Review of alternative methods of carcinogenicity testing and evaluation of human pharmaceuticals

Adverse Drug Reactions and Toxicological Reviews

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 215-233

  Van Deun, Koen ^a   Van Cauteren, Herman ^a   Vandenberghe, John ^a   Canning, Michael ^a   Vanparys, Philippe ^a   Coussement, Werner ^a  

^a JANSSEN RESEARCH FOUNDATION   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Carcinogenicity; Genotoxic; Non genotoxic; Risk assessment; Rodent bioassay; Short term tests; Transgenic mice

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL; AMPICILLIN; CARBON TETRACHLORIDE; CHLOROFORM; CHLORPROMAZINE; CLOFIBRATE; COLORING AGENT; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; CYCLOSPORIN A; CYTOTOXIC AGENT; DIELDRIN; DIETHYLSTILBESTROL; ESTRADIOL; FOOD ADDITIVE; HALOPERIDOL; MANNITOL; MELPHALAN; METHAPYRILENE; MITOGENIC AGENT; MUSTARD GAS; NITROSAMINE; ORCIPRENALINE; PHENACETIN; PHENOBARBITAL; PHTHALIC ACID; PIRINIXIC ACID; RESERPINE; SULFAFURAZOLE; SULFAMETHOXAZOLE; VETERINARY DRUG;

AMES TEST; ANALYTICAL ERROR; BIOASSAY; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CANCER RISK; CARCINOGEN TESTING; CARCINOGENICITY; CHEMICAL CARCINOGENESIS; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; DNA ALKYLATION; DOSE CALCULATION; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG EXPOSURE; DRUG MECHANISM; DRUG METABOLISM; DRUG SAFETY; EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL; GENOTOXICITY; HUMAN; HUMAN FACTORS RESEARCH; LONG TERM EXPOSURE; LYMPHOMA CELL LINE; MICRONUCLEUS TEST; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; ORAL DRUG ADMINISTRATION; PHARMACODYNAMICS; RAT; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; SYRIAN HAMSTER; TOXICOKINETICS; TRANSGENIC ANIMAL; UNSCHEDULED DNA SYNTHESIS;

ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES; ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL ASSAY; CARCINOGENICITY TESTS; GUIDELINES; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MICE; MUTAGENICITY TESTS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; RATS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ANIMALIA; CRICETINAE; MESOCRICETUS AURATUS; MUS MUSCULUS; RODENTIA;

