Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals-new aspects to be considered in a European perspective

Existing systems of classification of carcinogens are a matter of discussion, world-wide. There is agreement that it should be distinguished between genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals. The risk assessment approach used for non-genotoxic chemicals is similar among different regulatory bodies: insertion of an uncertainty (safety) factor permits the derivation of permissible exposure levels at which no relevant human cancer risks are anticipated. For genotoxic carcinogens, case studies of chemicals point to a whole array of possibilities. Positive data of chromosomal effects only, in the absence of mutagenicity, may support the characterization of a compound that produces carcinogenic effects only at high, toxic doses. Non-DNA-reactive genotoxins, such as topoisomerase inhibitors or inhibitors of the spindle apparatus are considered in this respect. In such cases, arguments are in favour of the existence of "practical" thresholds. Taking existing concepts together, it is proposed to basically distinguish between "perfect" and "practical" thresholds. There is a wide consensus that for non-DNA-reactive genotoxins such as aneugens (aneuploidy, chromosome loss, non-disjunction) thresholds should be defined. It is being discussed as to whether the identification of possible threshold effects should also include other mechanisms of genotoxicity, in addition to aneugenic effects. Specific mechanisms of clastogenicity have been repeatedly addressed as also having thresholds, such as topoisomerase II poisons or mechanisms based on reactive oxygen. Oxidative stress as an important mechanism is triggered by exposure to exogenous factors such as ultraviolet (UV) and ionizing radiation, anoxia and hyperoxia, and by chemicals producing reactive oxygen species. The idea is receiving increased support that reactive oxygen species (ROS)-mediated processes of carcinogenesis have practical thresholds. Since reactive oxygen species are genotoxic in principle, questions arise whether chemicals that increase ROS production will superimpose to an endogenously produced background level of DNA lesions, related to mechanisms that may result in non-linear dose-effect relationships. The existence of "endogenous" DNA adducts has been generally accepted, and possible regulatory implications of the presence of endogenous carcinogens have been discussed. It is now becoming evident that a diversity of methods of carcinogenic risk extrapolation to low doses must be considered, dependent on the mode of action. Although there is an increasing international awareness of these developments, the system of classification of carcinogens of the European Union still remains static. This should be changed, as the philosophy of separation of a strictly sequential "hazard assessment" and "risk assessment" appears out-of-date.     

Strategy of the scientific committee on occupational exposure limits (SCOEL) in the derivation of occupational exposure limits for carcinogens and mutagens

Setting standards, such as occupational exposure limits (OELs) for carcinogenic substances must consider modes of action. At the European Union level, the scientific committee on occupational exposure limits (SCOEL) has discussed a number of chemical carcinogens and has issued recommendations. For some carcinogens, health-based OELs were recommended, while quantitative assessments of carcinogenic risks were performed for others. For purposes of setting limits this led to the consideration of the following groups of carcinogens. (A) Non-threshold genotoxic carcinogens; for low-dose assessment of risk, the linear non-threshold (LNT) model appears appropriate. For these chemicals, regulations (risk management) may be based on the ALARA principle ("as low as reasonably achievable"), technical feasibility, and other socio-political considerations. (B) Genotoxic carcinogens, for which the existence of a threshold cannot be sufficiently supported at present. In these cases, the LNT model may be used as a default assumption, based on the scientific uncertainty. (C) Genotoxic carcinogens with a practical threshold, as supported by studies on mechanisms and/or toxicokinetics; health-based exposure limits may be based on an established NOAEL (no observed adverse effect level). (D) Non-genotoxic carcinogens and non-DNA-reactive carcinogens; for these compounds a true ("perfect") threshold is associated with a clearly founded NOAEL. The mechanisms shown by tumour promoters, spindle poisons, topoisomerase II poisons and hormones are typical examples of this category. Health-based OELs are derived for carcinogens of groups C and D, while a risk assessment is carried out for carcinogens of groups A and B. Substantial progress is currently being made in the incorporation of new types of mechanistic data into these regulatory procedures.     

