IWGT report on quantitative approaches to genotoxicity risk assessment I. Methods and metrics for defining exposure-response relationships and points of departure (PoDs)

Mutation Research - Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis

Volumn 783, Issue , 2015, Pages 55-65

  MacGregor, James T ^a   Frötschl, Roland ^b   White, Paul A ^c   Crump, Kenny S ^d   Eastmond, David A ^e   Fukushima, Shoji ^f   Guérard, Melanie ^g   Hayashi, Makoto ^h   Soeteman Hernández, Lya G ⁱ   Kasamatsu, Toshio ^j   Levy, Dan D ^k   Morita, Takeshi ^l   Müller, Lutz ^g   Schoeny, Rita ^m   Schuler, Maik J ⁿ   Thybaud, Véronique ^o   Johnson, George E ^p  

^a Toxicology Consulting Services   (United States)

^b Bundesinstitut fur Arzneimittel und Medizinproducte   (Germany)

^c HEALTH CANADA   (Canada)

^d University of California ^*  (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f Japan Bioassay Research Center   (Japan)

^g F HOFFMANN LA ROCHE LTD   (Switzerland)

^h Biosafety Research Center   (Japan)

ⁱ NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

^j KAO CORPORATION   (Japan)

^k CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

^l NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH SCIENCES   (Japan)

^m U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

ⁿ PFIZER INC   (United States)

^o SANOFI   (France)

^p SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

Benchmark dose; Genotoxicity; Points of departure; Quantitative risk assessment

Indexed keywords

LEAD; DNA; MUTAGENIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; CANCER INCIDENCE; CARCINOGENICITY; CHROMOSOME DAMAGE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; DOSE RESPONSE; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; GENE MUTATION; GENETIC DAMAGE; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETIC TOXICOLOGY; GENOTOXICITY; GENOTOXICITY ASSAY; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; INCIDENCE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NEOPLASM; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SCREENING TEST; WORKSHOP; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CHEMICALLY INDUCED; GENETICS; METABOLISM; MUTAGEN TESTING; MUTATION; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS;