EID: 0031411728     PISSN: 0964198X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Weisburger EK. History of the Bioassay Program of the National Cancer Institute. Prog. Exp. Tumor Res 1983; 26: 187-201.
2. Inveresk Research International. Rodent carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity. A review of test protocols for pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, food additives and industrial chemicals according to European, American and Japanese guidelines. Regulatory Guidelines 1990; 1: 1-13.
3. Peto R, Pike MC, Day N, Gray RG, Lee PN, Parish S, Wahrendorf J. Guidelines for simple, sensitive significance tests for carcinogenic effects in long-term animal experiments. In Long-term and short-term screening assays for carcinogens: A critical appraisal. WHO, monographs, supplement 2, Lyon, 1980; 311-426.
4. Ames BN, Durston WE, Yamasaki E, et al. Carcinogens are mutagens: a simple test system combining liver homogenates for activation and bacteria for detection. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1973; 70: 2281-5.
5. Berenblum I, Neuberger A, Tatum EL (eds.). Carcinogenesis as a biological problem. North-Holland Amsterdam; 1974.
6. Van Cauteren H, de Kok MCM, van Schooten FJ. Cancer risk evaluation. Study unit 13, 1996: 384-412. In Toxicology, Principles and Applications, Niesink RJM, de Vries J, Hollinger M. (Eds), CRC Press.
7. Armitage P, Doll R. The age distribution of cancer and multistage theory of carcinogenesis. Br J Cancer 1954; 8: 1-12.
8. Fearon ER, Vogelstein B. A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell 1990; 61: 759-67.
9. Purchase IFH. Current knowledge of mechanisms of carcinogenicity: genotoxins versus non-genotoxins. Human Exp Toxicol 1994; 13: 17-28.
10. Van Cauteren H, de Kok MCM, van Schooten FJ. Introduction to carcinogens. Study unit 12, 1996: 347-383. In Toxicology, Principles and Applications Niesink RJM, de Vries J, Hollinger M (Eds), CRC Press.
11. Weisburger JH. Human protection against non-genotoxic carcinogens in the US without the Delaney Clause. Exp Toxic Pathol 1996; 48: 201-8
12. Williams GM and Whysner J. Epigenetic carcinogens: evaluation and risk assessment. Exp Toxic Pathol 1996; 48: 189-5.
13. Poirier LA, Weisburger EK. Selection of Carcinogens and Related Compounds Tested for Mutagenic Activity. J Natl Cancer Inst 1979; 62(4): 833-40.
14. Williams GM, Iatropoulos MJ and Weisburger JH. Chemical carcinogen mechanisms of action and implications for testing methodology. Exp Toxic Pathol 1996; 48: 101-11.
15. Ashby J, Tennant RW. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity for 44 chemicals: results. Mutagenesis 1994; 9: 7-15.
16. Davies TS, Monro AM. The rodent carcinogenicity bioassay produces a similar frequency of tumor increases and decreases: Implications for risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1994; 20: 281-301.
17. Carr CJ, Kolbye AC. A critique of the use of the maximum tolerated dose in bioassays to assess cancer risks from chemicals. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1991; 14: 78-87.
18. Savolainen K. Commentary: the use of maximum tolerated dose in rodent carcinogenicity bioassays and its relevance to human risk assessment. Human Exp Toxicol 1997; 16: 190-2.
19. Meijers JMM, Swaen GMH, Bloemen IJN. The predictive value of animal data in human cancer risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1997; 25: 94-102.
20. IARC (eds) IARC Monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans 1980; 24: 11-35.
21. Monro A. How useful are chronic (life-span) toxicology studies in rodents in identifying pharmaceuticals that pose a carcinogenic risk to humans? Adverse Drug Read Toxicol Rev 1993; 12(1): 5-34.
22. Monro A. Testing for carcinogenic potential. Rapporteur' report. D'Arcy PF, Harron DWG (eds) Proceedings of the third international conference of harmonisation. Yokohama. The Queen's University, Belfast 1996: 261-8.
23. Marselos M, Vainio H. Carcinogenic properties of pharmaceutical agents evaluated in the IARC monographs programme. Carcinogenesis 1991; 12(10): 1751-66.
24. Vaino H, Coleman M, Wilbourn J. Carcinogenicity evaluations and ongoing studies: the IRAC databases. Environ Health Perspect 1991; 96: 5-9.
25. Contrera JF, Jacobs AC, DeGeorge JJ. Carcinogenicity testing and the evaluation of the regulatory requirements for pharmaceuticals. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1997; 25: 130-145.
26. Davies TS, Monro A. Marketed human Pharmaceuticals reported to be tumorigenic in rodents. J Am Coll Toxicol 1995; 14(2): 90-107.
27. Usui R, Griffiths SA, Lumley CE. Industry viewpoint: The utility of the mouse for the assessment of the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals. D'Arcy PF, Harron DWG (eds) Proceedings of the third international conference of harmonisation. Yokohama. The Queen's University. Belfast 1996: 279-84.
28. Van Oosterhout JPJ, Van der Laan JW, De Waal EJ, Olejniczak K, Hilgenfeld M, Schmidt V, Bass R. The utility of two rodent species in carcinogenic risk assessment of pharmaceuticals in Europe. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1997; 25: 6-17.
29. Maronpot RR. Tests for carcinogenic potential of chemicals. In: Handbook of Toxicologic Pathology. Paragraph 7. Chemical Carcinogenesis 1991: 119-7.
30. Ashby J. Alternatives to the 2-species bioassay for the identification of potential human carcinogens. Hum and Exp Toxicol 1996; 15: 183-202.
31. Gonzalez FJ. Use of transgenic animals in carcinogenesis studies. Mol Carcino 1996; 16: 63-7.
32. Tennant R. Transgenic mouse models in chemical carcinogenesis studies. Arch Toxicol Suppl 1994; 16: 261-70.
33. Tennant RW, French JE, Spalding JW. Identifying chemical carcinogens and assessing potential risk in short-term bioassays using transgenic mouse models. Environ Health Perspect 1995; 103(10): 942-50.
34. Yamamoto S, Mitsumori K, Kodama Y, Matsunuma N, Manabe S, Okamiya H, Suzuki H, Fukuda T, Sakamaki Y, Sunaga M, Nomura G, Hioki K, Wakan S, Nomura T, Hayashi Y. Rapid induction of more malignant tumours by various genotoxic carcinogens in transgenic mice harboring a human prototype c-Ha-ras gene than in control non-transgenic mice. Carcinogenesis 1996; 17: 101-7.
35. De Vries A, Van Oostrom CTM, Dortant PM, Beems RB, Van Kreijl CF, Capel PJA, van Steeg H. Spontaneous liver tumours and benzo(a)pyrene-induced lymphomas in XPA-deficient mice. Mol Carcinog 1997; 19(1): 46-53.
36. Wislocki PG, Bagan ES, Lu AYH, Dooley KL, Fu PP, Han-Hsu H, Beland FA, Kadlubar FF. Tumourigenicity of nitrated derivatives of pyrene, benz(a)anthracene, chrysene and beno(a)pyrene in the newborn mouse assay. Carcinogenesis 1986; 7(8): 1317-22.
37. Fu PP, Von Tungeln LS, Hammons GJ, McMahon G, Wogan GN, Flammang TJ, Kadlubar FF. Carcinogenicity in the B6C3F1 neonatal mouse: a potential alternative bioassay. In press.
38. Fujii K. Evaluation of the newborn mouse model for chemical tumorigenesis. Carcinogenesis 1991; 12: 1409-15.
39. Isfort RJ and LeBoeuf, RA. The Syrian hamster embryo (SHE) cell transformation system: a biologically relevant in vitro model-with carcinogen predicting capabilities - of in vivo multistage neoplastic transformation. Crit Rev Oncog 1995; 6: 251-60.
40. ILSI/HESI (Statement Report 1997).
41. Hildebrand B, Grasso P, Ashby J, Chamberlain M, Jung R, van Kolfschoten A, Loeser E, Smith E, Bontinck WJ. Validity of considering that early changes may act as indicators for non-genotoxic carcinogenesis. Mutat Res 1991; 248: 217-20.
42. Monro A. Are lifespan rodent carcinogenicity studies defensible for pharmaceutical agents. Exp Toxicol Pathol 1996; 48: 155-66.
43. Davies TS, Monro AM. The duration of the rodent bioassay necessary to detect agents carcinogenic to humans. Fundam Appt Toxicol (Suppl.) 1996; 30: 201.