Nongenotoxic carcinogens in the regulatory environment

The biological activity of many carcinogens is to directly induce mutational events, thereby altering the information encoded in the DNA. Short-term tests for potential carcinogens and risk assessment models generally rely on the assumption that the agent in question will operate through a genotoxic mechanism. However, carcinogenesis is a multistep process, and it is increasingly clear that the primary biological effect for many carcinogenic chemicals involves events other than direct DNA reactivity. For many experimental rodent models as well as human cancers, nongenotoxic mechanisms appear to be the driving force in the formation of tumors. Many of these nongenotoxic mechanisms are highly species-specific. Thus, it is increasingly important to ask if the rodent model applies to the human situation at all, in addition to the examination of appropriate, hypothetical, mathematical risk assessment models. More research is now being focused to better define the mechanisms by which the many distinctly different classes of nongenotoxic carcinogens are acting. This understanding will become the basis for new predictive assays and more realistic risk assessment models. If specific conditions are met, then a no observed effect level with a safety factor may be the most appropriate risk model for some carcinogens.     

Principles Underlying Dose Selection for, and Extrapolation from, the Carcinogen Bioassay: Dose Influences Mechanism

The purpose of the bioassay is not to simply find chemicals that can be labeled as carcinogens. On the contrary, the overall goal is to provide a reasonable assessment of the possible hazard that a chemical might pose to people under realistic conditions of exposure. This paper focuses upon the doses commonly used in the bioassay within the context that dose influences mechanism and, over a wide range of doses, mechanism changes with changing dose. Thus, a carcinogenic effect observed at a high dose is not necessarily expected to occur at lower doses. A variety of examples are provided to illustrate the points that (a) any high dose, no matter how high, that permits test animals to live long enough to develop tumors is not an appropriate criterion for defining an acceptable high dose to employ in a carcinogen bioassay; and (b) emphasis should be placed upon research that may discern probable thresholds for the carcinogenic effect of chemicals, especially nongenotoxic chemicals.     

Evaluation of nonthreshold leukemogenic response to methyl nitrosourea in p53-deficient C3H/He mice

The classic controversy of whether genotoxic chemicals induce cancers with or without a certain low-dose limit, i.e., the threshold, is revisited because of a number of current publications available addressing the plausibility of "practical" thresholds even for genotoxic carcinogens, the mechanism of which may be hypothesized to be due, in part, to a repair system composed of ordinarily available various defense mechanisms under the steady-state DNA damage. The question of whether an absolute nonthreshold or a relative nonthreshold, i.e., a "practical" threshold specifically in the low-dose level, is present may not be answered even with the use of a prohibitively large number of wild-type mice. Could the excessive incidence of tumorigenesis in p53-deficient mice contribute to our understanding of the threshold vs nonthreshold issue in genotoxic carcinogenesis? This is considered because an exaggeration of tumorigenesis in p53-deficient mice is hypothesized to reduce or eliminate the range of threshold due to the p53-deficiency-mediated reduction of DNA repair and apoptosis. The present study of chemical leukemogenesis in p53-deficient mice by transplantation assay was designed to answer this question. Briefly, 218 C3H/He mice were lethally irradiated and repopulated with bone marrow cells from wild-type, heterozygous p53-deficient, and homozygous p53-deficient C3H/He mice. This was followed by treatment with a single and graded dose of methyl nitrosourea at 6.6, 14.8, 33.3, 50.0, and 75.0 mg/kg body wt, with the vehicle-treated control groups treated with zero dose for each genotype. Whereas mice repopulated with p53-deficient bone marrow cells showed a marked reduction of the threshold for leukemogenicity, mice repopulated with wild-type bone marrow cells did not exhibit leukemia at a dose of 33.3 mg/kg body wt and showed a curve with a high probability for the linear regression model with a positive dose intercept, predicting a threshold by the likelihood ratio test. Thus, the failure of wild-type mice to show an increase in incidence of leukemogenesis at low doses of genotoxic carcinogens may be due not to a statistical rarity, but to various p53-related pharmacophysiological functions, possibly including DNA repair and apoptosis that may account for a threshold.     

