A Framework for Human Relevance Analysis of Information on Carcinogenic Modes of Action

M. E. Meek, John R. Bucher, Samuel Monroe Cohen, Vicki Dellarco, Richard N. Hill, Lois D. Lehman-McKeeman, David G. Longfellow, Timothy Pastoor, Jennifer Seed, Dorothy E. Patton

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

322 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The human relevance framework (HRF) outlines a four-part process, beginning with data on the mode of action (MOA) in laboratory animals, for evaluating the human relevance of animal tumors. Drawing on U.S. EPA and IPCS proposals for animal MOA analysis, the HRF expands those analyses to include a systematic evaluation of comparability, or lack of comparability, between the postulated animal MOA and related information from human data sources. The HRF evolved through a series of case studies representing several different MOAs. HRF analyses produced divergent outcomes, some leading to complete risk assessment and others discontinuing the process, according to the data available from animal and human sources. Two case examples call for complete risk assessments. One is the default: When data are insufficient to confidently postulate a MOA for test animals, the animal tumor data are presumed to be relevant for risk assessment and a complete risk assessment is necessary. The other is the product of a data-based finding that the animal MOA is relevant to humans. For the specific MOA and endpoint combinations studied for this article, full risk assessments are necessary for potentially relevant MOAs involving cytotoxicity and cell proliferation in animals and humans (Case Study 6, chloroform) and formation of urinary-tract calculi (Case Study 7, melamine). In other circumstances, when data-based findings for the chemical and endpoint combination studied indicate that the tumor-related animal MOA is unlikely to have a human counterpart, there is little reason to continue the risk assessment for that combination. Similarly, when qualitative considerations identify MOAs specific to the test species or quantitative considerations indicate that the animal MOA is unlikely to occur in humans, such hazard findings are generally conclusive and further risk assessment is not necessary for the endpoint-MOA combination under study. Case examples include a tumor-related protein specific to test animals (Case Study 3, d-limonene), the tumor consequences of hormone suppression typical of laboratory animals but not humans (Case Study 4, atrazine), and chemical-related enhanced hormone clearance rates in animals relative to humans (Case Study 5, phenobarbital). The human relevance analysis is highly specific for the chemical-MOA-tissue- endpoint combination under analysis in any particular case: different tissues, different endpoints, or alternative MOAs for a given chemical may result in different human relevance findings. By providing a systematic approach to using MOA data, the HRF offers a new tool for the scientific community's overall effort to enhance the predictive power, reliability and transparency of cancer risk assessment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)591-653
Number of pages63
JournalCritical reviews in toxicology
Volume33
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2003

Fingerprint

Animals
Risk assessment
Tumors
Neoplasms
Laboratory Animals
Hormones
Tissue
Atrazine
Pharmacologic Actions
Cell proliferation
Urinary Calculi
Cytotoxicity
Phenobarbital
Chloroform
Information Storage and Retrieval
Transparency
Urinary Tract
Hazards
Cell Proliferation

Keywords

  • Acrylonitrile
  • Atrazine
  • Carcinogenic mode of action
  • Chloroform
  • Ethylene oxide
  • Human relevance of animal carcinogens
  • Melamine
  • Phenobarbital
  • Risk assessment
  • d-limonene

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Toxicology

Cite this

Meek, M. E., Bucher, J. R., Cohen, S. M., Dellarco, V., Hill, R. N., Lehman-McKeeman, L. D., ... Patton, D. E. (2003). A Framework for Human Relevance Analysis of Information on Carcinogenic Modes of Action. Critical reviews in toxicology, 33(6), 591-653. https://doi.org/10.1080/713608373

A Framework for Human Relevance Analysis of Information on Carcinogenic Modes of Action. / Meek, M. E.; Bucher, John R.; Cohen, Samuel Monroe; Dellarco, Vicki; Hill, Richard N.; Lehman-McKeeman, Lois D.; Longfellow, David G.; Pastoor, Timothy; Seed, Jennifer; Patton, Dorothy E.

