Literature DB >> 11294970

Harmonization of cancer and noncancer risk assessment: proceedings of a consensus-building workshop.

M S Bogdanffy1, G Daston, E M Faustman, C A Kimmel, G L Kimmel, J Seed, V Vu.   

Abstract

Significant advancements have been made toward the use of all relevant scientific information in health risk assessments. This principle has been set forth in risk-assessment guidance documents of international agencies including those of the World Health Organization's International Programme on Chemical Safety, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Health Canada. Improving the scientific basis of risk assessment is a leading strategic goal of the Society of Toxicology. In recent years, there has been a plethora of mechanistic research on modes of chemical toxicity that establishes mechanistic links between noncancer responses to toxic agents and subsequent overt manifestations of toxicity such as cancer. The research suggests that differences in approaches to assessing risk of cancer and noncancer toxicity need to be resolved and a common broad paradigm for dose-response assessments developed for all toxicity endpoints. In November 1999, a workshop entitled "Harmonization of Cancer and Noncancer Risk Assessment" was held to discuss the most critical issues involved in developing a more consistent and unified approach to risk assessment for all endpoints. Invited participants from government, industry, and academia discussed focus questions in the areas of mode of action as the basis for harmonization, common levels of adverse effect across toxicities for use in dose-response assessments, and scaling and uncertainty factors. This report summarizes the results of those discussions. There was broad agreement, albeit not unanimous, that current science supports the development of a harmonized set of principles that guide risk assessments for all toxic endpoints. There was an acceptance among the participants that understanding the mode of action of a chemical is ultimately critical for nondefault risk assessments, that common modes of action for different toxicities can be defined, and that our approach to assessing toxicity should be biologically consistent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11294970     DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/61.1.18

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicol Sci        ISSN: 1096-0929            Impact factor:   4.849


  11 in total

1.  Adverse Outcome Pathways as Versatile Tools in Liver Toxicity Testing.

Authors:  Emma Arnesdotter; Eva Gijbels; Bruna Dos Santos Rodrigues; Vânia Vilas-Boas; Mathieu Vinken
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

Review 2.  Linear low-dose extrapolation for noncancer heath effects is the exception, not the rule.

Authors:  Lorenz R Rhomberg; Julie E Goodman; Lynne T Haber; Michael Dourson; Melvin E Andersen; James E Klaunig; Bette Meek; Paul S Price; Roger O McClellan; Samuel M Cohen
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 5.635

3.  Practical implications of nonlinear effects in risk-assessment harmonization.

Authors:  John A Bukowski; R Jeffrey Lewis
Journal:  Nonlinearity Biol Toxicol Med       Date:  2004-01

Review 4.  Application of the U.S. EPA mode of action Framework for purposes of guiding future research: a case study involving the oral carcinogenicity of hexavalent chromium.

Authors:  Chad M Thompson; Laurie C Haws; Mark A Harris; Nicole M Gatto; Deborah M Proctor
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2010-10-14       Impact factor: 4.849

5.  Meeting report: mode(s) of action of asbestos and related mineral fibers.

Authors:  Maureen R Gwinn; Danielle DeVoney; Annie M Jarabek; Babasaheb Sonawane; John Wheeler; David N Weissman; Scott Masten; Claudia Thompson
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2011-08-01       Impact factor: 9.031

6.  Systems Biology and Biomarkers of Early Effects for Occupational Exposure Limit Setting.

Authors:  D Gayle DeBord; Lyle Burgoon; Stephen W Edwards; Lynne T Haber; M Helen Kanitz; Eileen Kuempel; Russell S Thomas; Berran Yucesoy
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.155

7.  Issues in using human variability distributions to estimate low-dose risk.

Authors:  Kenny S Crump; Weihsueh A Chiu; Ravi P Subramaniam
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2009-10-23       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Adverse Outcome Pathways as Tools to Assess Drug-Induced Toxicity.

Authors:  Mathieu Vinken
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2016

9.  Advances in Inhalation Dosimetry Models and Methods for Occupational Risk Assessment and Exposure Limit Derivation.

Authors:  Eileen D Kuempel; Lisa M Sweeney; John B Morris; Annie M Jarabek
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.155

10.  Dose-Related Severity Sequence, and Risk-Based Integration, of Chemically Induced Health Effects.

Authors:  Salomon Sand; Roland Lindqvist; Dietrich von Rosen; Nils-Gunnar Ilbäck
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 4.849

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.