Proposed Changes in the Classification of Carcinogenic Chemicals in the Work Area

Carcinogenic chemicals in the work area are currently classified into three categories in Section III of the GermanList of MAK and BAT Values.This classification is based on qualitative criteria and reflects essentially the weight of evidence available for judging the carcinogenic potential of the chemicals. It is proposed that these Categories—IIIA1, IIIA2, and IIIB—be retained as Categories 1, 2, and 3, to conform with EU regulations. On the basis of our advancing knowledge of reaction mechanisms and the potency of carcinogens, it is now proposed that these three categories be supplemented with two additional categories. The essential feature of substances classified in the new categories is that exposure to these chemicals does not convey a significant risk of cancer to man, provided that an appropriate exposure limit (MAK value) is observed. It is proposed that chemicals known to act typically by nongenotoxic mechanisms and for which information is available that allows evaluation of the effects of low-dose exposures be classified in Category 4. Genotoxic chemicals for which low carcinogenic potency can be expected on the basis of dose–response relationships and toxicokinetics and for which risk at low doses can be assessed will be classified in Category 5. The basis for a better differentiation of carcinogens is discussed, the new categories are defined, and possible criteria for classification are described. Examples for Category 4 (1,4-dioxane) and Category 5 (styrene) are presented. The proposed changes in classifying carcinogenic chemicals in the work area are presented for further discussion.     

Risk assessment of chemical carcinogens and thresholds

The controversial arguments about the existence of “thresholds” for carcinogens are discussed and some conclusions are drawn: (1) The meaning of “threshold” has changed considerably during the last decades. Initially, the discussion focused on the genotoxic properties of chemicals. In dose-response studies the endpoint was tumor incidence. Later, DNA adducts represented the biologically active target dose and whether saturation of metabolic activation could lead to non-linear relationships was tested as a hypothesis. (2) In a next step, the implications of the initiation–promotion model were studied. Carcinogens with tumor-initiating properties showed linear dose-response relationships at low doses without a definable threshold, whereas those with tumor-promoting properties showed non-linear characteristics compatible with the existence of a threshold. However, the results are difficult to transfer to the human situation, and many critical endpoints are subject to other risk factors so that a meaningful value cannot be given. (3) Eventually, it turned out that most carcinogens exhibit genotoxic as well as non-genotoxic properties, and toxicity may be equally important as genotoxicity. (4) In view of the discussion for more than 60 years about the existence of thresholds for carcinogens, it is suggested that the threshold approach not be used to establish acceptable risk limits. (5) Instead of calculating an acceptable risk from cancer risk data, the recommended method is to assess the incremental contribution of exposure to the background of avoidable and unavoidable exposures by using biomonitoring data from human individuals. Such data could help in risk management, in order to reach acceptable limits of exposures on the basis of the “as low as reasonably achievable” or “ALARA” principle.     

Risk assessment of carcinogens in food

Approaches for the risk assessment of carcinogens in food have evolved as scientific knowledge has advanced. Early methods allowed little more than hazard identification and an indication of carcinogenic potency. Evaluation of the modes of action of carcinogens and their broad division into genotoxic and epigenetic (non-genotoxic, non-DNA reactive) carcinogens have played an increasing role in determining the approach followed and provide possibilities for more detailed risk characterisation, including provision of quantitative estimates of risk. Reliance on experimental animal data for the majority of risk assessments and the fact that human exposures to dietary carcinogens are often orders of magnitude below doses used in experimental studies has provided a fertile ground for discussion and diverging views on the most appropriate way to offer risk assessment advice. Approaches used by national and international bodies differ, with some offering numerical estimates of potential risks to human health, while others express considerable reservations about the validity of quantitative approaches requiring extrapolation of dose-response data below the observed range and instead offer qualitative advice. Recognising that qualitative advice alone does not provide risk managers with information on which to prioritise the need for risk management actions, a “margin of exposure” approach for substances that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic has been developed, which is now being used by the World Health Organization and the European Food Safety Authority. This review describes the evolution of risk assessment advice on carcinogens and discusses examples of ways in which carcinogens in food have been assessed in Europe.     

