Historical perspective of the cancer bioassay

Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health

Volumn 31, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2005, Pages 129-140

  Pastoor, Timothy ^a   Stevens, James ^b  

^a SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION   (United States)

^b WAKE FOREST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Concordance; Harmonization; Plausibility; Predictive; Refinement; Review

Indexed keywords

CARCINOGEN; PESTICIDE;

BIOASSAY; CANCER;

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; BIOASSAY; CANCER; CARCINOGENICITY; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MORTALITY; NONHUMAN; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL ASSAY; CARCINOGENS; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS;

ANIMALIA; RODENTIA;

EID: 24944588858     PISSN: 03553140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Potter M. Percivall Pott's contribution to cancer research. In: National Cancer Institute (NCI). Conference: Biology of Cutaneous Cancer. Bathesda (MA): NCI; 1962. Monograph no 10:1-13.
2. Yamagiwa K, Ichikawa K. Experimental study of the pathogenesis of carcinoma. J Cancer Res 1915;3:1.
3. Wilbourn JD, Haroun L, Vainio H, Montesano R. Identification of chemicals carcinogenic to man. Toxicol Pathol 1984;12(4):397-9.
4. Tomatis L, Aitio A, Wilbourn J, Stinker L. Human carcinogens so far identified. Jpn J Cancer Res 1989;80(9):795-807.
5. Huff J, Cirvello J, Haseman J, Bucher J. Chemicals associated with site-specific neoplasia in 1394 long-term carcinogenesis experiments in laboratory rodents. Environ Health Perspect 1991;93:247-70.
6. Haseman JK, Huff JE. Species correlation in long-term carcinogenicity studies. Cancer Lett 1987;37:125-32.
7. Haseman JK. Statistical issues in the design, analysis and interpretation of animal carcinogenicity studies. Environ Health Perspect 1984;58:385-92.
8. Haseman JK, Huff JE, Zeiger E, McConnell, EE. Comparative results of 327 chemicals carcinogenicity studies. Environ Health Perspect 1987;74:229-35.
9. Chhabra RS, Huff JE, Schwetz BS, Selkirk J. An overview of prechronic toxicity / carcinogenicity experimental study designs and criteria used by the National Toxicology Program. Environ Health Perspect 1990;86:313-21.
10. Karstadt M, Haseman JK. Effect of discounting certain tumor types/sites on evaluations of carcinogenicity in laboratory animals. Am J Ind Med 1997;31(5):485-94.
11. US Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Fed Regist 1986;51(185):33992-34003.
12. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Proposed guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Washington (DC): USEPA; 1996. EPA/600/P-92/003C.
13. Vainio H, Magee PN, McGregor DB, McMichael AJ, editors. Mechanisms of carcinogenesis in risk identification. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1992.
14. National Toxicology Program (NTP). Report on carcinogens. 8th edition. Research Triangle Park (NC): NTP; 1998.
15. Haseman JK. Using the NTP Database to assess the value of rodent carcinogenicity studies for determining human cancer risk. Drug Metabol Rev 2000;32(2):169-86.
16. Gold LS, Manley NB, Slone TH, Ward JM. Compendium of chemical carcinogens by target organ: results of chronic bioassays in rats, mice, hamsters, dogs, and monkeys [review].Toxicol Pathol 2001;29(6):639-52.
17. Gold LS, Slone TH, Manley NB, Bernstein L. Target organs in chronic bioassays of 533 chemical carcinogens. Environ Health Perspect 1991;93:233-46.
18. El-Serag HB, Mason AC. Rising incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States. N Eng J Med 1999; 340(10):745-50.
19. National Cancer Institute (NCI) [homepage on the Internet]. SEER cancer statistics review: 1973-1999. Pontiac (MI): NCI; 2002. Access: [http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1973_1999.
20. Stevens JT, Breckenridge CB, Wetzel LT, Thakur AK, Liu C, Werner C, et al. A risk characterization for atrazine: oncogenicity profile. J Toxicol Environ Health A 1999;56:69-109.