DNA; HUMANS; MODELS, GENETIC; MUTAGENICITY TESTS; MUTAGENS; MUTATION; NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84928789893     PISSN: 13835718     EISSN: 18793592     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2014.09.011     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Müller L., Blakey D., Dearfield K.L., Galloway S., Guzzie P., Hayashi M., Kasper P., Kirkland D., MacGregor J.T., Parry J.M., Schechtman L., Smith A., Tanaka N., Tweats D., Yamasaki H. Strategy for genotoxicity testing and stratification of genotoxicity test results - report on initial activities of the IWGT Expert Group. Mutat. Res. 2003, 540:177-181.
2. Kirkland D.J., Hayashi M., Jacobson-Kram D., Kasper P., MacGregor J.T., Müller L., Uno Y. Summary of major conclusions from the 4th IWGT, San Francisco, 9-10 September, 2005. Mutat. Res. 2007, 627:5-9.
3. Thybaud V., MacGregor J.T., Müller L., Crebelli R., Dearfield K., Douglas G., Farmer P.B., Gocke E., Hayashi M., Lovell D.P., Lutz W.K., Marzin D., Moore M., Nohmi T., Phillips D.H., van Benthem B.J. Strategies in case of positive in vivo results in genotoxicity testing. Mutat. Res. 2011, 723:121-128.
4. Wassom J.S., Malling H.V., Sankaranarayanan K., Lu P.Y. Reflections on the origins and evolution of genetic toxicology and the Environmental Mutagen Society. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2010, 51:746-760.
5. Ministry of Labour, Japan Standards for Mutagenicity Tests using Microorganisms, Notification based on Article 57-2-1 of the Industrial Safety and Health Law, Ordinance No. 57 1972.
6. Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Environment Advisory Committee on Mutagenesis Guidelines on the use of mutagenicity tests in the toxicological evaluation of chemicals. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 1988, 11:261-304.
7. European Union Council Council Directive 83/570/EEC of 26 October 1983 amending Directives 65/65/EEC, 75/318/EEC and 75/319/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products 1983.
8. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Toxic substances control act (1976). Chemical Mutagens: Principles and Methods for Their Detection 1978, 287-335. Plenum Press, New York. A. Hollaender, F.J. de Serres (Eds.).
9. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Subdivision F: Toxicology Data Requirements, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 40 2005.
10. Flamm W.G., Valcovic L.R., de Serres F.J., D'Aguanno W., Fishbein L., Green S., Malling H.V., Mayer V., Prival M.J., Wolff G., Zeiger E. Approaches to determining the mutagenic properties of chemicals: risk to future generations. J. Environ. Toxicol. 1977, 1:301-352.
11. Ames B.N. Carcinogens are mutagens: their detection and classification. Environ. Health Perspect. 1973, 6:115-118.
12. McCann J., Choi E., Yamasaki E., Ames B.N. Detection of carcinogens as mutagens in the Salmonella/microsome test: assay of 300 chemicals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1975, 72:5135-5139.
13. Fetterman B.A., Kim B.S., Margolin B.H., Schildcrout J.S., Smith M.G., Wagner S.M., Zeiger E. Predicting rodent carcinogenicity from mutagenic potency measured in the Ames Salmonella assay. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 1997, 29:312-322.
14. Schildcrout J.S., Margolin B.H., Zeiger E. Predicting rodent carcinogenicity using potency measures of the in vitro sister chromatid exchange and chromosome aberration assays. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 1999, 33:59-64.
15. Witt K.L., Knapton A., Wehr C.M., Hook G.J., Mirsalis J., Shelby M.D., MacGregor J.T. Micronucleated erythrocyte frequency in peripheral blood of B6C3F(1) mice from short-term, prechronic, and chronic studies of the NTP carcinogenesis bioassay program. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2000, 36:163-194.
16. Eastmond D.A., Hartwig A., Anderson D., Anwar W.A., Cimino M.C., Dobrev I., Douglas G.R., Nohmi T., Phillips D.H., Vickers C. Mutagenicity testing for chemical risk assessment: update of the WHO/IPCS harmonized scheme. Mutagenesis 2009, 24:341-349.
17. Snyder R.D., Green J.W. A review of the genotoxicity of marketed pharmaceuticals. Mutat. Res. 2001, 488:151-169.
18. Sofuni T., Hayashi M., Nohmi T., Matsuoka A., Yamada M., Kamata E. Semi-quantitative evaluation of genotoxic activity of chemical substances and evidence for a biological threshold of genotoxic activity. Mutat. Res. 2000, 464:97-104.
19. Kirkland D., Aardema M., Henderson L., Müller L. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity. Mutat. Res. 2005, 584:1-256.
20. Elespuru R.K., Agarwal R., Atrakchi A.H., Bigger C.A., Heflich R.H., Jagannath D.R., Levy D.D., Moore M.M., Ouyang Y., Robison T.W., Sotomayor R.E., Cimino M.C., Dearfield K.L. Current and future application of genetic toxicity assays: the role and value of in vitro mammalian assays. Toxicol. Sci. 2009, 109:172-179.
21. Clarke J.J., Lawlor T.E., Madraymootoo W., Pant K., Young R.R., Wagner III V.O., Aardema M.J. Summary of in vitro genetic toxicology assay results: expected and unexpected effects of recent study design modifications. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2012, 53:631-635.
