Literature DB >> 1954931

Predicting the carcinogenicity of chemicals in humans from rodent bioassay data.

G Goodman1, R Wilson.   

Abstract

Regulatory agencies currently rely on rodent carcinogenicity bioassay data to predict whether or not a given chemical poses a carcinogenic threat to humans. We argue that it is always more useful to know a chemical's carcinogenic potency (with confidence limits) than to be able to say only qualitatively that it has been found to be a carcinogen. In a typical bioassay, a chemical is administered to groups of 50 to 100 rodents at the highest feasible level (the maximum tolerated dose) and rarely at less than 1/10 this dose in order to maximize the statistical significance of any increase in tumors that might result. Recently, much experimental work has focused on the mechanisms by which site-specific toxicity arising from chronic administration at the maximum tolerated dose may lead to carcinogenicity. Extrapolation of high-dose results to low doses does not take into consideration the possibility of a threshold dose, below which the carcinogenic potency is much lower or even zero. Threshold dose-response phenomena may be much more relevant to the etiology of cancer in the rodent bioassays than was earlier realized; if so, there is an even greater need for establishing dose-dependent potency estimates. The emphasis of this review is on the interspecies comparison of high-dose potencies. The qualitative and quantitative comparison of carcinogenicities between mice and rats and between rodents and humans is reviewed and discussed. We conclude that there is a good qualitative (yes/no) correlation for both the rat/mouse and the rodent/human comparison. There is also a good correlation of the carcinogenic potencies between rats and mice, and the upper limits on potencies in humans are consistent with rodent potencies for those chemicals for which human exposure data are available. For the rodent/human comparison, the best estimate of the interspecies potency factor is lognormally distributed around 1 when the potencies in both species are measured in units of (mg/kg-day)-1.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1954931      PMCID: PMC1567942          DOI: 10.1289/ehp.94-1567942

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Health Perspect        ISSN: 0091-6765            Impact factor:   9.031


  118 in total

1.  Chronic bioassays: relevance to quantitative risk assessment of carcinogens.

Authors:  J P Rieth; T B Starr
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  1989-10       Impact factor: 3.271

Review 2.  Chemically induced cell proliferation as a criterion in selecting doses for long-term bioassays.

Authors:  J A Swenberg; R R Maronpot
Journal:  Prog Clin Biol Res       Date:  1991

3.  Utilization of the quantitative component of positive and negative results of short-term tests.

Authors:  S Parodi; M Taningher; L Santi
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1988 May-Aug       Impact factor: 2.433

4.  Difficulties in extrapolating the results of toxicity studies in laboratory animals to man.

Authors:  D P Rall
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  1969-10       Impact factor: 6.498

5.  Mortality from liver disease among Italian vinyl chloride monomer/polyvinyl chloride manufacturers.

Authors:  R Pirastu; P Comba; A Reggiani; V Foa; A Masina; C Maltoni
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.214

Review 6.  The origins of human cancer: molecular mechanisms of carcinogenesis and their implications for cancer prevention and treatment--twenty-seventh G.H.A. Clowes memorial award lecture.

Authors:  I B Weinstein
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1988-08-01       Impact factor: 12.701

7.  Relative potency of chemical carcinogens in rodents.

Authors:  D W Gaylor; J J Chen
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 4.000

Review 8.  Dose-response relationships for carcinogens: a review.

Authors:  L Zeise; R Wilson; E A Crouch
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 9.031

9.  Epidemiologic evidence for an association between gasoline and kidney cancer.

Authors:  P E Enterline; J Viren
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  A two-stage theory of carcinogenesis in relation to the age distribution of human cancer.

Authors:  P ARMITAGE; R DOLL
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1957-06       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  The legacy of the F344 rat as a cancer bioassay model (a retrospective summary of three common F344 rat neoplasms).

Authors:  Robert R Maronpot; Abraham Nyska; Jennifer E Foreman; Yuval Ramot
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 5.635

Review 2.  Drug toxicokinetics: scope and limitations that arise from species differences in pharmacodynamic and carcinogenic responses.

Authors:  A Monro
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1994-02

Review 3.  An alternative approach for investigating the carcinogenicity of indoor air pollution: pets as sentinels of environmental cancer risk.

Authors:  J A Bukowski; D Wartenberg
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 4.  In vivo transgenic bioassays and assessment of the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals.

Authors:  J F Contrera; J J DeGeorge
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 9.031

5.  The role of plant processing for the cancer preventive potential of Ethiopian kale (Brassica carinata).

Authors:  Grace Akinyi Odongo; Nina Schlotz; Corinna Herz; Franziska S Hanschen; Susanne Baldermann; Susanne Neugart; Bernhard Trierweiler; Lara Frommherz; Charles M A P Franz; Benard Ngwene; Abraham Wahid Luvonga; Monika Schreiner; Sascha Rohn; Evelyn Lamy
Journal:  Food Nutr Res       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 3.894

6.  Chemical carcinogen safety testing: OECD expert group international consensus on the development of an integrated approach for the testing and assessment of chemical non-genotoxic carcinogens.

Authors:  Miriam N Jacobs; Annamaria Colacci; Raffaella Corvi; Monica Vaccari; M Cecilia Aguila; Marco Corvaro; Nathalie Delrue; Daniel Desaulniers; Norman Ertych; Abigail Jacobs; Mirjam Luijten; Federica Madia; Akiyoshi Nishikawa; Kumiko Ogawa; Kiyomi Ohmori; Martin Paparella; Anoop Kumar Sharma; Paule Vasseur
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2020-06-27       Impact factor: 5.153

7.  Are Raw Brassica Vegetables Healthier Than Cooked Ones? A Randomized, Controlled Crossover Intervention Trial on the Health-Promoting Potential of Ethiopian Kale.

Authors:  Nina Schlotz; Grace A Odongo; Corinna Herz; Hanna Waßmer; Carla Kühn; Franziska S Hanschen; Susanne Neugart; Nadine Binder; Benard Ngwene; Monika Schreiner; Sascha Rohn; Evelyn Lamy
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2018-11-02       Impact factor: 5.717

8.  Nongenotoxic carcinogens: an extension of the perspective provided by Perera.

Authors:  J Ashby; I F Purchase
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 9.031

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.