21. Williams GM. Chemicals with carcinogenic activity in the rodent liver; mechanistic evaluation of human risk. Cancer Lett 1997;117(2):175-88.
22. Sumner DD, Stevens JT. Pharmacokinetic factors influencing risk assessment: saturation of biochemical processes and co-factor depletion. Environ Health Perspect 1994;102 suppl 11.
23. Van Gemert M, Stevens JT, Cardona RA, Hurt S. Implications of international differences in dose selection: chapter 3. In: Foran J, editor. ILSI monograph on dose selection. Washington (DC): Risk Science Institute; 1997. p 95-114.
24. Haseman JK, Seilkop SK. An examination of the association between maximum-tolerated dose and carcinogenicity in 326 long-term studies in rats and mice. Fundam Appl Toxicol 1992 Aug;19(2):207-13.
25. Gaylor DW, Gold LS. Regulatory cancer risk assessment based on a quick estimate of a benchmark dose derived from the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1998;28:222-5.
26. Ames BN, Shigenaga MK, Gold LS. DNA lesions, inducible DNA repair, and cell division: three key factors in mutagenesis and carcinogenesis. Environ Health Perspect 1993;101 suppl 5:35-44.
27. Ames BN, Gold LS. Chemical carcinogenesis: too many rodent carcinogens. Proc Natl Acad Science U S A 1990;87:7772-6.
28. Gold LS, Manley NB, Slone TH, Garfinkel GB, Rohrbach L, Ames BN. The fifth plot of the Carcinogenic Potency Database: results of animal bioassays published in the general literature through 1988 and by the National Toxicology Program through 1989. Environ Health Perspect 1993;100:65-135.
29. Gold LS, Slone TH, Stern BR, Manley NB, Ames BN. Rodent carcinogens: setting priorities. Science 1992;258:261-5.
30. Ames BN, Profet M, Gold LS. Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural). Proc Natl Acad Science U S A 1990:87: 7777-81.
31. Gold LS, Bernstein L, Magaw R, Slone TH. Interspecies extrapolation in carcinogenesis: prediction between rats and mice. Environ Health Perspect 1989;81:211-9.
32. Sills RC, French JE, Cunningham ML. New models for assessing carcinogenesis: an ongoing process. Toxicol Lett 2001;120(1-3):187-98.
33. Fung VA, Barrett JC, Huff J. The carcinogenesis bioassay in perspective: application in identifying human cancer hazards. Environ Health Perspect 1995;103:680-3.
34. Combes R, Balls M, Curren R, Fischbach M, Fusenig N, Kirkland D, et al. Cell transformation assays as predictors of human carcinogenicity: the report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 39. Available from URL: http://altweb.jhsph.edu/publications/ECVAM/ecvam39.htm. Reprinted with minor alterations from Altern Lab Anim 1999;27(5): 745-67.
35. Ames BN, Whitfield HJ Jr. Frameshift mutagenesis in Salmonella. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 1966;31:221-5.
36. Ashby J, Waters MD, Preston J, Adler ID, Douglas GR, Fielder R, et al. IPCS harmonization of methods for the prediction and quantification of human carcinogenic/mutagenic hazard, and for indicating the probable mechanism of action of carcinogens. Mutat Res 1996;10;352(1-2):153-7.
37. Water MD. Development and impact of the Gene-Tox-Program, genetic activity profiles, and their computerized databases [review]. Environ Mol Mutagen 1994;23 suppl 24:67-72.
38. Albertini RJ, Anderson D, Douglas GR, Hagmar L, Hemminki K, Merlo F, et al. IPCS guidelines for the monitoring of genotoxic effects of carcinogens in humans: International Programme on Chemical Safety. Mut Res 2000;463(2):111-72.
39. Tennant R. What is a tumor promoter? [editorial]. Environ Health Perspect 1999 Aug;107(8):A390-1.
40. Waters MD, Stack HF, Jackson MA. Short-term tests for defining muragenic carcinogens. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1999. Scientific publications no 146: 499-536.
41. Cunningham AR, Klopman G, Rosenkranz HS. Identification of structural features and associated mechanisms of action for carcinogens in rats. Mutat Res 1998;405(1):9-28.
