from animal carcinogenesis bioassays (TD50-defined in the paper) are compared, one based on lifetable data and one based on summary incidence data. The lifetable analysis adjusts for the differential effects of toxicity among dose groups and for differences in the time pattern of tumor incidence, while summary incidence analysis does not. However, summary data are all that are usually available in the published results of animal cancer tests. Using NCI bioassay results which provide full lifetable data, we compare lifetable and summary estimates of potency and their statistical significance as well as the estimated shape of the dose—response curve. There is substantial agreement between these methods of analysis in terms of potency estimation, although lifetable estimates are usually more potent. But there are some notable differences in the estimated shape of the dose—response curve, suggesting that both target site selection and method of analysis play an important role in risk estimation.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.