Literature DB >> 19887650

Cancer risk assessment approaches at the FDA/CDER: Is the era of the 2-year bioassay drawing to a close?

David Jacobson-Kram1.   

Abstract

Determining the carcinogenic potential of materials to which humans have significant exposures is an important, complex, and imperfect exercise. Not only are the methods for such determinations protracted and expensive and use large numbers of animals, extrapolation of data from such studies to human risk is imprecise. With improved understanding of oncogene activation and tumor suppressor gene inactivation, a number of animal models have been developed to dramatically reduce latency for chemically induced cancers and has led to the development and use of shorter carcinogenicity assays. Recent studies by a number of investigators suggest that specific gene signature patterns seen after short-term exposure of rats to test chemicals can predict long-term outcomes in cancer bioassays with relatively high accuracy. In addition, a recent survey performed by PhRMA member companies examined two hundred drug years to determine whether histological biomarkers seen at the end of a six- or twelve-month toxicology study in rats can predict the outcome of a two-year carcinogenicity study. With only a handful of exceptions, chronic studies appear capable of predicting effects at the end of two years with good accuracy. It is hoped that the combination of results from transgenic mouse assays and six-month rat studies will soon supplant the need for most two-year bioassays.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19887650     DOI: 10.1177/0192623309351892

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicol Pathol        ISSN: 0192-6233            Impact factor:   1.902


  7 in total

1.  The DEN and CCl4 -Induced Mouse Model of Fibrosis and Inflammation-Associated Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Takeki Uehara; Igor P Pogribny; Ivan Rusyn
Journal:  Curr Protoc Pharmacol       Date:  2014-09-02

Review 2.  Goodbye to the bioassay.

Authors:  Jay I Goodman
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 3.524

Review 3.  The potential of organoids in toxicologic pathology: Histopathological and immunohistochemical evaluation of a mouse normal tissue-derived organoid-based carcinogenesis model.

Authors:  Rikako Ishigamori; Mie Naruse; Akihiro Hirata; Yoshiaki Maru; Yoshitaka Hippo; Toshio Imai
Journal:  J Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 1.250

4.  Molecular mechanisms of fibrosis-associated promotion of liver carcinogenesis.

Authors:  Takeki Uehara; Garrett R Ainslie; Kristi Kutanzi; Igor P Pogribny; Levan Muskhelishvili; Takeshi Izawa; Jyoji Yamate; Oksana Kosyk; Svitlana Shymonyak; Blair U Bradford; Gary A Boorman; Ramon Bataller; Ivan Rusyn
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2013-01-03       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 5.  The use of genetically modified mice in cancer risk assessment: challenges and limitations.

Authors:  David A Eastmond; Suryanarayana V Vulimiri; John E French; Babasaheb Sonawane
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 5.635

Review 6.  The Salmonella mutagenicity assay: the stethoscope of genetic toxicology for the 21st century.

Authors:  Larry D Claxton; Gisela de A Umbuzeiro; David M DeMarini
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 9.031

7.  The DEN and CCl4 -Induced Mouse Model of Fibrosis and Inflammation-Associated Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Takeki Uehara; Igor P Pogribny; Ivan Rusyn
Journal:  Curr Protoc       Date:  2021-08
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.