Environmental Carcinogenesis Risk

Louise Ryan,

Louise Ryan

Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Louise Ryan,

Louise Ryan

Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 15 September 2008

https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470061596.risk0271

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

A significant proportion of cancer cases are likely to be attributable to the environment, especially when broadly interpreted to include lifestyle choices such as smoking and diet, as well as chemical exposures encountered in the workplace, air, water, or in our food. This entry briefly reviews risk analytic aspects of environmental carcinogenesis.

References

1 Murphy, S. (2000). Deaths: Final Data 1998, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville.
Google Scholar
2 U.S. National Toxicology Program (2001). 11th Report on Carcinogens (Released January 2005), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Research Triangle Park, http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov/roc/.
Google Scholar
3 Portier, C.J. & Dinse, G.E. (1987). Semiparametric analysis of tumor incidence rates in survival/sacrifice experiments, Biometrics 43, 107–114.
10.2307/2531953
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 U.S. National Toxicology Program (1998). 8th Report on Carcinogens, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Research Triangle Park, http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov/roc/.
Google Scholar
5 Archer, L.E. & Ryan, L.M. (1989). Accounting for misclassification in the cause-of-death test for carcinogenicity, Journal of the American Statistical Association 84, 787–791.
10.1080/01621459.1989.10478838
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Burnett, R.T., Ross, W.H. & Krewski, D. (1995). Non-linear mixed regression models, Environmetrics 6, 85–99.
10.1002/env.3170060108
Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Dunson, D.B. & Dinse, G.E. (2002). Bayesian models for multivariate current status data with informative censoring, Biometrics 58, 79–88.
10.1111/j.0006-341X.2002.00079.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Goddard, M., Krewski, D. & Zhu, Y. (1994). Measuring carcinogenic potency, in Environmental Statistics, Assessment, and Forecasting, C.R. Cothern & N.P. Ross, eds, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp. 193–208.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Haseman, J.K. (1995). Data analysis: statistical analysis and use of historical control data, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 21, 52–59.
10.1006/rtph.1995.1009
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Ryan, L.M. (1985). Efficiency of age-adjusted tests in animal carcinogenicity experiments, Biometrics 41, 525–531.
10.2307/2530877
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 Peddada, S.D., Dinse, G.E. & Haseman, J.K. (2005). A survival-adjusted quantal response test for comparing tumor incidence rates, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C: Applied Statistics 54, 51–61.
10.1111/j.1467-9876.2005.00469.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Perera, F.P., Mooney, L.A., Dickey, C.P., Santella, R.M., Bell, D., Blaner, W., Tang, D. & Whyatt, R. (1996). Molecular epidemiology in environmental carcinogenesis, Environmental Health Perspectives 104(Suppl. 3), 441–443.
10.2307/3432800
Google Scholar
13 Poirier, M.C. (1997). DNA adducts as exposure biomarkers and indicators of cancer risk, Environmental Health Perspectives 105, Suppl. 4 907–912.
10.1289/ehp.97105s4907
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar