Literature DB >> 2627673

The interpretation of equivocal or marginal animal carcinogenicity tests.

R A Squire1.   

Abstract

The interpretation of animal carcinogenicity tests traditionally rely almost exclusively upon a comparison of specific tumor rates in treated vs. matched and, perhaps, historical control animals. Yet, carcinogenicity tests yield much more biological and pathological data than simply final tumor rates. This additional data should also be considered as part of the total weight of evidence, particularly when analyzing a marginal or equivocal test result. If there are no positive findings among the data discussed here and listed in Table 1, it is unlikely that a marginal or equivocal increase in tumor incidence is actually treatment-related, irrespective of statistical analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2627673     DOI: 10.1007/bf00118408

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cell Biol Toxicol        ISSN: 0742-2091            Impact factor:   6.691


  8 in total

1.  A reexamination of false-positive rates for carcinogenesis studies.

Authors:  J K Haseman
Journal:  Fundam Appl Toxicol       Date:  1983 Jul-Aug

2.  The multistep nature of cancer development.

Authors:  E Farber
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 12.701

3.  Background data and variations in tumor rates of control rats and mice.

Authors:  J M Ward
Journal:  Prog Exp Tumor Res       Date:  1983

Review 4.  The natural history of carcinogenesis: implications of experimental carcinogenesis in the genesis of human cancer.

Authors:  H C Pitot; T Goldsworthy; S Moran
Journal:  J Supramol Struct Cell Biochem       Date:  1981

Review 5.  Chemical carcinogenesis: a biologic perspective.

Authors:  E Farber
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  1982-02       Impact factor: 4.307

6.  Activated oncogenes in B6C3F1 mouse liver tumors: implications for risk assessment.

Authors:  S H Reynolds; S J Stowers; R M Patterson; R R Maronpot; S A Aaronson; M W Anderson
Journal:  Science       Date:  1987-09-11       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 7.  An analysis of potential carcinogenic risk from formaldehyde.

Authors:  R A Squire; L L Cameron
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 3.271

8.  Use of dual control groups to estimate false positive rates in laboratory animal carcinogenicity studies.

Authors:  J K Haseman; J S Winbush; M W O'Donnell
Journal:  Fundam Appl Toxicol       Date:  1986-11
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.