Toxicological Sciences 64, 14-19 (2001)
Copyright © 2001 by the Society of Toxicology
FORUM |
Alternative Models for Carcinogenicity Testing
,1
* Department of Pathology and Microbiology and the Eppley Institute for Cancer Research, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 983135 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska 68198–3135;
International Life Sciences Institute-Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, 1 Thomas Circle, Suite 900, Washington, District of Columbia 20005; and
Schering-Plough Research Institute, 2015 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, New Jersey 07033
The International Conference on Harmonisation Expert Working Group on Safety suggested that under certain circumstances, data from alternative assays could be used in safety evaluation in place of a second bioassay. Several alternatives were discussed. Six of these models were evaluated in a collaborative effort under the auspices of the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). Standard protocols, pathology review, and statistical evaluations were developed. Twenty-one chemicals were evaluated, including genotoxic, nongenotoxic, carcinogenic, and noncarcinogenic chemicals. The models that were evaluated included the p53+/– heterozygous knockout mouse, the rasH2 transgenic mouse, the TgAC transgenic mouse (dermal and oral administration), the homozygous XPA knockout and the XPA/p53 knockout mouse models. Also evaluated were the neonatal mouse models and the Syrian Hamster Embryo (SHE) transformation assay. The results of this comprehensive study suggest that some of these models might be useful in hazard identification if used in conjunction with information from other sources in a weight of evidence, integrated analysis approach to risk assessment.
Key Words: carcinogenesis testing; hazard identification; risk assessment; rodent bioassay; transgenic models.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  W. W. Ku, J. Aubrecht, R. J. Mauthe, R. H. Schiestl, and A. J. Fornace Jr Genetic Toxicity Assessment: Employing the Best Science for Human Safety Evaluation Part VII: Why Not Start with a Single Test: A Transformational Alternative to Genotoxicity Hazard and Risk Assessment Toxicol. Sci., September 1, 2007; 99(1): 20 - 25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. R. Fielden, R. Brennan, and J. Gollub A Gene Expression Biomarker Provides Early Prediction and Mechanistic Assessment of Hepatic Tumor Induction by Nongenotoxic Chemicals Toxicol. Sci., September 1, 2007; 99(1): 90 - 100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. E. Wyde, A. P. J. M. Braen, M. Hejtmancik, J. D. Johnson, J. D. Toft, J. C. Blake, S. D. Cooper, J. Mahler, M. Vallant, J. R. Bucher, et al. Oral and Dermal Exposure to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) Induces Cutaneous Papillomas and Squamous Cell Carcinomas in Female Hemizygous Tg.AC Transgenic Mice Toxicol. Sci., November 1, 2004; 82(1): 34 - 45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. MacDonald, J. E. French, R. J. Gerson, J. Goodman, T. Inoue, A. Jacobs, P. Kasper, D. Keller, A. Lavin, G. Long, et al. The Utility of Genetically Modified Mouse Assays for Identifying Human Carcinogens: A Basic Understanding and Path Forward Toxicol. Sci., February 1, 2004; 77(2): 188 - 194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. M. Petruska, D. W. Frank, G. B. Freeman, E. W. Evans, and J. S. Macdonald Toxicity and Carcinogenicity Studies of Chlorpromazine Hydrochloride and p-Cresidine in the p53 Heterozygous Mouse Model Toxicol Pathol, October 1, 2002; 30(6): 696 - 704. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|