Advertisement

Analysis of Animal Carcinogenicity Data

  • Hongshik Ahn
  • Ralph L. Kodell
Chapter

Abstract

Animal carcinogenicity experiments are employed to test the carcinogenic potential of drugs and other chemical substances used by humans. Such bioassays are conducted in animals at doses that are generally well above human exposure levels, in order to detect carcinogenicity with relatively small numbers of animals. Animals are divided into several groups by randomization and treated with a test compound at different dose levels. A typical carcinogenicity study involves a control and 2 to 3 dose groups of 50 or more animals, usually rats or mice. Typically, a chemical is administered at a constant daily dose rate for a major portion of the lifetime of the test animal, for example, for 2 years. Sometimes, scheduled interim sacrifices are performed during the experiment. At the end of the study, all surviving animals are sacrificed and subjected to necropsy. For each animal in a given dose group, the age at death and the presence or absence of specific tumor types are recorded. Groups of animals are compared with respect to tumor development.

Keywords

Dose Group Trend Test Occult Tumor Nonparametric Maximum Likelihood Fatal Tumor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahn, H., and Kodell, R. L. (1995). Estimation and testing of tumor incidence rates in experiments lacking cause-of-death data. Biometrical Journal 37, 745–763.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahn, H., Kodell, R. L., and Moon, H. (2000). Attribution of tumor lethality and estimation of time to onset of occult tumors in the absence of cause-of-death information. Applied Statistics 49, 157–169.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Armitage, P. (1955). Tests for linear trends in proportions and frequencies. Biometrics 11, 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailer, A. J., and Portier, C. J. (1988). Effects of treatment-induced mortality and tumor-induced mortality on tests for carcinogenicity in small samples. Biometrics 14, 417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bieler, G. S., and Williams, R. L. (1993). Ratio estimates, the delta method, and quantal response tests for increased carcinogenicity. Biometrics 49, 793–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cochran, W. G. (1954). Some methods for strengthening the common x2_ tests. Biometrics 10, 417–451.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dinse, G. E. (1991). Constant risk differences in the analysis of animal tumorigenicity data. Biometrics 47, 681–700.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dinse, G. E. (1993). Evaluating constraints that allow survival-adjusted incidence analyses in single-sacrifice studies. Biometrics 49, 399407Google Scholar
  9. Dinse, G. E., and Lagakos, S. W. (1982). Nonparametric estimation of lifetime and disease onset distributions from incomplete observations. Biometrics 38, 921–932.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gart, J. J. (1975). Letter to the editor. British Journal of Cancer 31, 696697.Google Scholar
  11. Gart, J. J., Chu, K. C., and Tarone, R. E. (1979). Statistical issues in interpretation of chronic bioassay tests for carcinogenicity. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 62, 957–974.Google Scholar
  12. Hoel, D. G., and Walburg, H. E. (1972). Statistical analysis of survival experiments. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 49, 361–372.Google Scholar
  13. Kodell, R. L., Ahn, H., Pearce, B. A., and Turturro, A. (1997). Age-adjusted trend test for the tumor incidence rate. Drug Information Journal 31, 471–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kodell, R. L., and Ahn, H. (1996). Nonparametric trend test for the cumulative tumor incidence rate. Communications in Statistics–Theory and Methods 25, 1677–1692.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Kodell, R. L., and Ahn, H. (1997). An age-adjusted trend test for the tumor incidence rate. Biometrics 53, 1467–1474.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kodell, R. L., and Nelson, C. J. (1980). An illness-death model for the study of the carcinogenic process using survival/sacrifice data. Biometrics 36, 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kodell, R. L., Shaw, G. W., and Johnson, A. M. (1982). Nonparametric joint estimators for disease resistance and survival functions in survival/sacrifice experiments. Biometrics 38, 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lagakos, S. W. (1982). An evaluation of some two-sample tests used to analyze animal carcinogenicity experiments. Utilitas Mathematica 21B, 239–260.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindsey, J. C., and Ryan, L. M. (1994). A comparison of continuous-and discrete-time three-state models for rodent tumorigenicity experiments. Environmental Health Perspectives 102, (Suppl. 1) 9–17.Google Scholar
  20. Malani, H. M., and Van Ryzin, J. (1988). Comparison of two treatments in animal carcinogenicity experiments. Journal of the American Statistical Association 83, 1171–1177.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McKnight, B. and Crowley, J. (1984). Tests for differences in tumor incidence based on animal carcinogenesis experiments. Journal of the American Statistical Association 79 639–648.Google Scholar
  22. Peto, R. (1974). Guidelines on the analysis of tumour rates and death rates in experimental animals. British Journal of Cancer 29, 101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peto, R., Pike, M. C., Day, N. E., Gray, R. G., Lee, P. N., Parish, S., Peto, J. Richards, S., and Wahrendorf, J. (1980). Guidelines for simple, sensitive significance tests for carcinogenic effects in long-term animal experiments. IARC Monographs Supplement 2 311–426. Annex to: Long-term and Short-term Screening Assays for Carcinogens: a Critical Appraisal.Google Scholar
  24. Portier, C., Hedges, J., and Hoel, D. G. (1986). Age-specific models of mortality and tumor onset for historical control animals in the national toxicology program’s carcinogenicity experiments. Cancer Research 46, 4372–4378.Google Scholar
  25. Portier, C. J., and Dinse, G. E. (1987). Semiparametric analysis of tumor incidence rates in survival/sacrifice experiments. Biometrics 43, 107114.Google Scholar
  26. Turnbull, B. W., and Mitchell, T. J. (1984). Nonparametric estimation of the distribution of time to onset for specific diseases in survival/sacrifice experiments. Biometrics 40, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hongshik Ahn
    • 1
  • Ralph L. Kodell
    • 2
  1. 1.State University of New YorkStony BrookUSA
  2. 2.Food and Drug AdministrationJeffersonUSA

Personalised recommendations