Guide for Combining Primary Tumors for Statistical Analysis in Rodent Carcinogenicity Studies.

The Tumor Combination Guide was created at the request of the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by a Working Group of biopharmaceutical experts from international societies of toxicologic pathology, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and members of the Standard for Exchange of Nonclinical Data (SEND) initiative, to assist pharmacology/toxicology reviewers and biostatisticians in statistical analysis of nonclinical tumor data. The guide will also be useful to study and peer review pathologists in interpreting the tumor data. This guide provides a higher-level hierarchy of tumor types or categories correlating the tumor names from the International Harmonization of Nomenclature and Diagnostic Criteria (INHAND) publications with those available in the NEOPLASM controlled terminology (CT) code list in SEND. The version of CT used in a study should be referenced in the nonclinical study data reviewer's guide (SDRG) (section 3.1) of electronic submissions to the FDA. The tumor combination guide instructions and examples are in a tabular format to make informed decisions for combining tumor data for statistical analysis. The strategy for combining tumor types for statistical analysis is based on scientific criteria gleaned from the current scientific literature; as SEND and INHAND terminology and information evolve, this guide will be updated.

Employing an adverse outcome pathway framework for weight-of-evidence assessment with application to the ICH S1B guidance addendum.

Across industry, there is a paradigm shift occurring for carcinogenicity testing, with the focus moving from long term animal studies to alternative approaches. Based on the explorative work done in recent years, the International Council for Harmonization (ICH) recently published a draft addendum to the S1B guidance, which allows for a weight-of-evidence (WoE) assessment to be conducted based on data gathered throughout the pharmaceutical development process and literature to mitigate some testing in rodents if the body of evidence clearly shows undertaking an animal lifetime study would not add value to the risk assessment. While several alternative approaches already exist, and other new approach methodologies (NAMs) are being explored, all of which can contribute to this WoE, it is important that all the evidence can be combined in a meaningful and consistent way to reach a conclusion. Adverse outcome pathways have been advocated as a framework for organising evidence in an integrated approach to testing and assessment, which gives context to data and can aid reaching a conclusion as to the adverse outcome (AO). This approach can be combined with a reasoning methodology to give a prediction for an AO and applied to the factors which need to be considered for the ICH S1B WoE to predict for carcinogenicity. Using this approach to the WoE assessment, consistent, scientifically robust, and transparent calls can be made as to whether conducting an animal carcinogenicity study would add value to a human risk assessment and mitigate the need to run animal studies unnecessarily.

Opportunities and challenges related to saturation of toxicokinetic processes: Implications for risk assessment.

Top dose selection for repeated dose animal studies has generally focused on identification of apical endpoints, use of the limit dose, or determination of a maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The intent is to optimize the ability of toxicity tests performed in a small number of animals to detect effects for hazard identification. An alternative approach, the kinetically derived maximum dose (KMD), has been proposed as a mechanism to integrate toxicokinetic (TK) data into the dose selection process. The approach refers to the dose above which the systemic exposures depart from being proportional to external doses. This non-linear external-internal dose relationship arises from saturation or limitation of TK process(es), such as absorption or metabolism. The importance of TK information is widely acknowledged when assessing human health risks arising from exposures to environmental chemicals, as TK determines the amount of chemical at potential sites of toxicological responses. However, there have been differing opinions and interpretations within the scientific and regulatory communities related to the validity and application of the KMD concept. A multi-stakeholder working group, led by the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI), was formed to provide an opportunity for impacted stakeholders to address commonly raised scientific and technical issues related to this topic and, more specifically, a weight of evidence approach is recommended to inform design and dose selection for repeated dose animal studies. Commonly raised challenges related to the use of TK data for dose selection are discussed, recommendations are provided, and illustrative case examples are provided to address these challenges or refute misconceptions.

EURL ECVAM Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Database of Substances Eliciting Negative Results in the Ames Test: Construction of the Database.

