» Articles » PMID: 35368437

Approaches In Carcinogenicity Hazard Assessment: Current Status and Future Needs

Abstract

Historically, identifying carcinogens has relied primarily on tumor studies in rodents, which require enormous resources in both money and time. models have been developed for predicting rodent carcinogens but have not yet found general regulatory acceptance, in part due to the lack of a generally accepted protocol for performing such an assessment as well as limitations in predictive performance and scope. There remains a need for additional, improved carcinogenicity models, especially ones that are more human-relevant, for use in research and regulatory decision-making. As part of an international effort to develop toxicological protocols, a consortium of toxicologists, computational scientists, and regulatory scientists across several industries and governmental agencies evaluated the extent to which models exist for each of the recently defined 10 key characteristics (KCs) of carcinogens. This position paper summarizes the current status of tools for the assessment of each KC and identifies the data gaps that need to be addressed before a comprehensive carcinogenicity protocol can be developed for regulatory use.

Citing Articles

IARC Workshop on the Key Characteristics of Carcinogens: Assessment of End Points for Evaluating Mechanistic Evidence of Carcinogenic Hazards.

DeMarini D, Gwinn W, Watkins E, Reisfeld B, Chiu W, Zeise L Environ Health Perspect. 2025; 133(2):25001.

PMID: 39899356 PMC: 11790013. DOI: 10.1289/EHP15389.


A new approach methodology to identify tumorigenic chemicals using short-term exposures and transcript profiling.

Ledbetter V, Auerbach S, Everett L, Vallanat B, Lowit A, Akerman G Front Toxicol. 2024; 6:1422325.

PMID: 39483698 PMC: 11526388. DOI: 10.3389/ftox.2024.1422325.


ICH S1 prospective evaluation study and weight of evidence assessments: commentary from industry representatives.

Vahle J, Dybowski J, Graziano M, Hisada S, Lebron J, Nolte T Front Toxicol. 2024; 6:1377990.

PMID: 38845817 PMC: 11153695. DOI: 10.3389/ftox.2024.1377990.


Developing a pragmatic consensus procedure supporting the ICH S1B(R1) weight of evidence carcinogenicity assessment.

Bassan A, Steigerwalt R, Keller D, Beilke L, Bradley P, Bringezu F Front Toxicol. 2024; 6:1370045.

PMID: 38646442 PMC: 11027748. DOI: 10.3389/ftox.2024.1370045.


New Theobromine Apoptotic Analogue with Anticancer Potential Targeting the EGFR Protein: Computational and Studies.

Eissa I, Yousef R, Elkaeed E, Alsfouk A, Husein D, Ibrahim I ACS Omega. 2024; 9(14):15861-15881.

PMID: 38617602 PMC: 11007702. DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.3c08148.


References
1.
Parfett C, Desaulniers D . A Tox21 Approach to Altered Epigenetic Landscapes: Assessing Epigenetic Toxicity Pathways Leading to Altered Gene Expression and Oncogenic Transformation In Vitro. Int J Mol Sci. 2017; 18(6). PMC: 5486002. DOI: 10.3390/ijms18061179. View

2.
Noren Hooten N, Evans M . Techniques to Induce and Quantify Cellular Senescence. J Vis Exp. 2017; (123). PMC: 5565152. DOI: 10.3791/55533. View

3.
Bruce E, Autenrieth R, Burghardt R, Donnelly K, McDonald T . Using quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) to predict toxic endpoints for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2008; 71(16):1073-84. DOI: 10.1080/15287390802114337. View

4.
Bugelski P, Volk A, Walker M, Krayer J, Martin P, Descotes J . Critical review of preclinical approaches to evaluate the potential of immunosuppressive drugs to influence human neoplasia. Int J Toxicol. 2010; 29(5):435-66. DOI: 10.1177/1091581810374654. View

5.
Roy D, Sarkar U, Chattaraj P, Mitra A, Padmanabhan J, Parthasarathi R . Analyzing toxicity through electrophilicity. Mol Divers. 2006; 10(2):119-31. DOI: 10.1007/s11030-005-9009-x. View