Chemical carcinogenicity revisited 3

Risk assessment of carcinogenic potential based on the current state of knowledge of carcinogenesis in humans

Samuel Monroe Cohen, Alan R. Boobis, Vicki L. Dellarco, John E. Doe, Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp, Angelo Moretto, Timothy P. Pastoor, Rita S. Schoeny, Jennifer G. Seed, Douglas C. Wolf

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Over 50 years, we have learned a great deal about the biology that underpins cancer but our approach to testing chemicals for carcinogenic potential has not kept up. Only a small number of chemicals has been tested in animal-intensive, time consuming, and expensive long-term bioassays in rodents. We now recommend a transition from the bioassay to a decision-tree matrix that can be applied to a broader range of chemicals, with better predictivity, based on the premise that cancer is the consequence of DNA coding errors that arise either directly from mutagenic events or indirectly from sustained cell proliferation. The first step is in silico and in vitro assessment for mutagenic (DNA reactive) activity. If mutagenic, it is assumed to be carcinogenic unless evidence indicates otherwise. If the chemical does not show mutagenic potential, the next step is assessment of potential human exposure compared to the threshold for toxicological concern (TTC). If potential human exposure exceeds the TTC, then testing is done to look for effects associated with the key characteristics that are precursors to the carcinogenic process, such as increased cell proliferation, immunosuppression, or significant estrogenic activity. Protection of human health is achieved by limiting exposures to below NOEALs for these precursor effects. The decision tree matrix is animal-sparing, cost effective, and in step with our growing knowledge of the process of cancer formation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)100-105
Number of pages6
JournalRegulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
Volume103
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2019

Fingerprint

Risk assessment
Decision Trees
Carcinogenesis
Biological Assay
Toxicology
Bioassay
Cell proliferation
Decision trees
Cell Proliferation
Neoplasms
Animals
DNA
Coding errors
Computer Simulation
Immunosuppression
Rodentia
Testing
Costs and Cost Analysis
Health
Costs

Keywords

  • Carcinogenicity
  • Decision tree-matrix
  • Mode of action
  • Risk assessment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Toxicology

Cite this

Chemical carcinogenicity revisited 3 : Risk assessment of carcinogenic potential based on the current state of knowledge of carcinogenesis in humans. / Cohen, Samuel Monroe; Boobis, Alan R.; Dellarco, Vicki L.; Doe, John E.; Fenner-Crisp, Penelope A.; Moretto, Angelo; Pastoor, Timothy P.; Schoeny, Rita S.; Seed, Jennifer G.; Wolf, Douglas C.

In: Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 103, 01.04.2019, p. 100-105.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Cohen, Samuel Monroe ; Boobis, Alan R. ; Dellarco, Vicki L. ; Doe, John E. ; Fenner-Crisp, Penelope A. ; Moretto, Angelo ; Pastoor, Timothy P. ; Schoeny, Rita S. ; Seed, Jennifer G. ; Wolf, Douglas C. / Chemical carcinogenicity revisited 3 : Risk assessment of carcinogenic potential based on the current state of knowledge of carcinogenesis in humans. In: Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 2019 ; Vol. 103. pp. 100-105.
@article{1a16fb8ccd8049dbb73df237558a9323,
title = "Chemical carcinogenicity revisited 3: Risk assessment of carcinogenic potential based on the current state of knowledge of carcinogenesis in humans",
abstract = "Over 50 years, we have learned a great deal about the biology that underpins cancer but our approach to testing chemicals for carcinogenic potential has not kept up. Only a small number of chemicals has been tested in animal-intensive, time consuming, and expensive long-term bioassays in rodents. We now recommend a transition from the bioassay to a decision-tree matrix that can be applied to a broader range of chemicals, with better predictivity, based on the premise that cancer is the consequence of DNA coding errors that arise either directly from mutagenic events or indirectly from sustained cell proliferation. The first step is in silico and in vitro assessment for mutagenic (DNA reactive) activity. If mutagenic, it is assumed to be carcinogenic unless evidence indicates otherwise. If the chemical does not show mutagenic potential, the next step is assessment of potential human exposure compared to the threshold for toxicological concern (TTC). If potential human exposure exceeds the TTC, then testing is done to look for effects associated with the key characteristics that are precursors to the carcinogenic process, such as increased cell proliferation, immunosuppression, or significant estrogenic activity. Protection of human health is achieved by limiting exposures to below NOEALs for these precursor effects. The decision tree matrix is animal-sparing, cost effective, and in step with our growing knowledge of the process of cancer formation.",
keywords = "Carcinogenicity, Decision tree-matrix, Mode of action, Risk assessment",
author = "Cohen, {Samuel Monroe} and Boobis, {Alan R.} and Dellarco, {Vicki L.} and Doe, {John E.} and Fenner-Crisp, {Penelope A.} and Angelo Moretto and Pastoor, {Timothy P.} and Schoeny, {Rita S.} and Seed, {Jennifer G.} and Wolf, {Douglas C.}",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.01.017",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "103",
pages = "100--105",
journal = "Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology",
issn = "0273-2300",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Chemical carcinogenicity revisited 3