The bacterial reverse mutation test (Ames test) is the most commonly used genotoxicity test; it is a primary component of the chemical safety assessment data required by regulatory agencies worldwide. Within the current accepted in vitro genotoxicity test battery, it is considered capable of revealing DNA reactivity, and identifying substances that can produce gene mutations via different mechanisms. The previously published consolidated EURL ECVAM Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Database, which includes substances that elicited a positive response in the Ames test, constitutes a collection of data that serves as a reference for a number of regulatory activities in the area of genotoxicity testing. Consequently, we considered it important to expand the database to include substances that fail to elicit a positive response in the Ames test, i.e., Ames negative substances. Here, we describe a curated collection of 211 Ames negative substances, with a summary of complementary data available for other genotoxicity endpoints in vitro and in vivo, plus available carcinogenicity data. A descriptive analysis of the data is presented. This includes a representation of the chemical space formed by the Ames-negative database with respect to other substances (e.g. REACH registered substances, approved drugs, pesticides, etc.) and a description of the organic functional groups found in the database. We also provide some suggestions on further analyses that could be made.

Chemical carcinogen safety testing: OECD expert group international consensus on the development of an integrated approach for the testing and assessment of chemical non-genotoxic carcinogens.

While regulatory requirements for carcinogenicity testing of chemicals vary according to product sector and regulatory jurisdiction, the standard approach starts with a battery of genotoxicity tests (which include mutagenicity assays). If any of the in vivo genotoxicity tests are positive, a lifetime rodent cancer bioassay may be requested, but under most chemical regulations (except plant protection, biocides, pharmaceuticals), this is rare. The decision to conduct further testing based on genotoxicity test outcomes creates a regulatory gap for the identification of non-genotoxic carcinogens (NGTxC). With the objective of addressing this gap, in 2016, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) established an expert group to develop an integrated approach to the testing and assessment (IATA) of NGTxC. Through that work, a definition of NGTxC in a regulatory context was agreed. Using the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) concept, various cancer models were developed, and overarching mechanisms and modes of action were identified. After further refining and structuring with respect to the common hallmarks of cancer and knowing that NGTxC act through a large variety of specific mechanisms, with cell proliferation commonly being a unifying element, it became evident that a panel of tests covering multiple biological traits will be needed to populate the IATA. Consequently, in addition to literature and database investigation, the OECD opened a call for relevant assays in 2018 to receive suggestions. Here, we report on the definition of NGTxC, on the development of the overarching NGTxC IATA, and on the development of ranking parameters to evaluate the assays. Ultimately the intent is to select the best scoring assays for integration in an NGTxC IATA to better identify carcinogens and reduce public health hazards.

Tetrahydrofuran-induced tumors in rodents are not relevant to humans: Quantitative weight of evidence analysis of mode of action information does not support classification of tetrahydrofuran as a possible human carcinogen.

Inhalation of tetrahydrofuran (THF) causes a marginal increase in the incidence of renal tumors in male rats and an increase in the incidence of liver tumors in female mice. Quantitative weight of evidence (QWoE) was applied to assess experimental support for biologically plausible modes of action (MoA) of tumor formation by THF and their human relevance. QWoE did not obtain support for a MoA to induce kidney tumors in male rats from THF exposure via α2u -globulin nephropathy, exacerbation of chronic progressive nephropathy (CPN), DNA-damage, or recurrent cytotoxicity but obtained moderate to good support for a constitutive androgen receptor (CAR)-mediated MoA for the induction of liver tumors in female mice. Tumors as a consequence of CAR-activation are not considered relevant to humans. Considering the previous conclusion that the increases in kidney tumors in male rats are unlikely related to THF-exposure and the support for a CAR-mediated MoA in mice obtained here, these tumors should not be used as a basis for THF cancer classification.

A Comparison of Spontaneous Tumors in Tg.rasH2 Mice in 26-week Carcinogenicity Studies Conducted at a Single Test Facility during 2004 to 2012 and 2013 to 2018.