In: Critical reviews in toxicology, Vol. 33, No. 6, 01.01.2003, p. 591-653.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Meek, ME, Bucher, JR, Cohen, SM, Dellarco, V, Hill, RN, Lehman-McKeeman, LD, Longfellow, DG, Pastoor, T, Seed, J & Patton, DE 2003, 'A Framework for Human Relevance Analysis of Information on Carcinogenic Modes of Action', Critical reviews in toxicology, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 591-653. https://doi.org/10.1080/713608373
Meek, M. E. ; Bucher, John R. ; Cohen, Samuel Monroe ; Dellarco, Vicki ; Hill, Richard N. ; Lehman-McKeeman, Lois D. ; Longfellow, David G. ; Pastoor, Timothy ; Seed, Jennifer ; Patton, Dorothy E. / A Framework for Human Relevance Analysis of Information on Carcinogenic Modes of Action. In: Critical reviews in toxicology. 2003 ; Vol. 33, No. 6. pp. 591-653.
@article{6d04d113904447d5b630e9a50b25d82b,
title = "A Framework for Human Relevance Analysis of Information on Carcinogenic Modes of Action",
abstract = "The human relevance framework (HRF) outlines a four-part process, beginning with data on the mode of action (MOA) in laboratory animals, for evaluating the human relevance of animal tumors. Drawing on U.S. EPA and IPCS proposals for animal MOA analysis, the HRF expands those analyses to include a systematic evaluation of comparability, or lack of comparability, between the postulated animal MOA and related information from human data sources. The HRF evolved through a series of case studies representing several different MOAs. HRF analyses produced divergent outcomes, some leading to complete risk assessment and others discontinuing the process, according to the data available from animal and human sources. Two case examples call for complete risk assessments. One is the default: When data are insufficient to confidently postulate a MOA for test animals, the animal tumor data are presumed to be relevant for risk assessment and a complete risk assessment is necessary. The other is the product of a data-based finding that the animal MOA is relevant to humans. For the specific MOA and endpoint combinations studied for this article, full risk assessments are necessary for potentially relevant MOAs involving cytotoxicity and cell proliferation in animals and humans (Case Study 6, chloroform) and formation of urinary-tract calculi (Case Study 7, melamine). In other circumstances, when data-based findings for the chemical and endpoint combination studied indicate that the tumor-related animal MOA is unlikely to have a human counterpart, there is little reason to continue the risk assessment for that combination. Similarly, when qualitative considerations identify MOAs specific to the test species or quantitative considerations indicate that the animal MOA is unlikely to occur in humans, such hazard findings are generally conclusive and further risk assessment is not necessary for the endpoint-MOA combination under study. Case examples include a tumor-related protein specific to test animals (Case Study 3, d-limonene), the tumor consequences of hormone suppression typical of laboratory animals but not humans (Case Study 4, atrazine), and chemical-related enhanced hormone clearance rates in animals relative to humans (Case Study 5, phenobarbital). The human relevance analysis is highly specific for the chemical-MOA-tissue- endpoint combination under analysis in any particular case: different tissues, different endpoints, or alternative MOAs for a given chemical may result in different human relevance findings. By providing a systematic approach to using MOA data, the HRF offers a new tool for the scientific community's overall effort to enhance the predictive power, reliability and transparency of cancer risk assessment.",
keywords = "Acrylonitrile, Atrazine, Carcinogenic mode of action, Chloroform, Ethylene oxide, Human relevance of animal carcinogens, Melamine, Phenobarbital, Risk assessment, d-limonene",
author = "Meek, {M. E.} and Bucher, {John R.} and Cohen, {Samuel Monroe} and Vicki Dellarco and Hill, {Richard N.} and Lehman-McKeeman, {Lois D.} and Longfellow, {David G.} and Timothy Pastoor and Jennifer Seed and Patton, {Dorothy E.}",
year = "2003",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/713608373",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "591--653",
journal = "Critical Reviews in Toxicology",
issn = "1040-8444",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Framework for Human Relevance Analysis of Information on Carcinogenic Modes of Action

AU - Meek, M. E.

AU - Bucher, John R.

AU - Cohen, Samuel Monroe

AU - Dellarco, Vicki

AU - Hill, Richard N.

AU - Lehman-McKeeman, Lois D.

AU - Longfellow, David G.

AU - Pastoor, Timothy

AU - Seed, Jennifer

AU - Patton, Dorothy E.

