Research Recommendations for Selected IARC-Classified Agents: Impact and Lessons Learned.

BACKGROUND: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs program assembles expert working groups who publish a critical review and evaluation of data on agents of interest. These comprehensive reviews provide a unique opportunity to identify research needs to address classification uncertainties. A multidisciplinary expert review and workshop held in 2009 identified research gaps and needs for 20 priority occupational chemicals, metals, dusts, and physical agents, with the goal of stimulating advances in epidemiological studies of cancer and carcinogen mechanisms. Overarching issues were also described. OBJECTIVES: In this commentary we review the current status of the evidence for the 20 priority agents identified in 2009. We examine whether identified Research Recommendations for each agent were addressed and their potential impact on resolving classification uncertainties. METHODS: We reviewed the IARC classifications of each of the 20 priority agents and identified major new epidemiological and human mechanistic studies published since the last evaluation. Information sources were either the published Monograph for agents that have been reevaluated or, for agents not yet reevaluated, Advisory Group reports and literature searches. Findings are described in view of recent methodological developments in Monographs evidence evaluation processes. DISCUSSION: The majority of the 20 priority agents were reevaluated by IARC since 2009. The overall carcinogen classifications of 9 agents advanced, and new cancer sites with either "sufficient" or "limited" evidence of carcinogenicity were also identified for 9 agents. Examination of published findings revealed whether evidence gaps and Research Recommendations have been addressed and highlighted remaining uncertainties. During the past decade, new research addressed a range of the 2009 recommendations and supported updated classifications for priority agents. This supports future efforts to systematically apply findings of Monograph reviews to identify research gaps and priorities relevant to evaluation criteria established in the updated IARC Monograph Preamble. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12547.

Analyses of Transcriptomics Cell Signalling for Pre-Screening Applications in the Integrated Approach for Testing and Assessment of Non-Genotoxic Carcinogens.

With recent rapid advancement of methodological tools, mechanistic understanding of biological processes leading to carcinogenesis is expanding. New approach methodologies such as transcriptomics can inform on non-genotoxic mechanisms of chemical carcinogens and can be developed for regulatory applications. The Organisation for the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) expert group developing an Integrated Approach to the Testing and Assessment (IATA) of Non-Genotoxic Carcinogens (NGTxC) is reviewing the possible assays to be integrated therein. In this context, we review the application of transcriptomics approaches suitable for pre-screening gene expression changes associated with phenotypic alterations that underlie the carcinogenic processes for subsequent prioritisation of downstream test methods appropriate to specific key events of non-genotoxic carcinogenesis. Using case studies, we evaluate the potential of gene expression analyses especially in relation to breast cancer, to identify the most relevant approaches that could be utilised as (pre-) screening tools, for example Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA). We also consider how to address the challenges to integrate gene panels and transcriptomic assays into the IATA, highlighting the pivotal omics markers identified for assay measurement in the IATA key events of inflammation, immune response, mitogenic signalling and cell injury.

Integration of data across toxicity endpoints for improved safety assessment of chemicals: the example of carcinogenicity assessment.

In view of the need to enhance the assessment of consumer products called for in the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, we developed a methodology for evaluating hazard by combining information across different systemic toxicity endpoints and integrating the information with new approach methodologies. This integrates mechanistic information with a view to avoiding redundant in vivo studies, minimising reliance on apical endpoint tests and ultimately devising efficient testing strategies. Here, we present the application of our methodology to carcinogenicity assessment, mapping the available information from toxicity test methods across endpoints to the key characteristics of carcinogens. Test methods are deconstructed to allow the information they provide to be organised in a systematic way, enabling the description of the toxicity mechanisms leading to the adverse outcome. This integrated approach provides a flexible and resource-efficient means of fully exploiting test methods for which test guidelines are available to fulfil regulatory requirements for systemic toxicity assessment as well as identifying where new methods can be integrated.

In Silico Approaches In Carcinogenicity Hazard Assessment: Current Status and Future Needs.