This article presents the historical control data of spontaneous tumors in Tg.rasH2 published in 2013 (2004-2012) and compares and contrasts it to more recent data collected from 2013 to 2018, reporting differences in the average percentage incidences or incidence ranges as well as the incidence of new tumors. In 2013, we published a comprehensive review of spontaneous tumors in Tg.rasH2 mice used in 26-week carcinogenicity studies, which included data from control dose groups from 26 studies and a total of 710 mice per sex. The total database, now including the more recent data, has nearly doubled the number of animals, completing to date a total of 52 studies in males and 51 studies in females for a total of 1,615 male mice and 1,560 female mice, respectively. In this article, we compare the data collected from 2004 to 2012 against the data collected from 2013 to 2018 and the overall tumor incidence change.

Is current risk assessment of non-genotoxic carcinogens protective?

Non-genotoxic carcinogens (NGTXCs) do not cause direct DNA damage but induce cancer via other mechanisms. In risk assessment of chemicals and pharmaceuticals, carcinogenic risks are determined using carcinogenicity studies in rodents. With the aim to reduce animal testing, REACH legislation states that carcinogenicity studies are only allowed when specific concerns are present; risk assessment of compounds that are potentially carcinogenic by a non-genotoxic mode of action is usually based on subchronic toxicity studies. Health-based guidance values (HBGVs) of NGTXCs may therefore be based on data from carcinogenicity or subchronic toxicity studies depending on the legal framework that applies. HBGVs are usually derived from No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels (NOAELs). Here, we investigate whether current risk assessment of NGTXCs based on NOAELs is protective against cancer. To answer this question, we estimated Benchmark doses (BMDs) for carcinogenicity data of 44 known NGTXCs. These BMDs were compared to the NOAELs derived from the same carcinogenicity studies, as well as to the NOAELs derived from the associated subchronic studies. The results lead to two main conclusions. First, a NOAEL derived from a subchronic study is similar to a NOAEL based on cancer effects from a carcinogenicity study, supporting the current practice in REACH. Second, both the subchronic and cancer NOAELs are, on average, associated with a cancer risk of around 1% in rodents. This implies that for those chemicals that are potentially carcinogenic in humans, current risk assessment of NGTXCs may not be completely protective against cancer. Our results call for a broader discussion within the scientific community, followed by discussions among risk assessors, policy makers, and other stakeholders as to whether or not the potential cancer risk levels that appear to be associated with currently derived HBGVs of NGXTCs are acceptable.

Integration of mechanistic and pharmacokinetic information to derive oral reference dose and margin-of-exposure values for hexavalent chromium.

The current US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reference dose (RfD) for oral exposure to chromium, 0.003 mg kg-1  day-1 , is based on a no-observable-adverse-effect-level from a 1958 bioassay of rats exposed to ≤25 ppm hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)] in drinking water. EPA characterizes the confidence in this RfD as "low." A more recent cancer bioassay indicates that Cr(VI) in drinking water is carcinogenic to mice at ≥30 ppm. To assess whether the existing RfD is health protective, neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions from the 2 year cancer bioassay were modeled in a three-step process. First, a rodent physiological-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model was used to estimate internal dose metrics relevant to each lesion. Second, benchmark dose modeling was conducted on each lesion using the internal dose metrics. Third, a human PBPK model was used to estimate the daily mg kg-1 dose that would produce the same internal dose metric in both normal and susceptible humans. Mechanistic research into the mode of action for Cr(VI)-induced intestinal tumors in mice supports a threshold mechanism involving intestinal wounding and chronic regenerative hyperplasia. As such, an RfD was developed using incidence data for the precursor lesion diffuse epithelial hyperplasia. This RfD was compared to RfDs for other non-cancer endpoints; all RfD values ranged 0.003-0.02 mg kg-1  day-1 . The lowest of these values is identical to EPA's existing RfD value. Although the RfD value remains 0.003 mg kg-1  day-1 , the confidence is greatly improved due to the use of a 2-year bioassay, mechanistic data, PBPK models and benchmark dose modeling.