T2 - Risk assessment of carcinogenic potential based on the current state of knowledge of carcinogenesis in humans

AU - Cohen, Samuel Monroe

AU - Boobis, Alan R.

AU - Dellarco, Vicki L.

AU - Doe, John E.

AU - Fenner-Crisp, Penelope A.

AU - Moretto, Angelo

AU - Pastoor, Timothy P.

AU - Schoeny, Rita S.

AU - Seed, Jennifer G.

AU - Wolf, Douglas C.

PY - 2019/4/1

Y1 - 2019/4/1

N2 - Over 50 years, we have learned a great deal about the biology that underpins cancer but our approach to testing chemicals for carcinogenic potential has not kept up. Only a small number of chemicals has been tested in animal-intensive, time consuming, and expensive long-term bioassays in rodents. We now recommend a transition from the bioassay to a decision-tree matrix that can be applied to a broader range of chemicals, with better predictivity, based on the premise that cancer is the consequence of DNA coding errors that arise either directly from mutagenic events or indirectly from sustained cell proliferation. The first step is in silico and in vitro assessment for mutagenic (DNA reactive) activity. If mutagenic, it is assumed to be carcinogenic unless evidence indicates otherwise. If the chemical does not show mutagenic potential, the next step is assessment of potential human exposure compared to the threshold for toxicological concern (TTC). If potential human exposure exceeds the TTC, then testing is done to look for effects associated with the key characteristics that are precursors to the carcinogenic process, such as increased cell proliferation, immunosuppression, or significant estrogenic activity. Protection of human health is achieved by limiting exposures to below NOEALs for these precursor effects. The decision tree matrix is animal-sparing, cost effective, and in step with our growing knowledge of the process of cancer formation.

AB - Over 50 years, we have learned a great deal about the biology that underpins cancer but our approach to testing chemicals for carcinogenic potential has not kept up. Only a small number of chemicals has been tested in animal-intensive, time consuming, and expensive long-term bioassays in rodents. We now recommend a transition from the bioassay to a decision-tree matrix that can be applied to a broader range of chemicals, with better predictivity, based on the premise that cancer is the consequence of DNA coding errors that arise either directly from mutagenic events or indirectly from sustained cell proliferation. The first step is in silico and in vitro assessment for mutagenic (DNA reactive) activity. If mutagenic, it is assumed to be carcinogenic unless evidence indicates otherwise. If the chemical does not show mutagenic potential, the next step is assessment of potential human exposure compared to the threshold for toxicological concern (TTC). If potential human exposure exceeds the TTC, then testing is done to look for effects associated with the key characteristics that are precursors to the carcinogenic process, such as increased cell proliferation, immunosuppression, or significant estrogenic activity. Protection of human health is achieved by limiting exposures to below NOEALs for these precursor effects. The decision tree matrix is animal-sparing, cost effective, and in step with our growing knowledge of the process of cancer formation.

KW - Carcinogenicity

KW - Decision tree-matrix

KW - Mode of action

KW - Risk assessment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060276379&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060276379&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.01.017

DO - 10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.01.017

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 103

SP - 100

EP - 105

JO - Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

JF - Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

SN - 0273-2300

ER -