22. Fellows M.D., Boyer S., O'Donovan M.R. The incidence of positive results in the mouse lymphoma TK assay (MLA) in pharmaceutical screening and their prediction by MultiCase MC4PC. Mutagenesis 2011, 26:529-532.
23. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Recommended Approaches to Integration of Genetic Toxicology Study Results, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Guidance for Industry and Review Staff 2006, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM079257.pdf (accessed 08.28.14).
24. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use ICH harmonized tripartite guideline guidance on genotoxicity testing and data interpretation for pharmaceuticals intended for human use S2(R1), 77 FR 110 2012, 33748-33749.
25. European Medicines Agency Guideline on limits of genotoxic impurities, EMEA/CHMP/QWP/251344/2006 2006, http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/pages/includes/document/open_document.jsp?webContentId=WC500002903 (accessed 08.28.14).
26. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Guidance for Industry: Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Impurities in Drug Substances and Products: Recommended Approaches, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 2008, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM079235.pdf (accessed 08.28.14).
27. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Guideline M7 on assessment and control of DNA reactive (mutagenic) impurities in pharmaceuticals to limit potential carcinogenic risk - Step 3 2013, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2013/02/WC500139217.pdf (accessed 08.28.14).
28. Thybaud V., Aardema M., Casciano D., Dellarco V., Embry M.R., Gollapudi B.B., Hayashi M., Holsapple M.P., Jacobson-Kram D., Kasper P., MacGregor J.T., Rees R. Relevance and follow-up of positive results in in vitro genetic toxicity assays: an ILSI-HESI initiative. Mutat. Res. 2007, 633:67-79.
29. Gollapudi B.B., Johnson G.E., Hernandez L.G., Pottenger L.H., Dearfield K.L., Jeffrey A.M., Julien E., Kim J.H., Lovell D.P., MacGregor J.T., Moore M.M., van Benthem B.J., White P.A., Zeiger E., Thybaud V. Quantitative approaches for assessing dose-response relationships in genetic toxicology studies. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2013, 54:8-18.
30. Johnson G.E., Soeteman-Hernandez L., Gollapudi B.B., Bodger O.G., Dearfield K.L., Heflich R.L., Hixon J.G., Lovell D.P., MacGregor J.T., Pottenger L.H., Thompson C.M., Abraham L., Thybaud V., Tanir J.Y., Zeiger E., van Benthem B.J., White P.A. Derivation of points of departure (PoD) estimates in genetic toxicology studies and their potential application in risk assessment. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2014, 55:609-623.
31. Guérard M., Baum M., Bitsch A., Eisenbrand G., Elhajouji A., Epe B., Haberbeyer M., Kaina B., Martus H.J., Pfuhler S., Schmitz Z., Sutter A., Thomas A.D.Z.C., Froetschl R. Assessment of mechanisms driving non-linear dose-response relationships in genotoxicity testing (a report of the Gesellschaft für Umwelt-Mutationsforschung e.V. (GUM; Society for Environmental Mutation Research) expert committee on thresholds for genotoxicity). Mutat. Res. 2014, (under revision).
32. Brusick D.J. Methods for Genetic Risk Assessment 1994, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
33. Favor J., Layton D., Sega G., Wassom J., Burkhart J., Douglas G., Dearfield K., Brusick D. International Commission for Protection Against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. Genetic risk extrapolation from animal data to human disease. A Taskgroup Report. No. 00105. Mutat. Res. 1995, 330:23-34.
34. National Academy of Sciences (US) Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process 1983, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
35. Lewtas J., DeMarini D.M., Favor J., Layton D.W., MacGregor J.T., Ashby J., Lohman P.H.M., Haynes R.H., Mendelsohn M.L. Risk characterization strategies for genotoxic environmental agents. Methods for Genotoxic Risk Assessment 1994, 125-169. CRC Press, Boca Ratan, FL. D.J. Brusick (Ed.).
36. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Toxicological Principles for the Safety Assessment of Food ingredients, Redbook 2000 (Revised 2007). Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition 2007, http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/IngredientsAdditivesGRASPackaging/ucm2006826.htm (accessed 08.28.14).
37. Cheeseman M.A., Machuga E.J., Bailey A.B. A tiered approach to threshold of regulation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1999, 37:387-412.
38. Rulis A.R. De Minimus and the threshold of regulation. Food Protection Technology 1986, 29-37. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI. C.W. Felix (Ed.).
39. Health Canada The assessment of mutagenicity. Health Protection Branch mutagenicity guidelines. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 1993, 21:15-37.
40. Elhajouji A., Lukamowicz M., Cammerer Z., Kirsch-Volders M. Potential thresholds for genotoxic effects by micronucleus scoring. Mutagenesis 2011, 26:199-204.
41. Lynch A., Harvey J., Aylott M., Nicholas E., Burman M., Siddiqui A., Walker S., Rees R. Investigations into the concept of a threshold for topoisomerase inhibitor-induced clastogenicity. Mutagenesis 2003, 18:345-353.