Differentiation-Defective Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Reveal Strengths and Limitations of the Teratoma Assay and In Vitro Pluripotency Assays.

The ability to form teratomas in vivo containing multiple somatic cell types is regarded as functional evidence of pluripotency for human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs). Since the Teratoma assay is animal dependent, laborious, and only qualitative, the PluriTest and the hPSC ScoreCard assay have been developed as in vitro alternatives. Here we compared normal hPSCs, induced hPSCs (hiPSCs) with reactivated reprogramming transgenes, and human embryonal carcinoma cells (hECs) in these assays. While normal hPSCs gave rise to typical teratomas, the xenografts of the hECs and the hiPSCs with reactivated reprogramming transgenes were largely undifferentiated and malignant. The hPSC ScoreCard assay confirmed the line-specific differentiation propensities in vitro. However, when undifferentiated cells were analyzed by the PluriTest, only hECs were identified as abnormal whereas all other cell lines were indistinguishable and resembled normal hPSCs. Our results indicate that pluripotency assays are best selected on the basis of intended downstream applications.

Tg.rasH2 Mice and not CByB6F1 Mice Should Be Used for 28-Day Dose Range Finding Studies Prior to 26-Week Tg.rasH2 Carcinogenicity Studies.

Our recent retrospective analysis of data, collected from 29 Tg.rasH2 mouse carcinogenicity studies, determined how successful the strategy of choosing the high dose for the 26-week studies was based on the estimated maximum tolerated dose (EMTD) derived from earlier 28-day dose range finding (DRF) studies conducted in CByB6F1 mice. Our analysis demonstrated that the high doses applied at EMTD in the 26-week Tg.rasH2 studies failed to detect carcinogenic effects. To investigate why the dose selection process failed in the 26-week carcinogenicity studies, the initial body weights, terminal body weights, body weight gains, food consumption, and mortality from the first 4 weeks of 26-week studies with Tg.rasH2 mice were compared with 28-day DRF studies conducted with CByB6F1 mice. Both the 26-week and the earlier respective 28-day studies were conducted with the exact same vehicle, test article, and similar dose levels. The analysis of our results further emphasizes that the EMTD and subsequent lower doses, determined on the basis of the 28-day studies in CByB6F1 mice, may not be an accurate strategy for selecting appropriate dose levels for the 26-week carcinogenicity studies in Tg.rasH2 mice. Based on the analysis presented in this article, we propose that the Tg.rasH2 mice and not the CByB6F1 mice should be used in future DRF studies. The Tg.rasH2 mice demonstrate more toxicity than the CByB6F1 mice, possibly because of their smaller size compared to CByB6F1 mice. Also, the Tg.rasH2 males appear to be more sensitive than the female Tg.rasH2 mice.

Aspartame, a bittersweet pill.

For the first time, the aspartame case shows how a corporation decided to ban an artificial ingredient in the wake of public opinion notwithstanding the regulatory assurance claims that it is safe. PepsiCo Inc. made an unprecedented decision most likely based on life-span carcinogenicity bioassay studies from the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the Ramazzini Institute (CMCRC/RI), which provide consistent evidence of aspartame's carcinogenicity in rodents. Although CMCRC/RI experiments have been criticized for not complying with Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines, the newly launched aspartame-free soft drink may not be an isolated case. In the light of vinyl chloride-, formaldehyde- or benzene-associated carcinogenicity discovered for the first time by CMCRC/RI in the same way, it seems the guidelines need to be re-evaluated to avoid the credibility of international regulatory agencies being compromised by consumer opinion.

Uncertainties of testing methods: What do we (want to) know about carcinogenicity?