PY - 2003/1/1

Y1 - 2003/1/1

N2 - The human relevance framework (HRF) outlines a four-part process, beginning with data on the mode of action (MOA) in laboratory animals, for evaluating the human relevance of animal tumors. Drawing on U.S. EPA and IPCS proposals for animal MOA analysis, the HRF expands those analyses to include a systematic evaluation of comparability, or lack of comparability, between the postulated animal MOA and related information from human data sources. The HRF evolved through a series of case studies representing several different MOAs. HRF analyses produced divergent outcomes, some leading to complete risk assessment and others discontinuing the process, according to the data available from animal and human sources. Two case examples call for complete risk assessments. One is the default: When data are insufficient to confidently postulate a MOA for test animals, the animal tumor data are presumed to be relevant for risk assessment and a complete risk assessment is necessary. The other is the product of a data-based finding that the animal MOA is relevant to humans. For the specific MOA and endpoint combinations studied for this article, full risk assessments are necessary for potentially relevant MOAs involving cytotoxicity and cell proliferation in animals and humans (Case Study 6, chloroform) and formation of urinary-tract calculi (Case Study 7, melamine). In other circumstances, when data-based findings for the chemical and endpoint combination studied indicate that the tumor-related animal MOA is unlikely to have a human counterpart, there is little reason to continue the risk assessment for that combination. Similarly, when qualitative considerations identify MOAs specific to the test species or quantitative considerations indicate that the animal MOA is unlikely to occur in humans, such hazard findings are generally conclusive and further risk assessment is not necessary for the endpoint-MOA combination under study. Case examples include a tumor-related protein specific to test animals (Case Study 3, d-limonene), the tumor consequences of hormone suppression typical of laboratory animals but not humans (Case Study 4, atrazine), and chemical-related enhanced hormone clearance rates in animals relative to humans (Case Study 5, phenobarbital). The human relevance analysis is highly specific for the chemical-MOA-tissue- endpoint combination under analysis in any particular case: different tissues, different endpoints, or alternative MOAs for a given chemical may result in different human relevance findings. By providing a systematic approach to using MOA data, the HRF offers a new tool for the scientific community's overall effort to enhance the predictive power, reliability and transparency of cancer risk assessment.

AB - The human relevance framework (HRF) outlines a four-part process, beginning with data on the mode of action (MOA) in laboratory animals, for evaluating the human relevance of animal tumors. Drawing on U.S. EPA and IPCS proposals for animal MOA analysis, the HRF expands those analyses to include a systematic evaluation of comparability, or lack of comparability, between the postulated animal MOA and related information from human data sources. The HRF evolved through a series of case studies representing several different MOAs. HRF analyses produced divergent outcomes, some leading to complete risk assessment and others discontinuing the process, according to the data available from animal and human sources. Two case examples call for complete risk assessments. One is the default: When data are insufficient to confidently postulate a MOA for test animals, the animal tumor data are presumed to be relevant for risk assessment and a complete risk assessment is necessary. The other is the product of a data-based finding that the animal MOA is relevant to humans. For the specific MOA and endpoint combinations studied for this article, full risk assessments are necessary for potentially relevant MOAs involving cytotoxicity and cell proliferation in animals and humans (Case Study 6, chloroform) and formation of urinary-tract calculi (Case Study 7, melamine). In other circumstances, when data-based findings for the chemical and endpoint combination studied indicate that the tumor-related animal MOA is unlikely to have a human counterpart, there is little reason to continue the risk assessment for that combination. Similarly, when qualitative considerations identify MOAs specific to the test species or quantitative considerations indicate that the animal MOA is unlikely to occur in humans, such hazard findings are generally conclusive and further risk assessment is not necessary for the endpoint-MOA combination under study. Case examples include a tumor-related protein specific to test animals (Case Study 3, d-limonene), the tumor consequences of hormone suppression typical of laboratory animals but not humans (Case Study 4, atrazine), and chemical-related enhanced hormone clearance rates in animals relative to humans (Case Study 5, phenobarbital). The human relevance analysis is highly specific for the chemical-MOA-tissue- endpoint combination under analysis in any particular case: different tissues, different endpoints, or alternative MOAs for a given chemical may result in different human relevance findings. By providing a systematic approach to using MOA data, the HRF offers a new tool for the scientific community's overall effort to enhance the predictive power, reliability and transparency of cancer risk assessment.

KW - Acrylonitrile

KW - Atrazine

KW - Carcinogenic mode of action

KW - Chloroform

KW - Ethylene oxide

KW - Human relevance of animal carcinogens

KW - Melamine

KW - Phenobarbital

KW - Risk assessment

KW - d-limonene

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=9144238300&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=9144238300&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/713608373

DO - 10.1080/713608373

M3 - Review article

C2 - 14727733

AN - SCOPUS:9144238300

VL - 33

SP - 591

EP - 653

JO - Critical Reviews in Toxicology

JF - Critical Reviews in Toxicology

SN - 1040-8444

IS - 6

ER -