Review article Unexpected tumour findings in lifetime rodent bioassay studies—what to do?

作者: R. A. Ettlin , D. E. Prentice

DOI:

关键词:

摘要: Currently, the majority of substances tested in lifetime bioassays rodents are not mutagenic and, therefore, at most weakly carcinogenic, generally by epigenetic mechanisms. It thus appears obvious that only marginal increases tumour incidences can be expected and that, every aspect a potential carcinogenic effect must thoroughly evaluated. This paper describes series key factors, which should looked order to exclude bioassay question is flawed for design, technical or qualification reasons. also provides some hints whether there indeed real just variation spontaneous incidences. Tumour findings seen context animal model, pharmcokinetics pharmcodynamics test substance, as well any other observation present studies with including non-tumour and—in particular—potential precursor lesions effects on feed intake survival. The possibility observed may species-specific relevant man discussed. important check what reported similar same pharmacological effect. Data from additional investigations material study and/or mechanistic often needed support final risk assessment. © 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

参考文章(187)
Igor Linkov, George M. Gray, Richard Wilson, Weight and Survival Depression in Rodent Bioassays with and without Tumor Decreases Toxicological Sciences. ,vol. 43, pp. 10- 18 ,(1998) , 10.1006/TOXS.1998.2444
D.Y. Lai, K.P. Baetcke, V.T. Vu, J.A. Cotruvo, S.L. Eustis, Evaluation of reduced protocols for carcinogenicity testing of chemicals: report of a joint EPA/NIEHS workshop. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. ,vol. 19, pp. 183- 201 ,(1994) , 10.1006/RTPH.1994.1017
Gordon C. Hard, John Whysner, Risk assessment of d-limonene: an example of male rat-specific renal tumorigens. Critical Reviews in Toxicology. ,vol. 24, pp. 231- 254 ,(1994) , 10.3109/10408449409021607
S.T. Vater, P.M. Mcginnis, R.S. Schoeny, S.F. Velazquez, Biological considerations for combining carcinogenicity data for quantitative risk assessment. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. ,vol. 18, pp. 403- 418 ,(1993) , 10.1006/RTPH.1993.1066
Byron E. Butterworth, Rory B. Conolly, Kevin T. Morgan, A strategy for establishing mode of action of chemical carcinogens as a guide for approaches to risk assessments. Cancer Letters. ,vol. 93, pp. 129- 146 ,(1995) , 10.1016/0304-3835(95)03794-W
M. Kuschner, The Relevance of Rodent Tumors in Assessing Carcinogenicity in Human Beings Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. ,vol. 21, pp. 250- 251 ,(1995) , 10.1006/RTPH.1995.1037
J. Ashby, A. Brady, C.R. Elcombe, B.M. Elliott, J. Ishmael, J. Odum, J.D. Tugwood, S. Kettle, I.F.H. Purchase, Mechanistically-based Human Hazard Assessment of Peroxisome Proliferator-induced Hepatocarcinogenesis: Human & Experimental Toxicology. ,vol. 13, ,(1994) , 10.1177/096032719401300201
Justin G Teeguarden, Yvonne P Dragan, Henry C Pitot, Implications of hormesis on the bioassay and hazard assessment of chemical carcinogens Human & Experimental Toxicology. ,vol. 17, pp. 254- 258 ,(1998) , 10.1177/096032719801700507
Carl L. Alden, Peter F. Smith, Charles E. Piper, Leszek Brej, A Critical Appraisal of the Value of the Mouse Cancer Bioassay in Safety Assessment Toxicologic Pathology. ,vol. 24, pp. 722- 725 ,(1996) , 10.1177/019262339602400610