42. Bolt H.M., Foth H., Hengstler J.G., Degen G.H. Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals-new aspects to be considered in a European perspective. Toxicol. Lett. 2004, 151:29-41.
43. MacGregor J.T., Frötschl R., White P.A., Crump K., Eastmond D.A., Fukushima S., Guérard M., Hayashi M., Soeteman-Hernandez L., Johnson G.E., Kasamatsu T., Levy D.D., Morita T., Müller L., Schoeny R., Schuler M., Thybaud V. IWGT Report on Quantitative Approaches to Genotoxicity Risk Assessment II. Use of Point-of-Departure (PoD) metrics in defining acceptable exposure limits and assessing human risk. Mutat. Res. 2015, 783:66-78.
44. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines for Cancer Risk Assessment 2005, http://www.epa.gov/cancerguidelines/ (accessed 08.28.14).
45. Crump K.S. Use of threshold and mode of action in risk assessment. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2011, 41:637-650.
46. Health Canada. Health-based Tolerable Daily Intakes/Concentrations and Tumorigenic Doses/Concentrations for Priority Substances 1996, Environmental Health Directorate, Health Protection Branch, Ottawa.
47. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Estimating the Maximum Safe Starting Dose in Initial Clinical Trials for Therapeutics in Adult Healthy Volunteers, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 2005, http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm065014.htm (accessed 04.28.14).
48. Crump K.S. A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 1984, 4:854-871.
49. Hernandez L.G., Slob W., van S.H., van Benthem B.J. Can carcinogenic potency be predicted from in vivo genotoxicity data? A meta-analysis of historical data. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2011, 52:518-528.
50. Hernandez L.G., van Benthem B.J., Slob W. Estimating the carcinogenic potency of chemicals from the in vivo micronucleus test. RIVM Report 340700007/2012, Bilthoven 2012.
51. National Academy of Sciences (US) Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury 2000, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
52. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Health Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene, EPA EPA/600/P-98/001F 2002, http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=54499#Download (accessed 08.28.14).
53. EFSA Scientific Committee Guidance of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA on the use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment. EFSA J. 2009, 1150:1-72. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1150.htm (accessed 08.28.14).
54. Gaylor D.W., Slikker W. Risk assessment for neurotoxic effects. Neurotoxicology 1990, 11:211-218.
55. Crump K., Viren J., Silvers A., Clewell III H., Gearhart J., Shipp A. Reanalysis of dose-response data from the Iraqi methylmercury poisoning episode. Risk Anal. 1995, 15:523-532.
56. Budtz-Jorgensen E., Keiding N., Grandjean P. Benchmark dose calculation from epidemiological data. Biometrics 2001, 57:698-706.
57. Budtz-Jorgensen E., Bellinger D., Lanphear B., Grandjean P. An international pooled analysis for obtaining a benchmark dose for environmental lead exposure in children. Risk Anal. 2013, 33:450-461.
58. Crump K. Critical issues in benchmark calculations from continuous data. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2002, 32:133-153.
59. West R.W., Kodell R.L. Statistical methods of risk assessment for continuous variables. Comm. Stat. Theor. Methods 1993, 22:3363-3376.
60. Slob W., Setzer R.W. Shape and steepness of toxicological dose-response relationships of continuous endpoints. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2014, 44:270-297.
61. Slob W. Dose-response modeling of continuous endpoints. Toxicol. Sci. 2002, 66:298-312.
62. Davis J.A., Gift J.S., Zhao Q.J. Introduction to benchmark dose methods and U.S. EPA's benchmark dose software (BMDS) version 2.1.1. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2011, 254:181-191.
63. European Medicines Agency Studies Assessed by the European Medicines Agency Indicate No Increased Risk of Developing Cancer for Patients Who Have Taken Viracept Contaminated With Ethyl Mesilate July, 2008, Press Release, Doc. Ref. EMEA/CHMP/382256/2008, London, www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Press_release/2009/11/WC500015040.pdf (accessed 08.28.14).
64. Lutz W.K., Lutz R.W. Statistical model to estimate a threshold dose and its confidence limits for the analysis of sublinear dose-response relationships, exemplified for mutagenicity data. Mutat. Res. 2009, 678:118-122.
65. Muggeo V. Segmented: An R Package to Fit Regression Models With Broken-line Relationships 2008, 20-25. R News, http://cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/ (accessed 08.28.14).
66. Gocke E., Wall M. In vivo genotoxicity of EMS: statistical assessment of the dose response curves. Toxicol. Lett. 2009, 190:298-302.
67. Hixon G., Bichteler A. Drsmooth: dose-response modeling with smoothing splines 2014, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=drsmooth (accessed 08.28.14).
68. Thompson C.M., Abraham L., Bichteler A., Hixon v Deriving point of departure estimates for genotoxicity datasets using BMD modeling and R-based packages 2014, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.