Skip Navigation



ToxSci Advance Access published online on April 10, 2007

Toxicological Sciences, doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfm075
This Article
Right arrow Advance Access manuscript (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
98/2/313    most recent
kfm075v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Proctor, D.
Right arrow Articles by Allamneni, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Proctor, D.
Right arrow Articles by Allamneni, K.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Toxicology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Mode-of-Action Framework for Evaluating the Relevance of Rodent Forestomach Tumors in Cancer Risk Assessment

DM Proctor*, NM Gatto*, SJ Hong* and KP Allamneni+

* Exponent, 320 Goddard, Suite 200, Irvine, CA, 92618 + Exponent, Oakland, CA. Current Affiliation: Genentech, Inc. 1 DNA Way, MS 240B, South San Francisco, CA 94080

Corresponding Author is Deborah Proctor (dproctor{at}exponent.com)

Received January 19, 2007; revision received March 27, 2007; accepted March 30, 2007


   Abstract

Studies have shown that a majority of known human carcinogens also cause cancer in laboratory animals. The converse, however, is not as well established—known animal carcinogens are not equally predictive of human carcinogenicity. A particularly controversial aspect of interspecies extrapolation is application of rodent forestomach tumor data for predicting cancer risk in humans, given that a human counterpart for the rodent forestomach does not exist. Proliferative lesions in the rodent forestomach may result from a combination of factors related to route-specific tissue irritation and/or unnatural dosing regimens and are less likely to be relevant in evaluating human carcinogenic potential, particularly when tumors are exclusive to the forestomach. We review the comparative functional anatomy, physiology, tumor biology, tissue concordance, and historical regulatory practices in the use of forestomach tumors for cancer risk assessment, examining specific chemical examples. We also propose a standardized mode-of-action approach that combines multiple risk characterization criteria, including relevance to human exposure conditions, physiologically-based toxicokinetics, genotoxicity, and comparative/mechanistic toxicology. Forestomach tumors associated with chronic irritation of the forestomach epithelium, particularly those induced by repeated oral gavage dosing, should not form the basis for carcinogenic classification or quantitative cancer potency estimates for humans. Genotoxic chemicals and those that cause tumors at multiple sites, at doses at or below the maximum tolerated dose, and in the absence of forestomach irritation, are more likely to be relevant human carcinogens. Cancer risk assessment that utilizes forestomach tumor data should consider relevant human exposures, systemic bioavailability, tissue dosimetry and concordance.

Key Words: forestomach tumors; cancer risk assessment; mode-of-action.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
International Journal of ToxicologyHome page
M. G. I. Riley, M. C. Castelli, and E. A. Paehler
Subchronic Oral Toxicity of Salcaprozate Sodium (SNAC) in Sprague-Dawley and Wistar Rats
International Journal of Toxicology, July 1, 2009; 28(4): 278 - 293.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.