Verification of the BALB/c 3T3 cell transformation assay after improvement by using an ITES-medium.

We carried out the first-step verification study on our ITES-medium-improved BALB/c 3T3 cell transformation assay. In order to estimate its potential use as a short-term screening method for putative carcinogens, 31 chemicals were tested in the improved transformation assay. The test chemicals consisted of 18 carcinogens and 13 noncarcinogens. The present improved transformation assay did not use an exogenous metabolizing system. Data analysis was carried out on 34 chemicals, including assay data for three chemicals reported previously by the authors. As a result, the improved transformation assay showed a concordance of 73.5% with a rodent bioassay, a sensitivity for carcinogens of 71.4%, and a specificity for detection of noncarcinogens of 76.9%. The improved transformation assay detected all of the genotoxic carcinogens, and five of 11 nongenotoxic carcinogens as positive. It can be expected that the improved transformation assay will be able to detect not only genotoxic carcinogens with high probability but also approximately 50% of nongenotoxic carcinogens within about 3 weeks. Hence, these preliminary findings suggest that our improved transformation assay will be a reliable and useful short-term test procedure of screening for potential carcinogens, and it encourages us to conduct further experiments on many carcinogens and noncarcinogens.     

Approaches to the risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens in food: a critical appraisal.

The present paper examines the particular difficulties presented by low levels of food-borne DNA-reactive genotoxic carcinogens, some of which may be difficult to eliminate completely from the diet, and proposes a structured approach for the evaluation of such compounds. While the ALARA approach is widely applicable to all substances in food that are both carcinogenic and genotoxic, it does not take carcinogenic potency into account and, therefore, does not permit prioritisation based on potential risk or concern. In the absence of carcinogenicity dose-response data, an assessment based on comparison with an appropriate threshold of toxicological concern may be possible. When carcinogenicity data from animal bioassays are available, a useful analysis is achieved by the calculation of margins of exposure (MOEs), which can be used to compare animal potency data with human exposure scenarios. Two reference points on the dose-response relationship that can be used for MOE calculation were examined; the T25 value, which is derived from linear extrapolation, and the BMDL10, which is derived from mathematical modelling of the dose-response data. The above approaches were applied to selected food-borne genotoxic carcinogens. The proposed approach is applicable to all substances in food that are DNA-reactive genotoxic carcinogens and enables the formulation of appropriate semi-quantitative advice to risk managers.     

Threshold dose response for tumor induction by genotoxic carcinogens modeled via cell-cycle delay.

Dose-response relationships for tumor induction in animal bioassays for carcinogenicity are often postulated to include thresholds, particularly for nongenotoxic chemicals that increase the rate of cell proliferation at high doses. In this report, thresholds are postulated also for genotoxic carcinogens. The hypothesis is based on the idea of a delay of the cell cycle induced by low-level DNA damage and an acceleration at cytotoxic dose levels, thus resulting in a J-shaped (or U-shaped) dose response for cell turnover. Calculations were based on the 2-stage clonal expansion model of carcinogenesis. The background values chosen for the model parameters resulted in a 10.5% "spontaneous" 2-year cumulative tumor incidence. Using this as a starting point, a decrease by 3, 10, and 30% in the rates of cell turnover resulted in a decrease in the spontaneous tumor incidence to 9.4, 7.1 and 3.0%, respectively. Dose-responses with J-shaped curves for the rates of cell birth and death were modeled by shifted quadratic functions reaching the minimum at dose 1. Combinations with linearly increasing mutation rates also generated, under certain conditions, J-shaped dose-response curves for tumor incidence. As an example, for a 30% increase in mutation rates and a 10% decrease in cell turnover rates (both at dose 1), the dose-response curve showed an initial decrease of tumor incidence below the spontaneous rate, a reversion to the background value at 0.8 dose units, and an increase thereafter. The 0.8 dose could be considered to represent the "threshold dose." The approach presented might reconcile opposing views on thresholds on a biologically plausible mechanistic basis, and show a way for the quantitative estimation of threshold doses.     

