A Bayesian analysis of the influence of GSTT1 polymorphism on the cancer risk estimate for dichloromethane

Citation
F. Jonsson et G. Johanson, A Bayesian analysis of the influence of GSTT1 polymorphism on the cancer risk estimate for dichloromethane, TOX APPL PH, 174(2), 2001, pp. 99-112
Citations number
48
Categorie Soggetti
Pharmacology & Toxicology
Journal title
TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY
ISSN journal
0041008X → ACNP
Volume
174
Issue
2
Year of publication
2001
Pages
99 - 112
Database
ISI
SICI code
0041-008X(20010715)174:2<99:ABAOTI>2.0.ZU;2-G
Abstract
The carcinogenicity of dichloromethane (DCM) is related to metabolic activa tion mediated by glutathione transferase theta I (GSTT1), whereas oxidation serves as a detoxification pathway. The aim of this study was to calculate the excess cancer risk from DCM, using Bayesian statistics. In a first ste p, a previously developed population physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for DCM was simultaneously fitted to extensive human toxicokin etic data from 27 male volunteers exposed to 250-1000 ppm DCM (Astrand et a l. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 1, 78-94, 1975; Engstrom and Bjurstrom, S cand. J. Work Environ. Health 7, 215-224, 1977) using Markov chain Monte Ca rlo simulation. Improved population estimates were obtained for the PBPK mo del parameters. In a second step, excess cancer risk was calculated for lif elong exposure to 1-1000 ppm DCM by Monte Carlo simulation. Data on GSTT1 g ene frequencies in the Swedish population were used, including all three ge notypes. Estimated mean and median excess risks were in general agreement w ith those previously derived (El-Masri et al. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 158 , 221-230, 1999). However, we estimate higher excess risks at the upper con fidence limits. Furthermore, our simulations suggest that 1% of the Swedish population is not covered by a factor 4.2-7.1 away from the mean target do se. The majority of the fraction of the population not covered was classifi ed as GSTT1 homozygote. This indicates that a higher uncertainty factor tha n the commonly used 3.16 should be considered in noncancer risk assessment for substances with polymorphic bioactivation. (C) 2001 Academic Press.