Linear low-dose extrapolation for noncancer heath effects is the exception, not the rule

Lorenz R. Rhomberg, Julie E. Goodman, Lynne T. Haber, Michael Dourson, Melvin E. Andersen, James E. Klaunig, Bette Meek, Paul S. Price, Roger O. McClellan, Samuel Monroe Cohen

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The nature of the exposure-response relationship has a profound influence on risk analyses. Several arguments have been proffered as to why all exposure-response relationships for both cancer and noncarcinogenic endpoints should be assumed to be linear at low doses. We focused on three arguments that have been put forth for noncarcinogens. First, the general "additivity-to- background" argument proposes that if an agent enhances an already existing disease-causing process, then even small exposures increase disease incidence in a linear manner. This only holds if it is related to a specific mode of action that has nonuniversal propertiesproperties that would not be expected for most noncancer effects. Second, the "heterogeneity in the population" argument states that variations in sensitivity among members of the target population tend to "flatten out and linearize" the exposure-response curve, but this actually only tends to broaden, not linearize, the dose-response relationship. Third, it has been argued that a review of epidemiological evidence shows linear or no-threshold effects at low exposures in humans, despite nonlinear exposure-response in the experimental dose range in animal testing for similar endpoints. It is more likely that this is attributable to exposure measurement error rather than a true nonthreshold association. Assuming that every chemical is toxic at high exposures and linear at low exposures does not comport to modern-day scientific knowledge of biology. There is no compelling evidence-based justification for a general low-exposure linearity; rather, case-specific mechanistic arguments are needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-21
Number of pages21
JournalCritical reviews in toxicology
Volume41
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2011

Fingerprint

Extrapolation
Health Services Needs and Demand
Poisons
Population Characteristics
Measurement errors
Animals
Incidence
Testing
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Additivity to background
  • dose-response
  • exposure measurement error
  • linear
  • nonlinear
  • population heterogeneity
  • threshold

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Toxicology

Cite this

Linear low-dose extrapolation for noncancer heath effects is the exception, not the rule. / Rhomberg, Lorenz R.; Goodman, Julie E.; Haber, Lynne T.; Dourson, Michael; Andersen, Melvin E.; Klaunig, James E.; Meek, Bette; Price, Paul S.; McClellan, Roger O.; Cohen, Samuel Monroe.

In: Critical reviews in toxicology, Vol. 41, No. 1, 01.01.2011, p. 1-21.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Rhomberg, LR, Goodman, JE, Haber, LT, Dourson, M, Andersen, ME, Klaunig, JE, Meek, B, Price, PS, McClellan, RO & Cohen, SM 2011, 'Linear low-dose extrapolation for noncancer heath effects is the exception, not the rule', Critical reviews in toxicology, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2010.536524
Rhomberg, Lorenz R. ; Goodman, Julie E. ; Haber, Lynne T. ; Dourson, Michael ; Andersen, Melvin E. ; Klaunig, James E. ; Meek, Bette ; Price, Paul S. ; McClellan, Roger O. ; Cohen, Samuel Monroe. / Linear low-dose extrapolation for noncancer heath effects is the exception, not the rule. In: Critical reviews in toxicology. 2011 ; Vol. 41, No. 1. pp. 1-21.
@article{4eea3de1918b45729cc6924c307905ea,
title = "Linear low-dose extrapolation for noncancer heath effects is the exception, not the rule",
abstract = "The nature of the exposure-response relationship has a profound influence on risk analyses. Several arguments have been proffered as to why all exposure-response relationships for both cancer and noncarcinogenic endpoints should be assumed to be linear at low doses. We focused on three arguments that have been put forth for noncarcinogens. First, the general {"}additivity-to- background{"} argument proposes that if an agent enhances an already existing disease-causing process, then even small exposures increase disease incidence in a linear manner. This only holds if it is related to a specific mode of action that has nonuniversal propertiesproperties that would not be expected for most noncancer effects. Second, the {"}heterogeneity in the population{"} argument states that variations in sensitivity among members of the target population tend to {"}flatten out and linearize{"} the exposure-response curve, but this actually only tends to broaden, not linearize, the dose-response relationship. Third, it has been argued that a review of epidemiological evidence shows linear or no-threshold effects at low exposures in humans, despite nonlinear exposure-response in the experimental dose range in animal testing for similar endpoints. It is more likely that this is attributable to exposure measurement error rather than a true nonthreshold association. Assuming that every chemical is toxic at high exposures and linear at low exposures does not comport to modern-day scientific knowledge of biology. There is no compelling evidence-based justification for a general low-exposure linearity; rather, case-specific mechanistic arguments are needed.",
keywords = "Additivity to background, dose-response, exposure measurement error, linear, nonlinear, population heterogeneity, threshold",
author = "Rhomberg, {Lorenz R.} and Goodman, {Julie E.} and Haber, {Lynne T.} and Michael Dourson and Andersen, {Melvin E.} and Klaunig, {James E.} and Bette Meek and Price, {Paul S.} and McClellan, {Roger O.} and Cohen, {Samuel Monroe}",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3109/10408444.2010.536524",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "1--21",
journal = "Critical Reviews in Toxicology",
issn = "1040-8444",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Linear low-dose extrapolation for noncancer heath effects is the exception, not the rule

AU - Rhomberg, Lorenz R.

AU - Goodman, Julie E.

AU - Haber, Lynne T.

AU - Dourson, Michael

AU - Andersen, Melvin E.

AU - Klaunig, James E.

AU - Meek, Bette

AU - Price, Paul S.

AU - McClellan, Roger O.

AU - Cohen, Samuel Monroe

PY - 2011/1/1

Y1 - 2011/1/1

N2 - The nature of the exposure-response relationship has a profound influence on risk analyses. Several arguments have been proffered as to why all exposure-response relationships for both cancer and noncarcinogenic endpoints should be assumed to be linear at low doses. We focused on three arguments that have been put forth for noncarcinogens. First, the general "additivity-to- background" argument proposes that if an agent enhances an already existing disease-causing process, then even small exposures increase disease incidence in a linear manner. This only holds if it is related to a specific mode of action that has nonuniversal propertiesproperties that would not be expected for most noncancer effects. Second, the "heterogeneity in the population" argument states that variations in sensitivity among members of the target population tend to "flatten out and linearize" the exposure-response curve, but this actually only tends to broaden, not linearize, the dose-response relationship. Third, it has been argued that a review of epidemiological evidence shows linear or no-threshold effects at low exposures in humans, despite nonlinear exposure-response in the experimental dose range in animal testing for similar endpoints. It is more likely that this is attributable to exposure measurement error rather than a true nonthreshold association. Assuming that every chemical is toxic at high exposures and linear at low exposures does not comport to modern-day scientific knowledge of biology. There is no compelling evidence-based justification for a general low-exposure linearity; rather, case-specific mechanistic arguments are needed.

AB - The nature of the exposure-response relationship has a profound influence on risk analyses. Several arguments have been proffered as to why all exposure-response relationships for both cancer and noncarcinogenic endpoints should be assumed to be linear at low doses. We focused on three arguments that have been put forth for noncarcinogens. First, the general "additivity-to- background" argument proposes that if an agent enhances an already existing disease-causing process, then even small exposures increase disease incidence in a linear manner. This only holds if it is related to a specific mode of action that has nonuniversal propertiesproperties that would not be expected for most noncancer effects. Second, the "heterogeneity in the population" argument states that variations in sensitivity among members of the target population tend to "flatten out and linearize" the exposure-response curve, but this actually only tends to broaden, not linearize, the dose-response relationship. Third, it has been argued that a review of epidemiological evidence shows linear or no-threshold effects at low exposures in humans, despite nonlinear exposure-response in the experimental dose range in animal testing for similar endpoints. It is more likely that this is attributable to exposure measurement error rather than a true nonthreshold association. Assuming that every chemical is toxic at high exposures and linear at low exposures does not comport to modern-day scientific knowledge of biology. There is no compelling evidence-based justification for a general low-exposure linearity; rather, case-specific mechanistic arguments are needed.

KW - Additivity to background

KW - dose-response

KW - exposure measurement error

KW - linear

KW - nonlinear

KW - population heterogeneity

KW - threshold

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78651468432&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78651468432&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3109/10408444.2010.536524

DO - 10.3109/10408444.2010.536524

M3 - Review article

C2 - 21226629

AN - SCOPUS:78651468432

VL - 41

SP - 1

EP - 21

JO - Critical Reviews in Toxicology

JF - Critical Reviews in Toxicology

SN - 1040-8444

IS - 1

ER -