A comprehensive approach for integration of toxicity and cancer risk assessments

Experimental observations and theoretical considerations indicate a dose threshold for most chemically induced noncancer toxic effects below which the increased risk of toxicity is zero. Thus, the historical approach for minimizing risk from toxic chemicals has been to experimentally determine a no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and then to apply safety or uncertainty factors to estimate a dose not expected to produce that toxic effect in humans. In contrast, for radiation and chemically induced cancer, it has been assumed that all agents operate by a genotoxic mode of action and that some risk can be assigned to even vanishingly small doses. Accordingly, risk assessments for carcinogens have commonly been based on the assumption that the tumor dose-response curve at low doses is linear and passes through the origin. Mode of action is defined as a fundamental obligatory step in the induction of toxicity or cancer. It is now clear that tumor induction can arise in a variety of ways including not only a DNA-reactive genotoxic mode of action, but also non-DNA-reactive nongenotoxic-cytotoxic and nongenotoxic-mitogenic modes of action. Initial risk assessment approaches that recognized this distinction identified a chemical carcinogen as either genotoxic or nongenotoxic, with no middle ground. The realization that there is a continuum whereby different chemicals can act by a combination of modes of action and the recent explosion of research into molecular mechanisms of carcinogenesis indicate that all relevant information should be integrated into the risk assessment process on a case by case basis. A comprehensive approach to risk assessment demands that default assumptions be replaced with an integrated understanding of the rate-limiting steps in the induction of toxicity or cancer along with quantitative measures of the shapes of those dose-response curves. The examples of more contemporary risk assessments are presented for chloroform and vinyl acetate.     

Procedures for health risk assessment in Europe

This report compares cancer classification systems, health risk assessment approaches, and procedures used for establishing occupational exposure limits (OELs), in various European countries and scientific organizations. The objectives were to highlight and compare key aspects of these processes and to identify the basis for differences in cancer classifications and OELs between various scientific organizations and countries. Differences in cancer classification exist in part due to differences in the ultimate purpose of classification and to the relative importance of different types of data (i.e., animal vs human data, mechanistic data, and data from benign vs malignant tumors). In general, the groups surveyed tend to agree on classification of chemicals with good evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, and agree less on classification of chemicals with positive evidence in animals and inadequate or limited evidence in humans. Most entities surveyed distinguish between genotoxic and nongenotoxic chemicals when conducting risk assessments. Although the risk assessment approach used for nongenotoxic chemicals is fairly similar among groups, risk assessment approaches for genotoxic carcinogens vary widely. In addition to risk assessment approaches, other factors which can affect OELs include selection of the critical effect, use of health-based vs technology-based exposure limits, and consideration of technological feasibility and socioeconomic factors.     

Threshold and non-threshold chemical carcinogens: A survey of the present regulatory landscape

For the proper regulation of a carcinogenic material it is necessary to fully understand its mode of action, and in particular whether it demonstrates a threshold of effect. This paper explores our present understanding of carcinogenicity and the mechanisms underlying the carcinogenic response. The concepts of genotoxic and non-genotoxic and threshold and non-threshold carcinogens are fully described. We provide summary tables of the types of cancer considered to be associated with exposure to a number of carcinogens and the available evidence relating to whether carcinogenicity occurs through a threshold or non-threshold mechanism. In light of these observations we consider how different regulatory bodies approach the question of chemical carcinogenesis, looking in particular at the definitions and methodologies used to derive Occupational Exposure Levels (OELs) for carcinogens. We conclude that unless proper differentiation is made between threshold and non-threshold carcinogens, inappropriate risk management measures may be put in place - and lead also to difficulties in translating carcinogenicity research findings into appropriate health policies. We recommend that clear differentiation between threshold and non-threshold carcinogens should be made by all expert groups and regulatory bodies dealing with carcinogen classification and risk assessment.     