An approach to systematically describe the uncertainties and complexity of the standard animal testing and assessment approach for carcinogenicity is explored by using a OECD Guidance Document that was originally developed for reporting defined in vitro approaches to testing and assessment. The format is suitable for this re-purposing and it appears that the potential multitude of approaches for integrating and interpreting data from standard animal testing may ultimately be conceptually similar to the challenge of integrating relevant in vitro and in silico data. This structured approach shall allow 1) fostering interest in developing improved defined in silico and in vitro approaches; 2) the definition of what type of effects should be predicted by the new approach; 3) selection of the most suitable reference data and assessments; 4) definition of the weight that the standard animal reference data should have compared to human reference data and mechanistic information in the context of assessing the fitness of the new in vitro and in silico approach; 5) definition of a benchmark for the minimum performance of the new approach, based on a conceptual recognition that correlation of alternative assessment results with reference animal results is limited by the uncertainties and complexity of the latter. A longer term perspective is indicated for evolving the definition of adversity for classification and regulatory purposes. This work will be further discussed and developed within the OECD expert group on non-genotoxic carcinogenicity IATA development.

Regulatory Forum.

Revision of the International Council for Harmonization (ICH) S1 guidance for rat carcinogenicity studies to be more selective of compounds requiring a 2-year rat carcinogenicity study has been proposed following extensive evaluation of rat carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity studies by industry and drug regulatory authorities. To inform the ICH S1 expert working group in their potential revision of ICH S1, a prospective evaluation study was initiated in 2013, in which sponsors would assess the pharmacologic and toxicologic findings present in the chronic toxicity studies and predict a positive or negative carcinogenicity outcome using a weight of evidence argument (a carcinogenicity assessment document [CAD]). The Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee was asked by the Society of Toxicology Pathology (STP) executive committee to track these changes with ICH S1 and inform the STP membership of status changes. This commentary is intended to provide a brief summary of recent changes to the CAD guidance and highlight the importance of STP membership participation in the process of CAD submissions.

Inhalation cancer risk assessment of cobalt metal.

Cobalt compounds (metal, salts, hard metals, oxides, and alloys) are used widely in various industrial, medical and military applications. Chronic inhalation exposure to cobalt metal and cobalt sulfate has caused lung cancer in rats and mice, as well as systemic tumors in rats. Cobalt compounds are listed as probable or possible human carcinogens by some agencies, and there is a need for quantitative cancer toxicity criteria. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has derived a provisional inhalation unit risk (IUR) of 0.009 per µg/m(3) based on a chronic inhalation study of soluble cobalt sulfate heptahydrate; however, a recent 2-year cancer bioassay affords the opportunity to derive IURs specifically for cobalt metal. The mechanistic data support that the carcinogenic mode of action (MOA) is likely to involve oxidative stress, and thus, non-linear/threshold mechanisms. However, the lack of a detailed MOA and use of high, toxic exposure concentrations in the bioassay (≥1.25 mg/m(3)) preclude derivation of a reference concentration (RfC) protective of cancer. Several analyses resulted in an IUR of 0.003 per µg/m(3) for cobalt metal, which is ∼3-fold less potent than the provisional IUR. Future research should focus on establishing the exposure-response for key precursor events to improve cobalt metal risk assessment.

An integrative test strategy for cancer hazard identification.

Assessment of genotoxic and carcinogenic potential is considered one of the basic requirements when evaluating possible human health risks associated with exposure to chemicals. Test strategies currently in place focus primarily on identifying genotoxic potential due to the strong association between the accumulation of genetic damage and cancer. Using genotoxicity assays to predict carcinogenic potential has the significant drawback that risks from non-genotoxic carcinogens remain largely undetected unless carcinogenicity studies are performed. Furthermore, test systems already developed to reduce animal use are not easily accepted and implemented by either industries or regulators. This manuscript reviews the test methods for cancer hazard identification that have been adopted by the regulatory authorities, and discusses the most promising alternative methods that have been developed to date. Based on these findings, a generally applicable tiered test strategy is proposed that can be considered capable of detecting both genotoxic as well as non-genotoxic carcinogens and will improve understanding of the underlying mode of action. Finally, strengths and weaknesses of this new integrative test strategy for cancer hazard identification are presented.

