Mode of action: Moving toward a more relevant and efficient assessment paradigm

Journal of Nutrition

Volumn 142, Issue 12, 2012, Pages

  Dellarco, Vicki ^a   Fenner Crisp, Penelope A ^b  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^b Scientific Consultant   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; MODE OF ACTION; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; TOXICITY TESTING;

ANIMALS; CHEMICAL SAFETY; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 84872157148     PISSN: 00223166     EISSN: 15416100     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3945/jn.111.157396     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. NRC. Science and decisions: advancing risk assessment. National Research Council. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009.
2. NRC. A risk-characterization framework for decision-making at the Food and Drug Administration. National Research Council. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011.
3. Sonich-Mullin C, Fielder R, Wiltse J, Baetcke K, Dempsey J, Fenner-Crisp P, Grant D, Hartley M, Knaap A, Kroese D, et al. IPCS conceptual framework for evaluating a MOA for chemical carcinogenesis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2001;34:146-52.
4. USEPA. Guidelines for cancer risk assessment. EPA/630/P-03/ 001FMarch 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2005.
5. Cohen SM, Meek ME, Klaunig JE, Patton DE, Fenner-Crisp PA. The human relevance of information on carcinogenic modes of action: overview. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2003;33:581-9.
6. Meek ME, Bucher JR, Cohen SM, Dellarco V, Hill RN, Lehman-McKeeman LD, Longfellow DG, Pastoor T, Seed J, Patton DE. A framework for human relevance analysis of information on carcinogenic modes of action. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2003;33:591-653.
7. Seed J, Carney EW, Corley RA, Crofton KM, DeSesso JM, Foster PM, Kavlock R, Kimmel G, Klaunig J, Meek ME, et al. Using mode of action and life stage information to evaluate the human relevance of animal toxicity data. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2005;35:664-72.
8. Boobis AR, Cohen SM, Dellarco V, McGregor D, Meek ME, Vickers C, Willcocks D, Farland W. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2006;36:781-92.
9. Boobis AR, Doe JE, Heinrich-Hirsch B, Meek ME, Munn S, Ruchirawat M, Schlatter J, Seed J, Vickers C. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a noncancer mode of action for humans. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2008;38:87-96.
10. Dellarco V, Henry T, Sayre R, Seed J, Bradbury S. Meeting the common needs of a more effective and efficient testing and assessment paradigm for chemical risk management. Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2010;13:347-60.
11. Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med. 1965;58:295-300.
12. Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of smoking: cancer, a report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 1982;17-20, 29 et seq.
13. Faustman EM, Ponce RA, Seeley MR, Whittaker SG. Experimental approaches to evaluate mechanisms of developmental toxicity. In: Hood RD, editor. Handbook of developmental toxicology. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 1997. p. 13-41.
14. International Programme for Chemical Safety. Harmonization Project Document No. 4, Part 1: IPCS Framework for analyzing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans and case-studies; Part 2 IPCS Framework for analyzing the relevance of a non-cancer mode of action for humans; 2007 [cited January 2011]. Available from: http://www.who.int/ipcs/methods/harmonization/areas/cancer_mode.pdf.
15. Klaunig JE, Babich MA, Baetcke KP, Cook JC, Corton JC, David RM, DeLuca JG, Lai DY, McKee RH, Peters JM, et al. PPARa agonist-induced rodent tumors: mode(s) of action and human relevance. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2003;33:655-780.
16. Pastoor T, Rose P, Lloyd S, Peffer R, Green T. Case study: weight of evidence evaluation of the human health relevance of thiamethoxam-related mouse liver tumors. Toxicol Sci. 2005;86:56-60.
17. Holsapple MP, Pitot HC, Cohen SH, Boobis AR, Klaunig JE, Pastoor T, Dellarco VL, Dragan YP. Mode of action in relevance of rodent liver tumors to human cancer risk. Toxicol Sci. 2006;89:51-6.
18. WHO/IPCS Harmonization Project. Update January 2011 [cited January 2011]. Available from: http://www.who.int/ipcs/methods/harmonization/areas/jan11newsletter.pdf.
19. NRC. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2007 [cited January 2011]. Available from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11970#toc.