42. King RD, Srinivasan A. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity bioassays from molecular structure using inductive logic programming. Environ Health Perspect 1996;104 suppl 5:1031-40.
43. Bristol WD, Wachsman JT, Greenwell, A. The NIEHS Predictive-Toxicology Evaluation Project: chemcarcinogenicity bioassays. Environ Health Perspect 1996;104S(5):1001-10.
44. Gulezian D, Jacobson-Kram D, McCullough CB, Olson H, Recio L, Robinson D, et al. Use of transgenic animals for carcinogenicity testing: considerations and implications for risk assessment. Toxicol Pathol 2000;28(3):482-99.
45. Eastin WC, Haseman JK, Mahler JF, Bucher J. The National Toxicology Program evaluation of genetically altered mice as predictive models for identifying carcinogens. Toxicol Pathol 1998;26(4):461-73.
46. Dunson DB, Haseman JK, van Birgelen APJM, Stasiewicz S, Tennant, RW. Statistical analysis of skin tumor data from Tg.AC mouse bioassays. Toxicol Sci 2000;55:293-302.
47. Contrera JF, DeGeorge JJ. In vivo transgenic bioassays and assessment of the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals. reviews in environmental health, 1998. Environ Health Perspect 1998;106 suppl 1.
48. United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). Guidance for industry S1B testing for carcinogenicity of pharmaceuticals. Washington (DC): Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER); 1997.
49. Davies TS, Lynch BS, Monro AM, Munro IC, Nestmann ER. Rodent carcinogenicity tests need be no longer than 18 months: an analysis based on 210 chemicals in the IARC monographs. Food Chem Toxicol 2000;38(2-3):219-35.
50. IARC. Preamble: occupational exposures to mists and vapours from strong inorganic acids; and other industrial chemicals. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1992. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, vol 54:13-32.
51. National Research Council (NRC). Science and judgment in risk assessment. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 1994.
52. National Toxicology Program (NTP). Introduction: report on carcinogens. 8th edition. Research Triangle Park (NC): National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; 1998.
53. Sonich-Mullin C, Fielder R, Wiltse J, Baetcke K, Dempsey J, Fenner-Crisp P, et al. IPCS conceptual framework for evaluation a mode of action for chemical carcinogenesis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2001;34:146-52.
54. International Life Sciences Institute. A framework for evaluating the human relevance of mode of action data from animals. In press.
55. Fleck C, Braunlich H. Age dependent differences in stimulation and compensation of renal and biliary transport processes: correlation to the physicochemical properties of the exerted substances. Arzneimittelforschung 1990;40(9):1047-53.
56. Pavkov KL, Breckenridge C, Campbell W, Capps T, Stevens JT. Evaluation of oncogenic potential of Beacon. Toxicologist 1992;12:97.
57. Russell WMS, Burch RL. Principles of humane experimental technique. Springfield (IL): Charles C Thomas, 1959.
58. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICVAM). Validation and regulatory acceptance of toxicological test methods. Research Triangle Park (NC): National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; 1997. NIH publication no 97-3981.
59. Schwetz B, Gaylor D. Alternative tests: carcinogenesis as an example. Environ Health Perspect 1998;106 suppl 2:467-71.
60. Combes RD. Detection of nongenotoxic carcinogens: major barriers to replacement of the rodent bioassay. In: van Zuphen LMF, Balls M, editors. Animal alternatives, welfare and ethics: Proceedings of the Second World Congress on Alternatives and Animals in the Life Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1997.
61. Spalding JW, French JE, Stasiewicz S, Furedi-Machacek M, Conner F, Tice RR, et al. Responses of transgenic mouse lines p53 (+/-) and Tg.AC to agents tested in conventional carcinogenicity bioassays. Toxicol Sci 2000;53:213-23.