BACKGROUND: In vitro toxicology studies of tobacco and tobacco smoke have been used to understand why tobacco use causes cancer and to assess the toxicologic impact of tobacco product design changes. The need for toxicology studies has been heightened given the Food and Drug Administration's newly granted authority over tobacco products for mandating tobacco product performance standards and evaluate manufacturers' health claims about modified tobacco products. The goal of this review is to critically evaluate in vitro toxicology methods related to cancer for assessing tobacco products and to identify related research gaps. METHODS: PubMed database searches were used to identify tobacco-related in vitro toxicology studies published since 1980. Articles published before 1980 with high relevance also were identified. The data were compiled to examine (a) the goals of the study, (b) the methods for collecting test substances, (c) experimental designs, (d) toxicologic end points, and (e) relevance to cancer risk. RESULTS: A variety of in vitro assays are available to assess tobacco smoke that address different modes of action, mostly using non-human cell models. However, smokeless tobacco products perform poorly in these assays. Although reliable as a screening tool for qualitative assessments, the available in vitro assays have been poorly validated for quantitative comparisons of different tobacco products. Assay batteries have not been developed, although they exist for nontobacco assessments. Extrapolating data from in vitro studies to human risks remains hypothetical. CONCLUSIONS: In vitro toxicology methods are useful for screening toxicity, but better methods are needed for today's context of regulation and evaluation of health claims.
BACKGROUND: In vitro toxicology studies of tobacco and tobacco smoke have been used to understand why tobacco use causes cancer and to assess the toxicologic impact of tobacco product design changes. The need for toxicology studies has been heightened given the Food and Drug Administration's newly granted authority over tobacco products for mandating tobacco product performance standards and evaluate manufacturers' health claims about modified tobacco products. The goal of this review is to critically evaluate in vitro toxicology methods related to cancer for assessing tobacco products and to identify related research gaps. METHODS: PubMed database searches were used to identify tobacco-related in vitro toxicology studies published since 1980. Articles published before 1980 with high relevance also were identified. The data were compiled to examine (a) the goals of the study, (b) the methods for collecting test substances, (c) experimental designs, (d) toxicologic end points, and (e) relevance to cancer risk. RESULTS: A variety of in vitro assays are available to assess tobacco smoke that address different modes of action, mostly using non-human cell models. However, smokeless tobacco products perform poorly in these assays. Although reliable as a screening tool for qualitative assessments, the available in vitro assays have been poorly validated for quantitative comparisons of different tobacco products. Assay batteries have not been developed, although they exist for nontobacco assessments. Extrapolating data from in vitro studies to human risks remains hypothetical. CONCLUSIONS: In vitro toxicology methods are useful for screening toxicity, but better methods are needed for today's context of regulation and evaluation of health claims.
Authors: Geoffrey M Curtin; Margaret Hanausek; Zbigniew Walaszek; Arnold T Mosberg; Thomas J Slaga Journal: Toxicol Sci Date: 2004-05-24 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Peter G Sacks; Zhong-Lin Zhao; Wieslawa Kosinska; Kenneth E Fleisher; Terry Gordon; Joseph B Guttenplan Journal: Food Chem Toxicol Date: 2011-06-21 Impact factor: 6.023
Authors: Daniel Y Weng; Jinguo Chen; Cenny Taslim; Ping-Ching Hsu; Catalin Marian; Sean P David; Christopher A Loffredo; Peter G Shields Journal: Mol Carcinog Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 4.784
Authors: Andrey Massarsky; Nishad Jayasundara; Jordan M Bailey; Anthony N Oliveri; Edward D Levin; G L Prasad; Richard T Di Giulio Journal: Neurotoxicol Teratol Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 3.763
Authors: Xiang Li; Bencheng Lin; Huashan Zhang; Fuwei Xie; Na Ta; Lei Tian; Huimin Liu; Zhuge Xi Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int Date: 2015-10-03 Impact factor: 4.223
Authors: Jason Chien; John H Hwang; Sedtavut Nilaad; Jorge A Masso-Silva; Sae Jeong Ahn; Elisa K McEachern; Alexander Moshensky; Min-Kwang Byun; Laura E Crotty Alexander Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 3.441
Authors: Catalin Marian; Richard J O'Connor; Mirjana V Djordjevic; Vaughan W Rees; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Peter G Shields Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.254