Historically, identifying carcinogens has relied primarily on tumor studies in rodents, which require enormous resources in both money and time. In silico 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 in silico 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 in silico toxicological protocols, a consortium of toxicologists, computational scientists, and regulatory scientists across several industries and governmental agencies evaluated the extent to which in silico models exist for each of the recently defined 10 key characteristics (KCs) of carcinogens. This position paper summarizes the current status of in silico tools for the assessment of each KC and identifies the data gaps that need to be addressed before a comprehensive in silico carcinogenicity protocol can be developed for regulatory use.

Towards a mechanism-based approach for the prediction of nongenotoxic carcinogenic potential of agrochemicals.

Chemical substances are subjected to assessment of genotoxic and carcinogenic effects before being marketed to protect man and the environment from health risks. For agrochemicals, the long-term rodent carcinogenicity study is currently required from a regulatory perspective. Although it is the current mainstay for the detection of nongenotoxic carcinogens, carcinogenicity studies are shown to have prominent weaknesses and are subject to ethical and scientific debate. A transition toward a mechanism-based weight-of-evidence approach is considered a requirement to enhance the prediction of carcinogenic potential for environmental (agro)chemicals. The resulting approach should make optimal use of innovative (computational) tools and be less animal demanding. To identify the various mode of actions (MOAs) underlying the nongenotoxic carcinogenic potential of agrochemicals, we conducted an extensive analysis of 411 unique agrochemicals that have been evaluated for carcinogenicity by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). About one-third of these substances could be categorized as nongenotoxic carcinogens with an average of approximately two tumor types per substance, observed in a variety of organs. For two-third of the tumor cases, an underlying MOA (network) could be identified. This analysis demonstrates that a limited set of MOA (networks) is underlying nongenotoxic carcinogenicity of agrochemicals, illustrating that the transition toward a MOA-driven approach appears manageable. Ultimately the approach should cover relevant MOAs and its associated key events; this will also facilitate the evaluation of the human relevance. This manuscript describes the results of the analysis while identifying knowledge gaps and necessities to achieve a mechanism-based weight-of-evidence approach.

A comprehensive view on mechanistic approaches for cancer risk assessment of non-genotoxic agrochemicals.

Currently the only methods for non-genotoxic carcinogenic hazard assessment accepted by most regulatory authorities are lifetime carcinogenicity studies. However, these involve the use of large numbers of animals and the relevance of their predictive power and results has been scientifically challenged. With increased availability of innovative test methods and enhanced understanding of carcinogenic processes, it is believed that tumour formation can now be better predicted using mechanistic information. A workshop organised by the European Partnership on Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing brought together experts to discuss an alternative, mechanism-based approach for cancer risk assessment of agrochemicals. Data from a toolbox of test methods for detecting modes of action (MOAs) underlying non-genotoxic carcinogenicity are combined with information from subchronic toxicity studies in a weight-of-evidence approach to identify carcinogenic potential of a test substance. The workshop included interactive sessions to discuss the approach using case studies. These showed that fine-tuning is needed, to build confidence in the proposed approach, to ensure scientific correctness, and to address different regulatory needs. This novel approach was considered realistic, and its regulatory acceptance and implementation can be facilitated in the coming years through continued dialogue between all stakeholders and building confidence in alternative approaches.

Making better use of toxicity studies for human health by extrapolating across endpoints.

To develop and evaluate scientifically robust and innovative approaches for the safety assessment of chemicals across multiple regulatory sectors, the EU Reference Laboratory for alternatives to animal testing (EURL ECVAM) has started a project to explore how to better use the available information, including that from existing animal studies. The aim is to minimize reliance on in vivo testing to avoid redundancy and to facilitate the integration of novel non-animal methods in the regulatory setting with the ultimate goal of designing sustainable testing strategies. In this thought-starter paper, we present a number of examples to illustrate and trigger further discussions within the scientific and regulatory communities on ways to extrapolate useful information for predicting toxicity from one toxicity endpoint to another or across endpoints based on mechanistic information.

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.

Utility of a next generation framework for assessment of genomic damage: A case study using the industrial chemical benzene.