Principles and procedures for implementation of ICH M7 recommended (Q)SAR analyses.

The ICH M7 guideline describes a consistent approach to identify, categorize, and control DNA reactive, mutagenic, impurities in pharmaceutical products to limit the potential carcinogenic risk related to such impurities. This paper outlines a series of principles and procedures to consider when generating (Q)SAR assessments aligned with the ICH M7 guideline to be included in a regulatory submission. In the absence of adequate experimental data, the results from two complementary (Q)SAR methodologies may be combined to support an initial hazard classification. This may be followed by an assessment of additional information that serves as the basis for an expert review to support or refute the predictions. This paper elucidates scenarios where additional expert knowledge may be beneficial, what such an expert review may contain, and how the results and accompanying considerations may be documented. Furthermore, the use of these principles and procedures to yield a consistent and robust (Q)SAR-based argument to support impurity qualification for regulatory purposes is described in this manuscript.

Regulatory Forum Opinion Piece*: Retrospective Evaluation of Doses in the 26-week Tg.rasH2 Mice Carcinogenicity Studies: Recommendation to Eliminate High Doses at Maximum Tolerated Dose in Future Studies. A Response to the Counterpoints.

We recently conducted a retrospective analysis of data collected from 29 Tg.rasH2 carcinogenicity studies conducted at our facility to determine how successful was the strategy of choosing the high dose of the 26-week studies based on an estimated maximum tolerated dose (MTD). As a result of our publication, 2 counterviews were expressed. Both counterviews illustrate very valid points in their interpretation of our data. In this article, we would like to highlight clarifications based on several points and issues they have raised in their papers, namely, the dose-level selection, determining if MTD was exceeded in 26-week studies, and a discussion on the number of dose groups to be used in the studies.

Key Characteristics of Carcinogens as a Basis for Organizing Data on Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis.

BACKGROUND: A recent review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) updated the assessments of the > 100 agents classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans (IARC Monographs Volume 100, parts A-F). This exercise was complicated by the absence of a broadly accepted, systematic method for evaluating mechanistic data to support conclusions regarding human hazard from exposure to carcinogens. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: IARC therefore convened two workshops in which an international Working Group of experts identified 10 key characteristics, one or more of which are commonly exhibited by established human carcinogens. DISCUSSION: These characteristics provide the basis for an objective approach to identifying and organizing results from pertinent mechanistic studies. The 10 characteristics are the abilities of an agent to 1) act as an electrophile either directly or after metabolic activation; 2) be genotoxic; 3) alter DNA repair or cause genomic instability; 4) induce epigenetic alterations; 5) induce oxidative stress; 6) induce chronic inflammation; 7) be immunosuppressive; 8) modulate receptor-mediated effects; 9) cause immortalization; and 10) alter cell proliferation, cell death, or nutrient supply. CONCLUSION: We describe the use of the 10 key characteristics to conduct a systematic literature search focused on relevant end points and construct a graphical representation of the identified mechanistic information. Next, we use benzene and polychlorinated biphenyls as examples to illustrate how this approach may work in practice. The approach described is similar in many respects to those currently being implemented by the U.S. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System Program and the U.S. National Toxicology Program. CITATION: Smith MT, Guyton KZ, Gibbons CF, Fritz JM, Portier CJ, Rusyn I, DeMarini DM, Caldwell JC, Kavlock RJ, Lambert P, Hecht SS, Bucher JR, Stewart BW, Baan R, Cogliano VJ, Straif K. 2016. Key characteristics of carcinogens as a basis for organizing data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Environ Health Perspect 124:713-721; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1509912.