The nonparametric age-adjusted test proposed by Kodell and Ahn (1) for assessing dose-related trend with respect to the tumor incidence rate in animal experiments is extended from the case of multiple sacrifices to the case of a single (terminal) sacrifice. The tumor incidence rate is made identifiable for time intervals preceding the final time interval by assuming constant proportionality of the tumor prevalences in live and dead animals. Information on cause of death is not required. A Monte Carlo simulation study is conducted to assess size and power of the test.
KodellRLAhnH. Age-adjusted trend test for the tumor incidence rate. Biometrics.1997.
2.
McKnightBCrowleyJ. Tests for differences in tumor incidence based on animal carcinogenesis experiments. J Am Stat Assoc.1984;79:639–648.
3.
PetoRPikeMCDayNEGrayRGLeePNParishSPetoJRichardsSWahrendorfJ. Guidelines for simple, sensitive significance tests for carcinogenic effects in long-term animal experiments. Annex to: Long-term and short-term screening assays for carcinogens: a critical appraisal. IARC Monographs, Supplement 2. Lyon, France: IARC;1980:311–426.
4.
HoelDGWalburgHE. Statistical analysis of survival experiments. J Nat Cancer Inst.1972;49:361–372.
5.
DewanjiAKalbfleischJD. Nonparametric methods for survival/sacrifice experiments. Biometrics.1986;42: 325–341.
6.
PortierCJDinseGE. Semiparametric analysis of tumor incidence rates in survival/sacrifice experiments. Biometrics.1987;43:107–114.
7.
MalaniHMVan RyzinJ. Comparison of two treatments in animal carcinogenicity experiments. J Am Stat Assoc.1988;83:1171–1177.
8.
WilliamsPLPortierCJ. Analytic expressions for maximum likelihood estimators in a nonparametric model of tumor incidence and death. Comm Stat—Theory Meth.1992;21:711–732.
9.
MalaniHMLuY. Animal carcinogenicity experiments with and without serial sacrifice. Comm Stat—Theory Meth.1993;22:1557–1584.
10.
AhnHKodellRL. Estimation and testing of tumor incidence rates in experiments lacking cause-of-death data. Biometrical J.1995;37:745–763.
11.
KodellRLAhnH. Nonparametric trend test for the cumulative tumor incidence rate. Comm Stat—Theory Meth.1996;25:1677–1692.
12.
DinseGE. Constant risk differences in the analysis of animal tumorigenicity data. Biometrics.1991;47:681–700.
13.
LindseyJCRyanLM. A comparison of continuous- and discrete-time three-state models for rodent tumorigenicity experiments. Environ Health Perspect.1994;102 (Suppl. 1), 9–17.
BoxMJ. A new method of constrained optimization and a comparison with other methods. Computer J.1965; 8:42–52.
16.
NelderJAMeadR. A simplex method for function maximization. Computer J.1965;7:308.
17.
RichardsonJAKuesterJL. The Complex Method for constrained optimization (Algorithm 454). Comm ACM.1973;16:487–489.
18.
BailerAJPortierCJ. Effects of treatment-induced mortality and tumor-induced mortality on tests for carcinogenicity in small samples. Biometrics.1988;44:417–431.
19.
PortierCHedgesJHoelDG. Age-specific models of mortality and tumor onset for historical control animals in the National Toxicology Program's carcinogenicity experiments. Cancer Res.1986;46:4372–4378.
20.
DinseGE. A comparison of tumour incidence analyses applicable in single-sacrifice animal experiments. Stat Med.1994;13:689–708.
21.
PetoRPetoJ. Asymptotically efficient rank invariant test procedures (with discussion). J Roy Stat Soc A.1972;135:185–207.
22.
BoldebuckDHHeimannGNeuhausG. Analysing carcinogenicity assays without cause of death information. Drug Inf J.1997;31.
23.
MantelN. Evaluation of survival data and two new rank-order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemo Reports.1966;50:163–170.
24.
TaroneRE. Tests for trend in life table analysis. Biometrika.1975;62:679–682.