We recently published a next generation framework for assessing the risk of genomic damage via exposure to chemical substances. The framework entails a systematic approach with the aim to quantify risk levels for substances that induce genomic damage contributing to human adverse health outcomes. Here, we evaluated the utility of the framework for assessing the risk for industrial chemicals, using the case of benzene. Benzene is a well-studied substance that is generally considered a genotoxic carcinogen and is known to cause leukemia. The case study limits its focus on occupational and general population health as it relates to benzene exposure. Using the framework as guidance, available data on benzene considered relevant for assessment of genetic damage were collected. Based on these data, we were able to conduct quantitative analyses for relevant data sets to estimate acceptable exposure levels and to characterize the risk of genetic damage. Key observations include the need for robust exposure assessments, the importance of information on toxicokinetic properties, and the benefits of cheminformatics. The framework points to the need for further improvement on understanding of the mechanism(s) of action involved, which would also provide support for the use of targeted tests rather than a prescribed set of assays. Overall, this case study demonstrates the utility of the next generation framework to quantitatively model human risk on the basis of genetic damage, thereby enabling a new, innovative risk assessment concept. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 61:94-113, 2020. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Environmental Mutagen Society.

Carcinogenicity assessment: Addressing the challenges of cancer and chemicals in the environment.

Cancer is a key public health concern, being the second leading cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality after cardiovascular diseases. At the global level, cancer prevalence, incidence and mortality rates are increasing. These trends are not fully explained by a growing and ageing population: with marked regional and socioeconomic disparities, lifestyle factors, the resources dedicated to preventive medicine, and the occupational and environmental control of hazardous chemicals all playing a role. While it is difficult to establish the contribution of chemical exposure to the societal burden of cancer, a number of measures can be taken to better assess the carcinogenic properties of chemicals and manage their risks. This paper discusses how these measures can be informed not only by the traditional data streams of regulatory toxicology, but also by using new toxicological assessment methods, along with indicators of public health status based on biomonitoring. These diverse evidence streams have the potential to form the basis of an integrated and more effective approach to cancer prevention.

Moving forward in carcinogenicity assessment: Report of an EURL ECVAM/ESTIV workshop.

There is an increased need to develop novel alternative approaches to the two-year rodent bioassay for the carcinogenicity assessment of substances where the rodent bioassay is still a basic requirement, as well as for those substances where animal use is banned or limited or where information gaps are identified within legislation. The current progress in this area was addressed in a EURL ECVAM- ESTIV workshop held in October 2016, in Juan les Pins. A number of initiatives were presented and discussed, including data-driven, technology-driven and pathway-driven approaches. Despite a seemingly diverse range of strategic developments, commonalities are emerging. For example, providing insight into carcinogenicity mechanisms is becoming an increasingly appreciated aspect of hazard assessment and is suggested to be the best strategy to drive new developments. Thus, now more than ever, there is a need to combine and focus efforts towards the integration of available information between sectors. Such cross-sectorial harmonisation will aid in building confidence in new approach methods leading to increased implementation and thus a decreased necessity for the two-year rodent bioassay.

Updated recommended lists of genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals for assessment of the performance of new or improved genotoxicity tests.

In 2008 we published recommendations on chemicals that would be appropriate to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of new/modified mammalian cell genotoxicity tests, in particular to avoid misleading positive results. In light of new data it is appropriate to update these lists of chemicals. An expert panel was convened and has revised the recommended chemicals to fit the following different sets of characteristics: • Group 1: chemicals that should be detected as positive in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests. Chemicals in this group are all in vivo genotoxins at one or more endpoints, either due to DNA-reactive or non DNA-reactive mechanisms. Many are known carcinogens with a mutagenic mode of action, but a sub-class of probable aneugens has been introduced. • Group 2: chemicals that should give negative results in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests. Chemicals in this group are usually negative in vivo and non-DNA-reactive. They are either non-carcinogenic or rodent carcinogens with a non-mutagenic mode of action. • Group 3: chemicals that should give negative results in in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity tests, but have been reported to induce gene mutations in mouse lymphoma cells, chromosomal aberrations or micronuclei, often at high concentrations or at high levels of cytotoxicity. Chemicals in this group are generally negative in vivo and negative in the Ames test. They are either non-carcinogenic or rodent carcinogens with an accepted non-mutagenic mode of action. This group contains comments as to any conditions that can be identified under which misleading positive results are likely to occur. This paper, therefore, updates these three recommended lists of chemicals and describes how these should be used for any test evaluation program.