Exploring the uncertainties in cancer risk assessment using the integrated probabilistic risk assessment (IPRA) approach

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-8.xsd">
<mods version="3.8">
<titleInfo>
<title>Exploring the uncertainties in cancer risk assessment using the integrated probabilistic risk assessment (IPRA) approach</title>
</titleInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
<originInfo>
<place>
<placeTerm type="code" authority="marccountry">esp</placeTerm>
</place>
<dateIssued encoding="marc">2014</dateIssued>
<issuance>serial</issuance>
</originInfo>
<language>
<languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">spa</languageTerm>
</language>
<physicalDescription>
<form authority="marcform">print</form>
</physicalDescription>
<abstract displayLabel="Summary">Current methods for cancer risk assessment result in single values, without any quantitative information on the uncertainties in these values. Therefore, single risk values could easily be overinterpreted. In this study, we discuss a full probabilistic cancer risk assessment approach in which all the generally recognized uncertainties in both exposure and hazard assessment are quantitatively characterized and probabilistically evaluated, resulting in a confidence interval for the final risk estimate. The methodology is applied to three example chemicals (aflatoxin, N-nitrosodimethylamine, and methyleugenol). These examples illustrate that the uncertainty in a cancer risk estimate may be huge, making single value estimates of cancer risk meaningless. Further, a risk based on linear extrapolation tends to be lower than the upper 95% confidence limit of a probabilistic risk estimate, and in that sense it is not conservative. Our conceptual analysis showed that there are two possible basic approaches for cancer risk assessment, depending on the interpretation of the dose-incidence data measured in animals. However, it remains unclear which of the two interpretations is the more adequate one, adding an additional uncertainty to the already huge confidence intervals for cancer risk estimates.</abstract>
<note type="statement of responsibility">Wout Slob...[et.al]</note>
<classification authority="">7</classification>
<location>
<url displayLabel="MÁS INFORMACIÓN" usage="primary display">mailto:centrodocumentacion@fundacionmapfre.org?subject=Consulta%20de%20una%20publicaci%C3%B3n%20&body=Necesito%20m%C3%A1s%20informaci%C3%B3n%20sobre%20este%20documento%3A%20%0A%0A%5Banote%20aqu%C3%AD%20el%20titulo%20completo%20del%20documento%20del%20que%20desea%20informaci%C3%B3n%20y%20nos%20pondremos%20en%20contacto%20con%20usted%5D%20%0A%0AGracias%20%0A</url>
</location>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Risk analysis : an international journal</title>
</titleInfo>
<originInfo>
<publisher>McLean, Virginia : Society for Risk Analysis, 1987-2015</publisher>
</originInfo>
<identifier type="issn">0272-4332</identifier>
<identifier type="local">MAP20077000345</identifier>
<part>
<text>04/08/2014 Volumen 34 Número 8 - agosto 2014 </text>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<recordInfo>
<recordContentSource authority="marcorg">MAP</recordContentSource>
<recordCreationDate encoding="marc">141001</recordCreationDate>
<recordChangeDate encoding="iso8601">20141001175839.0</recordChangeDate>
<recordIdentifier source="MAP">MAP20140034703</recordIdentifier>
<languageOfCataloging>
<languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">spa</languageTerm>
</languageOfCataloging>
</recordInfo>
</mods>
</modsCollection>