Comparison of carcinogenic and in vivo genotoxic potency estimates

被引:18
|
作者
Sanner, T [1 ]
Dybing, E
机构
[1] Norwegian Radium Hosp, Inst Canc Res, Dept Environm & Occupat Canc, N-0310 Oslo, Norway
[2] Norwegian Inst Publ Hlth, Div Environm Med, N-0403 Oslo, Norway
关键词
D O I
10.1111/j.1742-7843.2005.pto960207.x
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Mutagenic substances classified as carcinogens are primarily regulated on the basis of their carcinogenic effect. Regulation of mutagens that have not been tested for carcinogenicity represents a problem. In cases where a threshold cannot be identified, the substances may be banned or if their uses are deemed to be unavoidable, the exposure may be reduced to as low as technically and economically feasible. In an attempt to develop a procedure that may be helpful in regulation of mutagenic substances when studies on carcinogenicity are lacking, we have compared the lowest effective dose (LED) giving a response in an in vivo genotoxic test after oral or inhalation exposure with the carcinogenic dose descriptor T25 (the chronic daily dose which will give 25% of the animals tumours above background at a specific tissue site). The 34 carcinogens in the present analysis for which genotoxic mechanisms are likely or possible, represent different classes of carcinogens and different genotoxic endpoints, exhibiting carcinogenic and mutagenic potencies both covering a range of 10,000 between the most and least potent substances. A linear correlation was found between the lowest effective dose for in vivo genotoxicity after oral administration or inhalation exposure and the lowest dose descriptor T25 for tumour formation. The finding that the median of the ratio LED/T25 was 1.05 and that the ratio for 90% of the substances studied fell in the range 0.21 to 9.2 shows that the numerical value of LED is similar to the numerical value of T25 within a factor of 5-10. The results suggest that LED may be used as a basis for regulation of mutagens in cases where a threshold cannot be demonstrated or inferred, and where the substance has not been studied in long-term carcinogenicity studies. In such cases LED divided by a specified assessment factor may represent a virtually safe level or a tolerable risk level for a possible carcinogenic effect.
引用
收藏
页码:131 / 139
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Carcinogenic potency and in vivo genotoxic potency.
    Sanner, T
    Dybing, E
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2005, 14 (11) : 2717S - 2717S
  • [2] Comparison of Carcinogenic Potency Estimates to In Vivo Genotoxic Potencies from the Micronucleus, Transgenic Rodent Mutation and Comet Assay Using the Benchmark Dose Approach
    Hernandez, L. G.
    Slob, W.
    van Steeg, H.
    van Benthem, J.
    ENVIRONMENTAL AND MOLECULAR MUTAGENESIS, 2010, 51 (07) : 707 - 707
  • [3] Comparison of in vivo genotoxic and carcinogenic potency to augment mode of action analysis: Case study with hexavalent chromium
    Thompson, Chad M.
    Bichteler, Anne
    Rager, Julia E.
    Suh, Mina
    Proctor, Deborah M.
    Haws, Laurie C.
    Harris, Mark A.
    MUTATION RESEARCH-GENETIC TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MUTAGENESIS, 2016, 800 : 28 - 34
  • [4] GENOTOXIC PROFILE OF CHEMICALS IN RELATION TO THEIR CARCINOGENIC POTENCY
    VOGEL, EW
    MUTATION RESEARCH, 1989, 216 (05): : 267 - 268
  • [5] GENOTOXIC POTENCY OF MONOFUNCTIONAL ALKYLATING-AGENTS IN ESCHERICHIA-COLI - COMPARISON WITH CARCINOGENIC POTENCY IN RODENTS
    QUINTO, I
    TENENBAUM, L
    RADMAN, M
    MUTATION RESEARCH, 1990, 228 (02): : 177 - 185
  • [6] INTERSPECIES COMPARISON OF CARCINOGENIC POTENCY
    CROUCH, E
    WILSON, R
    JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, 1979, 5 (06): : 1095 - 1118
  • [7] Identification of 'genotoxic' and 'non-genotoxic' alerts for cancer in mice: the carcinogenic potency database
    Cunningham, AR
    Rosenkranz, HS
    Zhang, YP
    Klopman, G
    MUTATION RESEARCH-FUNDAMENTAL AND MOLECULAR MECHANISMS OF MUTAGENESIS, 1998, 398 (1-2) : 1 - 17
  • [8] SOS Chromotest results in a broader context: Empirical relationships between genotoxic potency, mutagenic potency, and carcinogenic potency
    White, PA
    Rasmussen, JB
    ENVIRONMENTAL AND MOLECULAR MUTAGENESIS, 1996, 27 (04) : 270 - 305
  • [9] EXPERIMENTAL-DESIGN CONSTRAINTS ON CARCINOGENIC POTENCY ESTIMATES
    RIETH, JP
    STARR, TB
    JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, 1989, 27 (03): : 287 - 296
  • [10] Estimating the carcinogenic potency of chemicals from the in vivo micronucleus test
    Soeteman-Hernandez, Lya G.
    Johnson, George E.
    Slob, Wout
    MUTAGENESIS, 2016, 31 (03) : 347 - 358