Cancer risk calculating

The comparison of the T25 method with the LMS method showed a good correlation between the two methods (correlation coefficient of 0.85 in a log-log plot) for 33 substances identified in the US-EPA IRIS database. The ratios between the lifetime cancer risks calculated by the T25 method and the LMS method were in the range 0.5-2.0 for 30 out of the 33 substances (calculated for the 10 lifetime cancer risk). The distribution of the ratios was plotted and the parameters characterizing this distribution were estimated. The mean and the median were both 1.21, the 5 th and 95 th percentiles were 0.50 and 1.87, respectively, and the minimum and maximum values were 0.45 and 2.31, respectively. For 24 substances, the T25 method gave a higher result than the LMS method, and for the remaining 9 substances a lower result. 

The chronic daily intake (CDI) estimated in the analysis of exposure, the second step of the risk assessment, is used to calculate the risks of both noncancer health effects and cancer. Risk calculations are also referred to as quantitative risk assessment, a term that is somewhat misleading because the word quantitative implies a high degree of accuracy, which is clearly not the case. In the first risk scenario described in Section 8.3, future residents drink arsenic-contaminated water from the aquifer beneath a former Superfund site. Their CDI by this pathway is estimated to be 0.0I6I mg/kg/day of arsenic. The oral reference dose (RfD) for arsenic is 3 x lO"" mg/kg/day, according to the EPA s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (U.S. EPA 2009). The hazard index (HI) for noncancer health effects caused by this chemical of concern by this exposure pathway is calculated using Equation (8.3) ... 

Latent cancer is calculated to be the primary risk from a nuclear accident (this may be due to the conservatism in the low-dose models). At Chernobyl, most of the deaths were from fire and impact. Chemical process risk depends on the chemicals being processed. Experience shows that processing poisons poses the highest risk to public and workers. 

The odor perception threshold for benzene in water is 2 ing/L. The benzene drinking water unit risk is 8.3 x lO L/pg. Calculate the potential benzene intake rate (mg benzene/kg-d) and the cumulative cancer risk from drinking water with benzene concentrations at half of its odor threshold for a 30 year exposure duration. 

The cancer risk from this ingestion at half of the odor threshold of 1 mg/L is calculated based on the benzene unit risk of 8.3 x lO L/pg or ... 

Assume an adult weight of 70kg. The lifetime cancer risk is calculated as ... 

The reader should note that tlie introductory comments in tine similarly titled subsections of the previous section applies to carcinogens as well. The calculation proceeds as follows. First, smn tlie cancer risks for each exposure patliway contributing to exposure of the same individual or subpopulation. For Superfimd risk assessments, cancer risks from various exposure patliways are assumed to be additive, as long as tlie risks are for tlie same individuals and time period (i.e., less-tlian-lifetime e.xposures have all been converted to equivalent lifetime exposures). Tliis smnmation procedure is described below ... 

Calculate the cancer risk caused by eacli pollutant and tlie total cancer risk. Express the results in additional cancer cases per million people. Use the following data to solve tliis problem ... 

Tlie total cancer risk by inhalation is calculated from tlie arithmetic sum of individual cancer risks, assuming no interaction of pollutiuits in teniis of carcinogenic effects ... 

Qi — The upper-bound estimate of the low-dose slope of the dose-response curve as determined by the multistage procedure. The q, can be used to calculate an estimate of carcinogenic potency, the incremental excess cancer risk per unit of exposure (usually pg/L for water, mg/kg/day for food, and pg/m for air). 

A number of calculators are available on the Internet to estimate a patient s risk of developing breast cancer. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has an online version of the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool that is considered to be the most authoritative and accurate standard (www.cancer.gov/ bcrisk-tool). The Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool was designed for health professionals to project a women s individualized risk for invasive breast cancer over a 5-year period and over her lifetime. 

Risk Estimation. As mentioned above, chronic risk is expressed as a probability of occurrence per year or per lifetime of some adverse consequence caused by exposure to the pollutant. Statutory mandates have focused on human health effects as the primary expression of chronic risks. The basis of the risk calculation is the dose/response curve that relates the adverse effect to the amount or rate of a chemical taken in to the subject. Because of regulatory emphasis of cancer, most of the work devoted to the deviation of dose/response curves has been concerned with the probability of appearance of a tumor as the adverse effect. 

The human and environmental protection goals in EUSES are human populations (workers, consumers, and man exposed via the environment) and ecological systems (micro-organisms in sewage treatment systems, aquatic ecosystems, terrestrial ecosystems, sediment ecosystems, and predators). Repeated dose toxicity, fertility toxicity, maternal toxicity, developmental toxicity, carcinogenic risk, and lifetime cancer risk can be calculated for the cases that literature data is available. 

Chronic daily intake (CDI), Hazard Index (HI), and Cancer Risk (CR) for carcinogenic effects were calculated and exposures associated with HI<1 and CRdE-6 were considered negligible. 

Hofmann, W., Dose Calculations for the Respiratory Tract from Inhaled Natural Radionuclides as a Function of Age - II. Basal Cell Dose Distributions and Associated Lung Cancer Risk, Health Phys. 43 31-44 (1982). 

The calculation of effective dose equivalent is sometimes used even when reporting values for natural radioactivity. The concept of effective dose equivalent was developed for occupational exposures so that different types of exposure to various organs could be unified in terms of cancer risk. It is highly unlikely that the general population would require summation of risks from several sources of radiation exposure. 

Calculation of lung cancer risk for radon daughter exposure is based on factors developed by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP, 1984). The risk coefficients are expressed in terms of lifetime risk from lifetime exposure for a population of mixed ages, comparable to the standardized U.S. population, and range between one and two per 10,000 WLM of exposure. The percent increase in risk is related to a normal lifetime lung cancer risk of 0.041. 

Models for determining the dose-response relationship vary based upon the type of toxicological hazard. In the dose-response for chemical carcinogens, it is frequently assumed that no threshold level of exposure (an exposure below which no effects would occur) exists, and, therefore, any level of exposure leads to some finite level of risk. As a practical matter, cancer risks of below one excess cancer per million members of the population exposed (1 x 10 ), when calculated using conservative (risk exaggerating) methods, are considered to represent a reasonable certainty of no harm (Winter and Francis, 1997). 

Such estimates yield an exaggerated level of exposure, but for many pesticides, exposure at the TMRC is far below the RfD and does not result in cancer risks greater than 1 x 10 . In some cases, where the exaggerated levels of exposure for the TMRC exceed the RfD or cause the cancer risk to exceed 1 X 10 , the exposure calculations may require refinements, such as using more realistic residue levels or adjusting pesticide use estimations. If these or other more comprehensive adjustments still do not result in acceptable levels of exposure, the EPA will not approve tolerances for the pesticide. 

---