Existence of a threshold for induction of aberrant crypt foci in the rat colon with low doses of 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenolimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine.

Until recently it has been generally considered that genotoxic carcinogens have no threshold in exerting their potential for cancer induction. However, the nonthreshold theory can be challenged with regard to assessment of cancer risk to humans. In the present study we show that a food derived, genotoxic hepatocarcinogen, 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenolimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP), does not induce aberrant crypt foci (ACF) as preneoplastic lesions at low dose (below 50 ppm) or 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (below 400 ppm) in the rat colon. Moreover PhIP-DNA adducts were not formed at the lowest dose (below 0.01 ppm). Thus, the dose required to initiate ACF is approximately 5000 times higher than that needed for adduct formation. The results imply a no-observed effect level (existence of a threshold) for colon carcinogenesis by a genotoxic carcinogen.     

Pro-oxidant Induced DNA Damage in Human Lymphoblastoid Cells: Homeostatic Mechanisms of Genotoxic Tolerance

Oxidative stress contributes to many disease etiologies including ageing, neurodegeneration, and cancer, partly through DNA damage induction (genotoxicity). Understanding the i nteractions of free radicals with DNA is fundamental to discern mutation risks. In genetic toxicology, regulatory authorities consider that most genotoxins exhibit a linear relationship between dose and mutagenic response. Yet, homeostatic mechanisms, including DNA repair, that allow cells to tolerate low levels of genotoxic exposure exist. Acceptance of thresholds for genotoxicity has widespread consequences in terms of understanding cancer risk and regulating human exposure to chemicals/drugs. Three pro-oxidant chemicals, hydrogen peroxide (H(2)O(2)), potassium bromate (KBrO(3)), and menadione, were examined for low dose-response curves in human lymphoblastoid cells. DNA repair and antioxidant capacity were assessed as possible threshold mechanisms. H(2)O(2) and KBrO(3), but not menadione, exhibited thresholded responses, containing a range of nongenotoxic low doses. Levels of the DNA glycosylase 8-oxoguanine glycosylase were unchanged in response to pro- oxidant stress. DNA repair-focused gene expression arrays reported changes in ATM and BRCA1, involved in double-strand break repair, in response to low-dose pro-oxidant exposure; however, these alterations were not substantiated at the protein level. Determination of oxidatively induced DNA damage in H(2)O(2)-treated AHH-1 cells reported accumulation of thymine glycol above the genotoxic threshold. Further, the H(2)O(2) dose-response curve was shifted by modulating the antioxidant glutathione. Hence, observed pro- oxidant thresholds were due to protective capacities of base excision repair enzymes and antioxidants against DNA damage, highlighting the importance of homeostatic mechanisms in "genotoxic tolerance."     

Reproductive toxicants have a threshold of adversity

This paper surveys the scientific basis for the current threshold approach for reproductive hazard and risk assessment. In some regulatory areas it was recently suggested to consider reproductive toxicants under the stringent linear extrapolation risk assessment paradigm that was developed for genotoxic carcinogens. First, the current risk assessment paradigm for genotoxic carcinogens is addressed, followed by an overview of reproductive toxicology and its threshold dose approach for hazard and risk assessment, the testing procedures for assessing the reproductive toxicity of chemicals, and the derivation of conclusions on their risk assessment and Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP). Relevant details of testing methodologies are discussed, such as exposure time windows, parameters determined, and the coverage of the entire reproductive cycle. In addition, the dose-response relationship is considered, illustrated with several examples. It is concluded that the current risk assessment methodology for genotoxic carcinogens is a debatable worst-case scenario and that for risk assessment of reproductive toxicants the threshold dose approach remains valid.     

