Comment on "Relative susceptibility of animals and humans to the cancer hazard posed by 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin using internal measures of dose."
Environ Sci Technol 1998 Feb; 32(4):549-550
Aylward et al. (1) are to be commended for their attempt to use empirical data to address the question of whether the carcinogenicity of TCDD in humans is quantitatively similar to that observed in animals. However, we disagree with the authors' interpretation of their results. The empirical evidence presented by Aylward et al. (1) does not lend support to the use of area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) as a dose metric for cross-species extrapolation of toxicity and does not support the authors' conclusion that "humans are much less sensitive than rats to the carcinogenic effects of TCDD". A more appropriate conclusion to draw from their analysis would be that it lends empirical support to the use of lifetime average concentration as a dose metric for cross-species scaling of TCDD carcinogenicity.
Epidemiology; Risk-analysis; Risk-factors; Laboratory-animals; Humans; Cancer-rates; Carcinogenesis; Carcinogenicity; Carcinogens; Chemical-properties
David A. Dankovic, NIOSH, Risk Evaluation Branch, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 45226
Environmental Science and Technology