Reproductive toxicants have a threshold of adversity

This paper surveys the scientific basis for the current threshold approach for reproductive hazard and risk assessment. In some regulatory areas it was recently suggested to consider reproductive toxicants under the stringent linear extrapolation risk assessment paradigm that was developed for genotoxic carcinogens. First, the current risk assessment paradigm for genotoxic carcinogens is addressed, followed by an overview of reproductive toxicology and its threshold dose approach for hazard and risk assessment, the testing procedures for assessing the reproductive toxicity of chemicals, and the derivation of conclusions on their risk assessment and Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP). Relevant details of testing methodologies are discussed, such as exposure time windows, parameters determined, and the coverage of the entire reproductive cycle. In addition, the dose-response relationship is considered, illustrated with several examples. It is concluded that the current risk assessment methodology for genotoxic carcinogens is a debatable worst-case scenario and that for risk assessment of reproductive toxicants the threshold dose approach remains valid.     

Biomarkers of carcinogenicity and their roles in drug discovery and development

The screening of drug candidates to assess their carcinogenic potential has long been a challenge for drug development. While genotoxic compounds can be readily detected with a battery of standard tests, including short-term in vitro and in vivo assays, predicting nongenotoxic carcinogenicity remains a major challenge. The 2-year rodent bioassay has been held as the gold standard for the assessment of carcinogenic risk to humans. However, due primarily to the continuing doubt over their relevance to human risk assessment, there has been an increased demand for more efficient and accurate approaches to predict and understand human relevant risk of carcinogenicity. Novel biomarkers have helped to shed light on our understanding of the factors that lead to and are characteristic of the carcinogenic phenotypes. Tissue biomarkers of carcinogenicity identified to be concordant with drug exposures resulting in tumor outcome may assist the drug development process by resolving ambiguities, shortening timelines and enabling earlier decisions on compounds. This information could vastly improve the efficiency with which nongenotoxic carcinogens are identified and ensure earlier insight into the relevance for humans.     

Review of mononuclear cell leukemia in F-344 rat bioassays and its significance to human cancer risk: A case study using alkyl phthalates.

Elevated incidences of mononuclear cell leukemia (MNCL) have been observed in a number of chronic bioassays in the F-344 rat. As this tumor type is unique to the rat and is only common in the F-344 strain, its significance for human cancer risk is unclear. For this reason, a survey of the published literature was undertaken to assess the occurrence and etiology of MNCL in F-344 rats and to evaluate its potential significance to humans using alkyl phthalate data as an example. It was found that MNCL occurs in untreated, aged F-344 rats at a high and variable rate, it is uncommon in most other rat strains, and its background incidence has increased significantly over time. This complicates retrospective data interpretation. MNCL has not been found in other mammalian species and no histologically comparable tumor is found in humans. In general, a statistically significant increase in frequency of a common tumor in the F-344 rat is an insufficient basis for determining that a chemical presents a carcinogenic hazard to humans, particularly when that tumor is not observed in other species. As one example, the alkyl phthalates constitute one group of substances which has been associated with increased MNCL frequency in the F-344 rat after high dietary doses. In evaluating the significance of this increase in MNCL, an extensive toxicological database for phthalates indicates that toxicological effects occur only at relatively high doses, and tumor development (including MNCL) occurs only after an apparent threshold is exceeded. Phthalates are not genotoxic as a class, further supporting the hypothesis of the existence of a threshold. When these considerations are collectively evaluated, it can be concluded that a finding of increased MNCL in F-344 rats exposed for a lifetime to a nongenotoxic chemical is not toxicologically relevant to humans, even when MNCL is observed at an increased incidence that is statistically significant. Thus, the increased incidence of MNCL observed in F-344 rats exposed to some alkyl phthalates is likely a strain-specific effect of little or no relevance for humans, and characterization of these chemicals as carcinogens based on increased MNCL in F-344 rats is not scientifically supported.